ccs
41st lv DM
"To be honest..." (as opposed to, what
As opposed to truely holding some of opinions, stances & practices you read of in threads?
"To be honest..." (as opposed to, what
Because, Mistwell, what you describe above is not how it is commonly used these days in public discussion.
In order to properly play the role of Devil's Advocate constructively, the speaker must first be trusted to not be a bad actor. The Devil's Advocate must be scrupulously honest, and be interested in exploration of the topic, not personally invested in holding the position, and willing to cede various points (and the case) if their argument fails.
I expect most people's experience with a Devil's Advocate is more likely with a form of sealion in Advocate's clothing.
I am also a midwesterner (transplanted to the Pacific Northwest about 15 years ago), and it's probably a cultural thing like you suggest. But the more I think about it, the more I think my personal problems with these phrases lie with how I parse them. I'm not neurotypical, you see, and my brain works in a very literal and analytical fashion. It's why I'm an engineer and scientist, and not a public speaker. I'm very much a "words have meanings" type of person.Wow, I use those all the time. To me, they all have specific meanings.
"To be honest" = "I'm going to lay it all out, so apologies if this sounds a little blunt."
"I'm sorry, but" = "I'm going to say something a little bit personal about your tastes/opinions, which I normally wouldn't do, so I'm sorry about that, but I feel like this is a point that needs to be made."
"If I can play the devil's advocate" = "I don't necessarily believe the argument I'm about to make, but let's give it a spin just for the sake of seeing where it leads."
The implication of apology in the first two may be linked to me being a midwesterner?
The Devil’s Sealion it is, then!Because, Mistwell, what you describe above is not how it is commonly used these days in public discussion.
In order to properly play the role of Devil's Advocate constructively, the speaker must first be trusted to not be a bad actor. The Devil's Advocate must be scrupulously honest, and be interested in exploration of the topic, not personally invested in holding the position, and willing to cede various points (and the case) if their argument fails.
I expect most people's experience with a Devil's Advocate is more likely with a form of sealion in Advocate's clothing.
But I also think sealion has become a pet term around here lately which is overused and being applied to some genuine devil's advocacy or just plain real dissent because it's easier than addressing the dissent.
To speak bluntly for a moment: if dissension - in its many forms - isn't wanted in a discussion then it's no longer a discussion. It's an echo chamber.Dissension does not entitle you (generic you, not Mistwell in particular) to engagement with any particular person or discussion. If you badger, insist that it is "just an honest question" or that you are "just playing Devil's Advocate" as a way to justify your unwanted presence in a conversation, the situation is not honest.
And if the consent doesn't come, then what? All you're left with is another denial of dissension, even if in the case of the DA that dissension is purely theoretical.Your disagreement may be genuine, but your mode of engagement is not.
A truly honest Devil's Advocate will ask, "May I play Devil's advocate here," and wait for consent before continuing.
Then the discussion doesn't happen. Or rather, it can't happen, because discussion requires mutual participation. One must be willing to speak, and another must be willing to listen. If all I have is a speaker with no willing listeners, I have noise. If all I have are listeners and no willing speakers, I have silence. A dialogue must be built, and building something takes cooperation.And if the consent doesn't come, then what?
Many very serious problems both present-day and historic are rooted in people being unwilling to listen and-or simply refusing to hear or acknowledge opinions (or facts!) with which they disagree.Then the discussion doesn't happen. Or rather, it can't happen, because discussion requires mutual participation. One must be willing to speak, and another must be willing to listen. If all I have is a speaker with no willing listeners, I have noise. If all I have are listeners and no willing speakers, I have silence. A dialogue must be built, and building something takes cooperation.
Which is fine, though it shouldn't stop you from saying what you're going to say and thus giving them the opportunity to not listen.It took me (an embarrassing number of) years to understand that nobody owes me their attention, and some people will never, ever listen to what I have to say.
Agreed. My point is that "a certain point" should never come before trying at all.I have to be okay with that. Maybe someone else will be able to get my message to them, or maybe they will grow to be more receptive over time, but that's on them. Past a certain point, all I can do is drop it.
Things I've tried to remove from my talking/writing habits
"Actually,"
"You do realize"
"Everyone knows"
Every sentence I've ever started with these phrases could have had them removed and kept the exact meaning of the sentence without sounding like an a-hole