The Two Brains Model Of Honesty

[joreth]

http://researchtobedone.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/the-two-brains-model-of-honesty/

This article reminds me a lot of tacit's post on honesty (http://tacit.livejournal.com/373355.html) and strikes a particular chord in me because of current life circumstances. In the example of a boyfriend telling his girlfriend about spending time with a female friend, where the girlfriend accuses him of cheating, I particularly liked the line: "In this scenario, the girlfriend is telling the boyfriend’s primate brain that she thinks he’s been cheating. What she’s telling his lizard brain is this: “When you are honest with me, you can expect hostility in return.” That is a very bad association to create."

What this means is, and what tacit broached in his article, is that a lot of people prefer the Little White Lie method because they don't feel safe in being honest. There is fallout for telling people something difficult. tacit champions the Path Of Greater Courage (http://tacit.livejournal.com/90763.html), which is, essentially, the idea that truth itself is not necessarily a virtue to be held at all costs, particularly at the expense of compassion. Which path takes greater courage - telling someone the truth that they need to hear even if it's hard, or lying to save yourself the trouble of dealing with their reaction? Which path takes the greater courage - telling someone the truth that will get an innocent person killed, or lying about their whereabouts to protect their life?

Where things get fuzzy is in relationship "truths". It's not a matter of life or death, and the fear of dealing with someone else's bad reaction is all too easily masked under a false sense of "compassion" for not "hurting them". So, although I still advocate for truth being generally the better policy, and protecting someone's feelings is not a good enough reason (by itself) to lie, it makes perfect sense to me that the idea of telling someone a truth that might hurt another can be a very scary idea to contemplate if the other person does not make it safe for you to tell them such truths.

It can make a person wait for "the right time", or make them clumsy with their words, or timid, or preemptively defensive, or any number of other things that might actually change the reception of that truth to an even stronger negative reaction, which will then only reinforce the idea that “When you are honest with me, you can expect hostility in return.”  It then becomes a vicious cycle, being afraid to tell someone the truth which leads to the other person interpreting the fear as signs of deception and reacting with hostility which leads to being more afraid to tell the truth, etc.

My position is to muscle through the fear of the negative reaction and tell the truth anyway (assuming the Path of Greater Courage, of course). But it's not easy, and I understand the *impulse* to avoid the negative reaction. I'm positive I've failed in being courageous myself here and there, so even if I disagree with taking the easy road, I do understand the motivation to.

Comments

[researchtobedone (from livejournal.com)]

Glad you liked it :-)

Don't know if you've seen this one before, but the stuff you're touching on here makes me think of another one I wrote a while back: http://researchtobedone.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/the-flipside-of-being-honest/

I feel inclined to say that there are points past which I would probably decide not to be honest, or at least not to be honest about a particular thing in the immediate moment. The easy example for me is in a moment where some other things that were difficult to deal with have just come out and been dealt with. I think of it a little bit like criticizing other people's writing: my instinct is to only criticize two or three large-scale things at a time when it comes to writing, so as not to completely overwhelm the person with all of the different things they have to focus on changing. Then, a little later, after some initial changes have been made, I might point out the others.

I guess there's a middle ground to this; there is the "there are other things I think we should talk about but I don't think we should do it right now" conversation, which is maybe an ideal way to go sometimes.

[joreth]

I don't have any problems with waiting for appropriate times to have honesty conversations. In fact, I'd suggest that not waiting for appropriate times borders on the Radical Honesty crowd's penchant for cruelty.

For instance, if I'm uncomfortable with my partner's behaviour towards another woman at a party, I don't see it as being in conflict with my preference for honesty to take him aside privately to discuss it, or even waiting until we got home to discuss it, rather than picking a fight with him at the party. That's the whole "compassion" part of the equation.

That's essentially the point tacit is trying to make with his dislike of the Radical Honesty philosophy, while still being completely committed to honesty as the best policy in relationships. It's not black-and-white, either/or.

As an ex of mine likes to say, he does the three-step process - is it honest? Is it necessary? Is it kind? He doesn't say it unless it's all 3. Now, me, I'll say it even if it's not kind, as long as its necessary, but the point is that there is some nuance in the subject. I start from the position of following the path of Greater Courage - which is the more courageous option, to tell the truth or a lie? From there I assume the truth is *most likely* the better option (unless presented with relevant details that say it's not), and then I move towards finding a compassionate way to say it if possible.

[margareta87.livejournal.com]

So what's really weird is that I was just having almost this exact conversation (the two-brains conversation) with tacit yesterday...