Notes On the Discourse

Contemplating the flotsam as it floats by

Sometimes, you run into issues that derive from male behavioral patterns. And sometimes, you’re just asking the wrong question. Remember, if there is a communications issue, the first place to look is with the party initiating communications.

It seems I cannot get a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the most innocuous question. He is a delta with some gamma tendencies and I am a very straightforward person.

Example: Blanket came out of the dryer, but sometimes they are not fully dry and I want to hang it up for a bit if it isn’t, which we often do.

Me: Is that blanket dry?

D: *Feels blanket* Yes, it is dry.

Me: All the way dry?

D: 90%

Me: So, it’s not fully dry.

D: …..No. (said reluctantly, as if it’s a personal failing. )

This is a fairly frequent occurrence. It’s almost like he is trying to outsmart me/find my angle and I just want a straight answer.

If you want a straight answer, don’t ask a stupid question. Or, in this case, if you want a straight answer, don’t ask a highly specific contextual question without providing the necessary details.

Neither the husband nor the wife are wrong. They’re just miscommunicating on the basis of differing degrees of granularity. The wife sees “dry” as a binary concept, the husband is clearly viewing it as a gradiant. The correct way to resolve this sort of thing is to ensure that the definition of the salient concept is contained in the question.

“Is that blanket bone-dry?”

Now, if the husband starts getting pedantic or can’t provide a direct answer to that question, then yes, one might have to start delving into behavioral patterns, psychological issues, and character flaws. But I don’t see any intrinsic problem here beyond garden-variety expectations of mind-reading.

Another commenter helped explain the source of Gamma dishonesty. Although we are generally not concerned with the Why here, in this case it is potentially useful to consider the hypothesis because it might point toward a useful technique in dealing with Gammas.

As a child, it’s hard to admit fault around people whose modus operandi is to use it against you. Unfortunately the habit of lying to avoid pain can stick with us well into adulthood. It’s easy to equate telling the truth with pain when even the most trivial mistakes renders you drenched in palpable scorn by your parents. In that situation, to lie is to survive.

If the commenter is correct, then in theory, it should be possible to reduce the habitual dishonesty of the Gamma by making it clear that not only will he not be punished, he will be rewarded for being truthful. Whether this sort of Pavlovian behavioral therapy is even capable of overcoming the antithetical influence during his formative years is the question that only experiment could possibly resolve.

But the Gamma’s equation of honesty with pain and punishment is an intriguing hypothesis and one that is worthy of contemplation, observation, and study.

And finally, a note for Boomers. It is time to accept that the younger generations almost universally despise and dislike you in the collective. It is time to understand that they have very good and entirely justifiable reasons for doing so. Do not expect your age and your experience to be valued by them, but rather, assume they will be discounted and disrespected due to the behavior of your age-peers.

The readily confirmable reality is that while the Boomers faced the easiest economic environment in human history, each successive generation now faces a more difficult challenge than the generation before. Generation X disliked the Boomers due to their narcissistic attitudes. The Millennials despised the Boomers for their lack of empathy. The Zoomers hate the Boomers for eating the seed corn and destroying their heritage. And all of these collective judgments, however unfair in the individual case, are absolutely justified.

I’m not saying Boomers shouldn’t share their wisdom and experience if and when it is requested. I’m simply saying that the correct response to a dismissive “Ok Boomer” is not to continue Booming and further demonstrate the generation’s complete lack of empathy, but to maintain a respectful silence indicating that one is contemplating his wicked generation’s collective sins against its successors.

And finally, a female reader asks if it is possible to progress beyond a constant state of fear that one might not always be right:

Vox, is there a level where one moves past the “being right/taking the beating” framework and into not even perceiving being wrong as a beating because every time you are wrong you are moving closer to the truth?

Absolutely. I never, ever, worry about being perceived as being wrong. First, because most of the people who perceive that I am wrong are demonstrably incorrect. This is hardly a surprise; I’m much smarter than the vast majority of them. But second, and far more importantly, because I know the degree to which I believe that I was wrong five years ago, ten years ago, and twenty-five years ago. So don’t worry about being wrong. It will absolutely happen from time to time. Just worry about seeking to get ever closer to the truth, as best you are able to understand it.