Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrwy_ywrht | Hacker News Reader

I find it a bit strange that the author leads with the example of wanting to "blind cancel", and then suggests that maturity and communication is the real answer to that scenario.

People sometimes seem to imply that if we could just select the most appropriate types of language, and only express our true, heartfelt feelings, then our language will never cause pain.

But that's just not true. Sometimes your friend may also secretly want to cancel, but other times your friend will be hurt by knowing you want to cancel the plans you made together that they have, for whatever reason, been really looking forward to. And sometimes there doesn't exist a way to communicate your true feelings without potentially causing pain. Being mature and communicating truthfully cannot solve this problem. Often times the solution is to suck it up and stick to the plans -- but that has nothing to do with communication.

View on HN

>And sometimes there doesn't exist a way to communicate your true feelings without potentially causing pain. Being mature and communicating truthfully cannot solve this problem.

That's because it's not a problem.

The point of the article is that it's babyish to be so fragile that a friend cancelling plans causes you great pain, or so guilt-ridden that you can't bring yourself to cancel. In both cases the solution is not to avoid the feelings, but to become stronger.

>The point of the article is that it's babyish to be so fragile that a friend cancelling plans causes you great pain, or so guilt-ridden that you can't bring yourself to cancel.

My reading of the scenario is not that the person is too "guilt-ridden" to bring themselves to cancel - it's that they only mildly want to cancel, for frivolous reasons. They want to find out if the other person also mildly wants to cancel. The point is, in many relationships it is simply not possible to find this information out, because asking "how much do you want to keep our plans" in and of itself reveals that you want to cancel.

You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will alter the outcome.

I don't think that's quite right. It's not that they mildly want to cancel some plan, but rather that they don't really want to do it and are only going along with it because they think the other person wants to do it. Thus the hypothetical app would solve the situation where both people are doing something only because each thinks the other person wants to do it, but in fact neither wants to do it and neither wants to disappoint the other one by telling them they don't want to do it.

>You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will alter the outcome.

I get it. Again, the point is, so what? Take the measurement and alter the outcome. Or decide you're the one being the baby and keep the plans.

I agree when it comes to plans.

But in general, aren't there some cases where we want to moderate our communication based on how it will be received? Honesty is the right default, but not universally correct.

The classic example is that it might be preferable to tell someone that a dress they just bought looks good on them.

I think as children we tend to be too honest, and then overshoot as teens or young adults by worrying too much about social acceptance. And we have to find a middle ground.

>You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will alter the outcome.

There are 101 ways to addresses this. "How are you feeling about the plans" is simple enough if two people are being honest with each other.

I agree. I've had lots of these kinds of interactions— it's definitely possible to "put out feelers" on whether someone is really excited about a thing or just going along with it.

Yes there is a slight risk that that action will put a damper on the other person's interest, but it's not a huge deal to recover from— either by amping yourself up to assure them that you really are excited for the thing they're excited about, or taking the initiative the next time to make a thing happen that you know you can be excited about and follow through on.

I've definitely also triggered the damper reaction accidentally in the past when just trying to make an innocent inquiry about a start time or something, so even if you rarely do it for real, it's good to understand these dynamics and how to navigate them.

I think the whole thing stems from fear of others seeing you as you truly are.

If you are on the fence and not excited, that.. is reality and you can own it. You dont have to hide it, but it may have some consequences.

I think people would be happier if they spent less time hiding behind deceptions, and more time managing the consequences.

I think for me a lot of it is just the knowledge that often I end up really enjoying and feeling good about activities that I may not have been all that excited for at the outset— fitness stuff like swimming or going for a bike ride are obvious examples.

So it's not just a matter of me being deceptive, it's also the internal conflict between my lizard brain ("stay home and do nothing, so great") and my thoughtful brain ("you enjoyed this the last time, give it a chance, ya dummy"). The not-being-a-baby for me is having the executive function to go do a thing that I know I'm probably going to end up being glad I did, while not wanting to be a wet blanket for everyone else by letting them all know upfront that I'm not there yet.

I completely agree and think that is normal for a lot of people. I was just saying that is perfectly reasonable and healthy to explain this to someone else if you choose to reach out to them.

EG:

Person 1: Do you still want to do X?

Person 2: Yes, why?

