Sign in to follow this  
person0

FALSE: When given the choice between being right and being kind, choose being kind.

Recommended Posts

I think it depends on the situation, but if someone has the opportunity to change, then choose the right.  Otherwise choose the kind.  Example.  Your friend has a spot of dirt on his nose.  The right and kind thing is to to tell him, so he can fix it.  Hermione may have been unkind to Ron when she pointed out his dirty nose, but she did the right thing.   Now, say he has two mismatched socks.  It would be right to tell him so, but if he can't change his socks, all you have done is made him self conscious about them and he can do nothing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

President Oaks gets a lot of online hate for having observed, some time ago, that not all truths are useful.

But, he was right; and I think that principle has some applicability in the present discussion as well.  

Example: Pamela Anderson was deciding if she wanted to reverse ... the ... work she had done.

It's a fact.  Not useful... at all...

Other times, the truth may be important, but the delivery is the tough question.

If I'm in a job interview, I need to tell the interviewer that I'm the best there is at this job.  And that he needs me more than anyone else for the position.  But if I were to simply come out and say that directly, they'd be very put off by it.  Instead, subtlety is very important.  So, we learn the art of communication is more than simply stating facts.  It involves persuasion and subtlety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Lord said it best

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

While talking about the priesthood... it clearly God's way of using any power or influence.  We would be wise to follow his lead on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mores said:

If I'm in a job interview, I need to tell the interviewer that I'm the best there is at this job.  And that he needs me more than anyone else for the position.  But if I were to simply come out and say that directly, they'd be very put off by it.  Instead, subtlety is very important.  So, we learn the art of communication is more than simply stating facts.  It involves persuasion and subtlety.

 

39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

and without guile—

This is one of the things I've struggled with over the years -- meaning how to be honest in job interviews. Not just "honest"...but fully without guile. There is a difference there to me. To be without guile means to me that there is no intention to deceive. It's more than just not telling any actual lies.

Many years back when looking for work I made the determination to be absolutely and fully without guile in my job interviews. I would no longer make any attempts to use any "persuasion and subtlety", beyond the absolute reality of what and who I was.

Since that time -- partly because of the reality of the market, and partly because of the industry I'm in, and partly because of bad luck -- I've had the need to look for work several more times. I have remained committed to this idea. Without guile. When I interview, I lay it out on the table.

Now I know that @Mores's point is about how we say things, which skill still applies. So I'm not meaning to counter his point. But it was (and is still) a challenge to approach a job interview this way. When they ask me things that I know the full truth will hurt my chances, I still tell the full truth. And when there is something that I'm good at and I know will add value, I tell them that. And I tell them these things even if they don't ask.

Here's the general result -- I get jobs when I need them. (The last time I was out of work I think it took me a full 3 days to get another job, and 2 of those days was preparing and sending out my resume. (In the spirit of full honesty and no guile...I may have those numbers off by a day or so. But it happened fast.))

Now I know there are tons of variables going into this. The job market. Luck. The Lord's blessings. My experience and skill sets. Etc. But I believe very firmly that my commitment to be "without guile" has played a major part in my ability to get jobs quickly and easily when, for whatever reason, I have found myself on the job market. Part of that goes back to the Lord's blessings. Being without guile is what the Lord has asked us to be -- and so He will bless us when we obey. But part of it is that A) I don't want to work for someone who doesn't appreciate that and B) those who've hired me have specifically mentioned that one of the reasons they went with me is because of the refreshing honestly and the sense of trust that created. And C) I've gotten jobs in the past where I wasn't actually qualified but didn't lay that out for them explicitly and thereby deceived myself into the position, and it did not turn out well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 10:03 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

This is one of the things I've struggled with over the years -- meaning how to be honest in job interviews. Not just "honest"...but fully without guile. There is a difference there to me. To be without guile means to me that there is no intention to deceive.

Don't "lay it out there".  There are the "facts" of what you say, vs the "message" they receive.

One can be factually perfect and still give a completely incorrect message which does not reflect reality.  It is a bit of a paradox.  But there is a very human tendency that comes into play.

