Hacker News Reader

Comment by SavantIdiot | Hacker News Reader

You are confusing assertiveness with aggression. Being assertive is a reaction to a stimulus (asserting a boundary), not the stimulus itself (pushing the boundary). The latter case, which is what you describe, is aggressive. There are two other interaction types: passive, and passive-aggressive. Only one of the four is healthy (generally).

View on HN

I've always maintained that

Assertive = Aggressive + On my Team

You are assertive if the community around you thinks you are justified in asking for your way, and aggressive if they feel you are unjustified. We perceive our allies as assertive and our opponents as aggressive.

The GP is correct that "assertiveness" training gives someone tools which are equally useful in defending against a bully as they are in bullying. It's really just rudimentary influence training in the vein of Carnegie or Cialdini, and people can be influenced for ill just as they can be influenced for good.

You can invent whatever definition you like, but no one will understand you.

There have been a number of replies to my comment complaining that assertive is the same aggressive, but they are wrong by definition. Aggression is based on hate and anger, and assertiveness is effectively being self-confident. That's literally the definition, and you don't like it. I have no idea why without mind-reading.

If someone says they are acting assertive but are being aggressive, then guess what: that person is being aggressive. You don't redefine assertive.

I'm amazed at how many people want to redefine assertiveness. I have no idea why. It's like saying "up" is "down". It is literally nonsensical. Why does it threaten them so much? It is causing them to act in a totally non assertive, passive-aggressive why by whining about definitions.

Perhaps some people have such low self-esteem they can't handle it when they encounter someone with confidence and point their fingers shouting "aggression!!!!"

Hmmmm, if you say so

Read the article, there are paragraphs that explain why it's called a virtue.

Oxford defines virtue as "behavior showing high moral standards." I think assertiveness only conditionally falls into this category.

First, as noted above, assertion to one can be aggression to another, thus questionable high moral standards. However, if both parties agree it's not aggressive, then is it indeed morally good to be assertive? To me, morally good is a higher bar than simply being non-aggressive.

I think if virtue is defined on moral grounds, assertiveness is not consistently enough placed into that category.

> , assertion to one can be aggression to another,

Not if you understand what the two words mean.

"assertiveness" - the quality of expressing opinions or desires in a strong and confident way, so that people take notice

"aggression" - feelings of anger and hate that may result in threatening or violent behaviour.

Edit: removed 92% of snark.

The problem is those aren't mutually exclusive and it all comes down to personal perception. An asshole thinks he is just being strong and confident, NBD! Even a kind assertive person can become aggressive after amygdala hijack during an opinionated debate. Like myself once stupidly arguing Pavarotti is a superior singer to McCartney, lol I cringe now at how impassioned and rude I became.

Others may perceive this "assertive" behavior as angry or threatening. So, even with those definitions, Jobs for instance would be considered both assertive and aggressive.

So, labeling assertiveness as good or bad morally: IMO, it's conditional.

I feel this may be an issue of semantics. To my understanding, in the NVC literature, once you start being aggressive, you are no longer being assertive - you are being aggressive. IE, they are not overlapping subsets.

This is conceptually similar to the idea of addiction. Physical dependency is one component, but the definition I'm most familiar with is that it becomes an addition (instead of use/misuse) once it has a significant negative impact on your life.

YMMV, but wanted to see if I could jump in to help clear up. It's not a comment on your definition, btw - just the context of the discussion.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. For example, one can express their hatred of a ethnic minority group in a strong and confident way such that people take notice, which by your definitions could qualify as assertive and aggressive.

Why are you so scared of this topic? You are trying so, so very hard to make assertive = aggressive. Maybe you should reflect a little bit on why you are trying to force a narrative so hard? Perhaps this is a touchy spot for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com