Person 1: I just wanted to check in. I usually get (anxious, lazy, scared) before this kinda thing. I know I'm going to end up being glad I did.

This is a normal conversation and builds healthy relationships, but for some reason people are often hesitant to say how they feel and want to put on a facade. It is a lot easier to be candid than internalizing it and lying.

The other branch of this post’s children, from thrwy_ywrht is a perfect example of the sort of neurotic overanalysis that the article’s talking about. It’s extra cute that the poster is using a throwaway account.

Some of the decisions you make in life will run counter to other people’s expectations. The strength you get, and demonstrate to them as well, from communicating your intentions is in acknowledging you can’t “protect their feelings” and aren’t trying, and that you have the respect for them as well to manage and regulate their own feelings.

Good people will understand and forgive minor infractions. This isn’t license to freely commit any infraction. It’s just an acknowledgment of everyone’s fallibility.

> It’s just an acknowledgment of everyone’s fallibility.

You are not describing failure there. You are describing the "I made plans I feel like cancelling and don't care about other person".

Them reacting negatively is healthy self presentation instinct. Because if this is your strategy, you will cancel regularly and they are better off finding more reliable friends.

Feels like we're maybe saying the same thing?

I'm saying:

* People are fallible. They will sometimes commit minor infractions, either accidentally or with sincere remorse.

* Good people will forgive minor infractions.

* This is not a license to commit infractions with abandon or remorselessness, or of any major size, and expect forgiveness.

I agreed with your first sentence but not the rest. It's not a problem because pain is not inherently a problem.

Yes it's going to hurt to find out someone doesn't want to go through with plans. It's going to hurt even more to find out they really don't enjoy your company as much as you thought they did, or as much as you do theirs. But how is keeping your head buried in the sand going to be more beneficial in the long run?

>It's going to hurt even more to find out they really don't enjoy your company as much as you thought they did

This is the crux of the issue. There are many people who often feel like cancelling on plans, but it is absolutely not because they don't enjoy their friends' company. It might be because they have a mood disorder, or chronic fatigue, or social anxiety, etc etc. The whole reason someone might want an app that lets you cancel on plans, but only if the other person also wants to cancel, is because it's almost impossible to express this feeling to someone without that person drawing the conclusion, to some degree, that you enjoy their company less than they thought.

If you genuinely don't enjoy spending time with someone, that's a much easier problem to solve.

>is because it's almost impossible to express this feeling to someone without that person drawing the conclusion, to some degree, that you enjoy their company less than they thought.

Not only is it not "almost impossible" -- it's easy. Especially if you have a reputation for being honest.

"Listen, I am feeling like shit right now, and won't have fun if we go out. It's got nothing to do with you. Can we reschedule?"

By the author's metric, I think this statement would be "Active" if it were an honest statement, i.e. you're actually sick, but it would be "Avoidant" if it is deceptive

The problem is that this is what people say even when it does have something to do with you.

I mean, in the same sense that it's "a problem" when a con man gives the same pitch as a trustworthy salesman.

The solution isn't for the trustworthy to stop honestly describing their products. It's to gain a reputation for honesty.

Also, you'll the know the truth from the context of your overall relationship, or, if that is thin, when they do actually reschedule.

Yes but empirically the chance of someone rescheduling is low.

So? It's not your responsibility for someone else's insecurity - and in fact, if you stop to assume that they think this way, you'll find that they 9/10 times do not.

I'm not sure how responsibility plays in. Being bluntly honest lowers your chance of making friends, in my experience.

You can't control what other people think about you. Better to just tell the truth instead of trying to shape their opinion of you.

>The whole reason someone might want an app that lets you cancel on plans

I know this is HN where we are probably all biased towards creating software solutions, but do you really think software is the right lever to this problem?

The root cause is that people don't feel psychologically safe enough to voice their wish to cancel. I don't know that an app really helps that, it just provides an escape hatch. I'd much rather a person say to me, "Look, it's nothing about you, but I struggle with social anxiety and it's getting the best of me right now and need to cancel." Not only would that give me greater compassion for what they're going through, it would also help tailor future outings to alleviate that. Just having a "cancel matching" app won't do anything to foster that kind of growth.

To me this feels like one of those distinctions between "can" and "should" in tech.

