That's an interesting take on politeness/directness.
Am I understanding correctly that you see the primary purpose of your interactions with people to be getting things done in the short term, such that effort devoted to other goals feels wasted?
If so... I think you're right: if that's a widely held perspective, that would explain a lot of the disconnect around this question.
Am I understanding correctly that you see the primary purpose of your interactions with people to be getting things done in the short term, such that effort devoted to other goals feels wasted?
I personally switch between socialising mode and getting-stuff-done mode, such that in doing-stuff mode I often find it difficult to remember to respect status or use politeness (while in socialising mode it doesn't feel like a chore at all, it just feels like normal interaction). The kinds of responses I saw on the last big argument thread gave me the impression ...
During a discussion today about the bizarre "can't get crap done" phenomenon that afflicts large fractions of our community, the suggestion came up that most people can't do anything where there is a perceived choice that includes the null option / "do nothing" as an option. Of which Michael Vassar made the following observation:
And if you're not the leader, it is not good for your reproductive fitness to act like one. In modern times the penalties for standing up are much lower, but our instincts haven't updated.
Interesting to reconsider the events of "To lead, you must stand up" in this light. It makes more sense if you read it as "None of those people had instincts saying it was a good idea to declare themselves the leader of the monkey tribe, in order to solve this particular coordination problem where 'do nothing' felt like a viable option" instead of "nobody had the initiative".