We are programmed to hear what we expect to hear and see what we are expecting to see.  The art of communication in these cases (where you don't really know the person with whom you speak) is to find those words and phrases that will play to what they are expecting in such a way that they will get the right message.

The Savior's telling of the Good Samaritan is a good example.  If you look at it factually, it in no way answered the question that was asked of him.  But it did convey the right message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mores said:

Don't "lay it out there". 

Don't tell me what to do. :) 

12 minutes ago, Mores said:

There are the "facts" of what you say, vs the "message" they receive.

There is balance to be found, of course. But the reality is that the message I want them to receive is the truth. And part of that truth is that I am without guile (or at least striving very hard to be).

Like I said, if they receive a false message and think I'm awesome, but then when working with me realize that they don't think I'm awesome after-all, that's a bad situation to be in.

The message I want them to receive is who I am, what I'll be, how I communicate, my work ethic, my weaknesses, and all of it. If those things are in bad shape to get a job, the solution should be to fix those weaknesses in myself, not to deceive them into thinking I don't have the flaws I have.

I think it's also interesting -- I'll go to three interviews and be the same in all three. In one I'll get feedback that I'm awesome but don't have the experience I need, in the next I'll get offered the job, and in the third I'll get feedback that they got the sense I was trying to play them.

Part of that stems from the fact that everyone reads things through their own experiences. But another part of it is that not everyone appreciates guileless people. It's the same everywhere. Some people are going to like you and some people are going to despise you for the exact same characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 10:35 AM, person0 said:

image.png.ff04143b863e0f6b2ccb65402aeab7ce.png

 

As I sit here relaxing on vacation, my children chose to start a movie called 'Wonder', while eating their lunch.  During one scene a girl in the protagonist's classroom makes the statement, "When given the choice between being right and being kind, choose being kind."  At first glance, such a statement would make it seem like the child shared heartwarming wisdom beyond her years.  The statement evokes an emotional call to acceptance which, if followed by a general populous, would lead to complete chaos.  Why?  Because the interpretation of kindness is 100% subjective to the recipient, resulting in the inevitably unattainable nature of living by such a precept.  True Christlike kindness is akin to true love, and would involve being right in whichever way is necessary to benefit the recipient.  Hence, Christ often taught in such a way that 'he who hath ears to hear [would] hear'; this was a kindness to those who had not ears to hear.  True Christlike kindness will result in presumably millions of God's children being gifted Telestial Glory, and yet being barred from dwelling in His presence.  Society as a whole is increasingly losing it's ears to hear; being right is increasingly more important.  The premise of the argument to choose kindness over rightness is flawed.  We should always choose to be right, but strive to do so in a loving and Christlike way.

There is a notion that what is right is a matter of perspective.  I believe Pres Uchtdorf touched on this concept in a talk when he referenced blind individuals learning about elephants.  I believe many believe that what is correct should be forced on everybody.  That is someone of off or a little missled concerning doctrine - it is as bad as a sin.  And so they think it good to be unkind when reproof is seemingly in order.  Then there is the other side of this argument that it is good to be stupid and doing irrational things as long as you have it in mind to be kind to others.

One observation - no one will listen to you if they think you are their enemy (don't like you) and by the same token the same people will excuse all kind of things that you say and do if they think you are their devoted forever friend.  As much as we like to use Jesus as an example - he did not turn a lot of Pharisees to the right way of thinking - and as such the Pharisees were dedicated to have Jesus killed.   If we want people to like us and say nice things to us than we need to treat them that way (with unfettered kindness).   If we do not care if they like us, or what they think or will say about us - we can center exclusively on being right or at least what we think is right.  But if we are even just a tiney winey bit wrong and they, in any way do not like us - they will try to trigger anger in us.  So if we then return such anger - the fault will forever be on us for our anger.  In short - if we become angry and upset with someone because of a disagreement in a discussion - we are the only one to blame for our anger or being upset - especially if the other person is in the wrong.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this