> I know this is HN where we are probably all biased towards creating software solutions, but do you really think software is the right lever to this problem?

I'm not sure how you got that impression from that sentence, especially because the word "want" was emphasized.

I'm sorry, I'm not following. I'm assuming someone would want something because they feel like it's a solution to their problem. In this case, I'm saying I think software is the wrong "solution" because it just treats the symptom (get me out of this obligation) and not the underlying cause (provide psychological trust). Did you interpret the sentence differently?

They want the supposed benefit. That doesn't mean they think the mechanism is correct, or even that any mechanism could actually do it in a non-abstract way.

That's kinda the point of the last sentence in the my original comment. People may desire an app that optimizes their ability to connect with drug dealers. It's certainly possible from a technical standpoint. It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Likewise an app that allows you easily bail on social engagements guilt-free through minimized interactions is probably not a good idea because those interactions are exactly how you build the trust that's the root cause of the guilt in the first place.

Maybe we're miscommunicating. I'm not implying the software solution exists, just that that desire for such an app may be misplaced.

> Likewise an app that allows you easily bail on social engagements guilt-free through minimized interactions is probably not a good idea because those interactions are exactly how you build the trust that's the root cause of the guilt in the first place.

The interactions of possibly cancelling things? I don't know about that. And expecially the interactions of cancelling things both people want to cancel? That doesn't seem notably trust-buildy to me.

> Maybe we're miscommunicating. I'm not implying the software solution exists, just that that desire for such an app may be misplaced.

And I'm saying the desire isn't specifically for an app, and shouldn't have given you that impression that the poster thought software was "the right lever" in the first place.

>The interactions of possibly cancelling things?

Yes. Precisely because it causes one to actively communicate why. That’s what builds trust. As other commenters have noted, just agreeing to cancel still leaves one wondering why. Is it because they have social anxiety and I invited them to a black tie dinner? Or is it because they think I’m pompous because I enjoy formal gatherings? Did I agree because I think they are socially inept or because I think the party would be lame? You’ll never know and that uncertainty breeds distrust. Trust and certainty are intertwined when it comes to human social interactions.

>the desire isn’t specifically for an app

I mean, the OP literally said there was a want for an app. Now maybe they really meant there is a “want for reduced friction in canceling social interactions” but I’m saying psychological trust is a better way of reducing that friction, not off-loading it to faceless technology. To my original point, there are some things tech is great for. I’m not sure managing social interactions that have evolved over eons and are one of a few species-defining traits is one of them.

Imagine a different scenario like communicating what projects you want to lead at work. One organization just matches your requests with your bosses through an intermediary. When you don’t get the projects you want, you’re left wondering…is it because the boss thinks you’re not competent? Is it because someone else has a unique skill set to lead instead? Is it nepotism? Bribery? The other org institutes an open dialogue where your boss explains the exact rationale behind each assignment. Which do you think is managing their relationships more effectively?

if you cancel without telling me why then i am even more likely to draw the (wrong) conclusion. and if you, and if i wanted to cancel too, then i am still going to wonder why you wanted to cancel. the only way to avoid misinterpretation is to state the reason outright.

Giving a reason could be part of the process.

I'm depressive and have social anxiety and I still found that forcing myself to attend these social situations instead of bailing and staying home for "self-care" almost always improved my mood and made me feel happy that I went at the end. If you have a more serious medical condition that makes you physically unable to go anywhere that's another matter, but I'm guessing lots of people (just as I did) use less serious mood disorders as excuses to, as the OP put it, be a baby.

> It might be because they have a mood disorder, or chronic fatigue, or social anxiety, etc etc.

This is a babies excuse. If you're an adult, you should be actively dealing with this. However, it has become fashionable to wear a psychological condition on your sleeve. People who use this as an excuse have likely never been diagnosed and probably aren't even trying to deal with it. Either way, those are their battles, and if it means they are flaky, we just won't be friends. I've done the hard work to get myself out of a social anxiety disorder and can easily tell who actually has similar issues and those who are just lazy flakes.

I always found the "Boundaries" (Henry Cloud) distinction here very useful.

It's OK to "hurt" someone - that is, if you are communicating the truth, your boundaries, your needs, you may hurt someone.

