Are there things you'd rather not know?
I've debated this question with myself over and over throughout the course of my life. On the one hand, I am positive that many things I've learned have hurt me, and in a lot of those instances I can make a strong case that I would have been happier without the knowledge.
Despite that, however, I always come down on the side of wanting to know. I can't decide whether to chalk up the desire to curiosity or arrogance or both, but I'd rather have to face the pain of knowledge than live without it.
Consequently, I'm that annoying person who has trouble stopping himself from asking "What's wrong?" when he sees--or thinks he sees--something off in your expression. I always want to know about your past, your opinions, etc. I hope to learn what really happened, at least as much as that is knowable. I'd rather have honesty with pain than happy illusion. I'd prefer to see all the flaws in something--or someone--and still love it--or her or him--than not to be able to see clearly.
I suppose it would be nice to be able to claim this desire is a virtue, but I don't believe that is the case. I suspect it has to do with my need to punish myself often and my inability to ignore data.
I mentioned arrogance earlier because I also believe that sometimes the best path involves a little bit of deceit. I am not an advocate of radical honesty. Anyone who always wants to know but who is willing to lie in some circumstances is definitely being hypocritical and probably being arrogant. I have to plead guilty to both, though I try hard to be neither.
And that's more about me in one night than anyone wants to know.
Posts
8 comments:
I'm very firmly in the "want to know" camp, for the practical reason that information makes accurate, well-based decisions easier. This has two logical corollaries: the closer the person is to me (the more numerous and important decisions I have to make regarding that person), the more I want to know; I have to be able to accept the answer and put it in perspective.
However, there's still a difference between this and "radical honesty," including how something is said. I don't want to know every passing angry thought--actually, that may well mislead me instead of helping me understand the true, basic situation.
Also--if you mean actual deceit, lying or deliberately holding something back that you know the other person would want to know (especially if asked), then it does seem you have a double standard. Which doesn't sound good. How bad it is depends on how the people it affects feel, but I wouldn't put up with it.
The Internet has taught me that there are things I'd rather not know.
I agree with your reasons and for the most part with your exclusion of angry thoughts, though I think even those often hold so much useful knowledge that I'd probably rather not know them.
As for the use of deceit, I think holding back is often reasonable with children and under certain social conditions to avoid certain types of problems becoming public. That said, if asked, I would answer. So, if I have a double standard, it is a light and temporary one, one I would not mind having others apply to me.
Kyle, you may have a point, but then again, I have friends like you who make sure I don't miss these important cultural tidbits.
Kyle, you are the reason why I don't click on links without seeing where they go first.
More proof I have a wise daughter.
In "every passing angry thought" I include those the person knows to be irrational and/or not helpful. I guess in general, in terms of truth and disclosure, I tend to think of a bunch of thoughts that buzz through our heads all day, but then a core self that judges those. If an honest and self-understanding person hirself decides to reject the thought, I certainly don't need to know it.
But now I'm very confused about what you meant by "deceit"? If you do answer honestly when asked, how is that deceit at all--unless (1) there's a covert pressure in the relationship not to ask (a kind of double bind), or (2) expectations are that you'll volunteer the info, so needing to be asked is a kind of hiding (especially since, if volunteering is expected, a person has no reason to think to ask). What am I missing here?
This is probably a conversation best left to a bar at a con, but let me try to address it. The simplest answer is that context matters to me. I will lie, for example, to protect certain confidences. I will engage in deceit via indirection or withholding if I believe the information in question is none of the person's business or should not be germane to that person. For example, if--and this example has never happened to me--person X asked me about hiring person Y, and I knew X was homophobic and Y was gay, I would not reveal Y's sexual preference.
Okay, maybe that example is too easy, but more complex ones abound.
Now, back to work for me.
Post a Comment