back

by stagas·6y ago·view on hn ↗
The approach has a name, it's called "radical honesty". The idea is this: we are often surprised as to how things turn up, yet at the same time, we are not fully engaged with the world around us, we hold back. The inner world is not expressed fully out in the environment so the environment responds to the projection of you, instead of the real you. No wonder why things don't turn up as you'd expect, they favor the projection. What if you'd be completely honest and direct with everyone and always act as you feel, holding nothing back. Then the world would respond to that instead, everything would have direct causality to your actions. You wouldn't look back to think how you should have acted, since there is only one way to act, truthfully and honestly, and any outcome would be the result of that and then you'd have complete responsibility for your actions and the character you have built. It is probably a spectrum, the far other extreme can be considered psychopathy. When all of your actions are pre-examined thoroughly, you're never trully out in the world. In any case, it's a good experiment for everyone to try, you'd be surprised. Congrats to the OP for figuring it out.
2 comments
While I like the idea of representing the inner world as clear as possible I dont think this is possible in human communication.

Here is why I think this:

- saying things in a way is different than understanding them

- communication is happening on all channels: verbal, non-verbal including context, rhythm, tone, time, moods ... So only being honest verbal does not assure that the other will understand the same way the non-verbal or the context

- I understand that maybe mathematics is a honest way of communication. But takes a lot of practice (building concepts one from another and all from a starting point) from everybody to understand from a book the same things. And this is not usually possible between two people. Maybe can be done between long term partners

- I think focusing on the I without putting effort into making sure how the other understands be a trap of deluding ourselves that we are honest. We are honest when the others also understood what we said and only after that they can truly respond to who we are. At least this is my believe.

I am familiar with Blanton's Radical Honesty if that's your reference. What was your experience?