It's not OK to "harm" someone - that is, you do intentional/lasting damage to them through your actions. (My wording is not nearly as on point as the original author, but I hope you get the gist.)

Here's a snippet:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/654449-there-is-a-big-diffe...

We're saying the same thing.

I think it's appropriate to get upset when someone cancels. I think it is more adult to only commit to something you intend to follow through on.

Life happens. Sometimes some people cancel. But if you're one of those people always canceling plans, be prepared to find your invites become less frequent, and people not planning things around what you say.

I've come to the point where if I don't know whether I want to do something I say "I'm not sure yet I'll let you know" and then always actually fess up and let them know one way or another, or say "yes" or "no" and follow through no matter how I feel. And I expect the same of people, people who get to know me who are used to peer pressure find themselves initially worried about saying no, but then I find, pleasantly refreshed when I just say "OK." People that flake a lot though get annoyed with me, because I hold them to what they say and give them a hard time if they don't follow through.

This does not sound like being strong or mature.

This just sounds like insulting people for having feelings and hoping that since you called it "babyish", they will be insecure enough to not argue with you.

I think you're missing part of the author's point.

Yes, as adults, we are bound to "cause some pain" as you put it in some mundane situations, such as cancelling a plan that someone else has been looking forward to.

But her point is that what matters is expressing and discussing with your friends in that scenario:

- Tell them you don't feel like going out after all, maybe you're drained by work and need some time to cool off

- They could answer that it's fine, they don't mind going out alone

- Or maybe they'll propose to just stay in at your place for a quick dinner, just to catch up for a bit and let you rest

- Or they could let you know that they really need to go out with you, as they are going through a rough patch

- At that point you have a better idea of what different options you both have, and you can make an informed decision either way, deciding between your needs and your friend's needs.

- etc...

Obviously if that friend is important to you and you've already cancelled 3 times then maybe suck it up a bit. It's all a matter of context.

The point is that you should start by not avoiding that interaction with your friend for silly reasons, and relying on tech/tricks is not going to help for long.

> People sometimes seem to imply that if we could just select the most appropriate types of language, and only express our true, heartfelt feelings, then our language will never cause pain.

Accepting the inevitability and utility of pain is part of being an adult. Childhood should teach us how to handle pain and mitigate the pain we cause, but not to avoid it unnecessarily.

Sometimes your friend will want to cancel and be upset when you feel the same.

>> I find it a bit strange that the author leads with the example of wanting to "blind cancel", and then suggests that maturity and communication is the real answer to that scenario.

I don't think that's the _only_ solution the author is suggesting. She also goes on to mention "...self-knowledge: Will you be in the mood next week?". In other words, don't make plans if you're not confident you won't break them. Similar to the idea of "hell yes or no" as a response to social requests. If you don't have a strong sense for stuff you like/don't like doing and how you'll feel about social situations in the future that's going to be tough.

no matter how much i look forward to an activity with a friend, if they don't want to go, then i want to know, i'd rather cancel or reschedule than have someone be secretly miserable. the relationship itself is more important than my feelings about it. for a close friend, avoidance is damaging to the relationship, talking about it, strengthens the relationship.

sucking it up quietly is the wrong answer.

sometimes there may be a situation where canceling causes problems for the other person, but you only find out by talking about it and if you end up going anyways after you tell them, they will appreciate it even more that your friendship is worth so much that you are willing to be uncomfortable for their sake.

It really depends on the situation IMO. "Sucking it up quietly" doesn't necessarily mean that the entire event will be unpleasant. Sometimes it is more like the activation energy necessary to stick to an exercise routine - if I had a draining work week I'll have low motivation to go out, but if I do "suck it up" I'm usually happy at the end of the night that I did.

The social pressure to "suck it up" can actually be an awesome motivator for healthy behaviors, e.g. committing to a rec sports team. So there is definitely variation here. You need to know not just how important the event is to your friend, but also yourself.

right, it depends, if the thing that agreed to has some other benefits.

an alternative example would be after that draining work week cancelling an activity because i know i'll be tired the next morning and i really need more rest to be fit the next day.

You're missing the point. The desire to bail out of a social commitment is the problem, not the way you're doing it. Blind cancelling or coming right out and saying it are both baby behaviour.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com