The fine line between honest communication and having hidden agendas

[things make sense]

What do you think about the line that separates honest communication and having hidden agendas? For me currently, it's a very thin line and I hope to change that about myself.

I was talking to someone on okc, and after several msgs, I asked about their childhood because I was curious. Instead of asking followup questions (the reason is their childhood was good overall), I shared my experiences growing up in an honest and open manner with the hidden agenda of trying to test their level of empathy towards me. I dont know if I'm using ex post facto reasoning to justify to myself that I really was speaking honestly in real-time or not. I don't know if having these hidden agendas imbedded within these "true and honest" statements are considered vile or nefarious. They seem sinister to me.

 

What do you guys think?

[MMX2010]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect open, honest answers about childhood trauma with someone you've never met, via OKCupid. 

 

So I also don't think your experiences in that discussion can provide relevant and reliable data with regard to your capacity for honest communication. 

[Kevin Beal]

It's a lot easier to calculate and manipulate over text. It's generally advised that you meet in person as quickly as possible to avoid projection. Part of the reason for that is the profile and messages are designed to present a particular side of yourself, obviously, since you are trying to get a date. But people are much more interesting than their profiles and profiles can set you up to expect something which is not the reality.

[things make sense]

I appreciate the responses but can we just ignore the okc part? What if I was talking to this in person and I tell them about my past to "test" their level of empathy and reasoning skills? Does that seem sinister to anyone? To me, it does and it's hard for me to strike the balance between honest communication and having hidden agendas. A more honest approach would be flat out state my agenda so it is no longer hidden. Any other thoughts?

[MMX2010]

What if I was talking to this in person and I tell them about my past to "test" their level of empathy and reasoning skills? Does that seem sinister to anyone?

 

Not necessarily.  I think the majority of people on FDR test their own empathy levels by repeating Stefan's phrases and hoping their targets will respond in narrow, scripted ways.  And when the targets go off-script, (or worse, they go off-script AND get hostile), the Empathy Testers cannot handle this.  This inability will cause hurtful judgments to be hurled and ironic butthurt to be displayed, but is this SINISTER? 

 

No, just annoying, misguided, and easily ignored. 

[things make sense]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. Can you think of an example? I would appreciate it.

[MMX2010]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. Can you think of an example? I would appreciate it.

 

You say that you opened up about your childhood to test the other person's empathy and reasoning skills, but you only learned about this through watching Stef.  And Stef has very specific requirements in his callers that you'll unwittingly project onto your dates. 

 

So when you say, "My father constantly abused my mother, and me.", you expect her to say, "I'm really sorry that happened to you." in an empathetic, sad tone.  But if she says, "He did the best he could with the knowledge that he had," you're supposed to declare her non-empathetic and unreasonable, and then dump her. 

 

I observe that your lines are scripted and that her replies must conform to narrow limitations, which means you're really probing to see how quickly she agrees with you - not how reasonable and empathetic she is.  A better approach would be to expect all sorts of resistance, which she must break through in a reasonable amount of time, because that's what reasonableness and empathy are expected to do in this culture.  (They're supposed to not already know the answers, but be equipped to fairly quickly reach them.) 

 

But you can't enact this better approach because you don't have Stefan's patience, reasoning skills, nor firmness in the philosophy.  So the best you can do is practice and forgive yourself for screwing up.  Calling yourself "sinister" prevents you from practicing, and then self-forgiving. 

[Kevin Beal]

I appreciate the responses but can we just ignore the okc part? What if I was talking to this in person and I tell them about my past to "test" their level of empathy and reasoning skills? Does that seem sinister to anyone? To me, it does and it's hard for me to strike the balance between honest communication and having hidden agendas. A more honest approach would be flat out state my agenda so it is no longer hidden. Any other thoughts?

It seems like you are equating "unstated" with "sinister".

 

I, personally, have no compunction at all with testing people, but it could just be that I'm not understanding what you are asking. If they ask why I ask certain questions, I'll tell them.

 

The kind of tests I do are along the lines of seeing how receptive people are to an idea so that I can feel more comfortable talking about why I care about it, or testing how people respond to lighter criticism so that I can feel more comfortable bringing heavier criticisms, or testing to see how sympathetic someone is in the hopes that I can share with them something which has sadly shaped my life. That sort of thing.

 

I wonder if this concern you have is you holding yourself to higher standards than other people, maybe in a way that parallels the childhood you had. Did you have to deny yourself your own thoughts and feelings a lot while growing up? Because bringing it up with other people, especially when you feel the stakes are higher, can trigger old patterns: you putting yourself down, that you aren't doing it good enough. Maybe I'm totally off base, but if that rings true, then please cut it out! Be kind to yourself.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Edit:

 

Deleted off-topic post. 

[shirgall]

The communication where this becomes most critical is negotiation. To build win-win transactions, all sides must know, consider, and incorporate the interests of the participants to produce agreements with the greatest benefit for all parties. However, there is a very strong impetus to conceal that BATNA (the Best Alternative To No Agreement) which is the course of action a party has identified as the "walk away from the table" option.

 

In the "Getting to Yes" model--called "Principled Negotiation"--does not require disclosure, but greatly emphasizes a conversations that identify underlying motivations and interests, jointly develop solutions that addresses those motivations and interests, and lead to agreements that both sides are confident that will faithfully execute and benefit from.

 

People who feel a great need to conceal their interests have been exposed to a lot of "win-lose" negotiations. They have likely been dominated by parents, family, friends, strangers, etc. They have been "taken advantage of" by others who "play the game" better than they do. These are people who likely do know understand or develop their own strengths and instead built a position and will defend that fixed position to the death.

 

As for the "testing" aspect of an encounter... I understand the extremely strong desire to gauge the quality of someone's character so you can decide to move on, but in the early stages of a relationship that testing should be about what attracts them to you and you to them. Maybe then on to how they treat people, how they process facts, how they process feelings, the health of their existing relationships, etc.. If you are walking through a laundry list of stock questions, you haven't really applied "active listening".