Mike sent me a link to this article about “Radical Honesty,” a budding movement which urges its practitioners to tell the truth — bluntly, and in any circumstance. (Warning: there are naughty words in the article.)
I’d like to think that such radical honesty could be tempered by concern for others’ feelings — that we can still tell the truth, but in friendlier ways, with less of the blunt violence displayed in the article. But am I just being a wimp?
This type of honesty seems too much on the side of just articulating all the chatter that passes through a person’s head. I’m not sure that’s what being honest is but the discussion did make me re-evaluate where, when and why we use editorial control over our thought processes. We don’t have as much control over our thoughts as we do our words. I don’t think waving off this helpful ability is the answer.
Actually, the inventor of Radical Honesty said it should not be used in every circumstance. He lists the Anne Frank scenario (as well as a couple others) that a person can lie in.
I keep thinking that we have an inner monologue for a reason (like, perhaps, as a survival mechanism), which makes me think that, ultimately, telling everyone exactly what you are thinking just doesn’t work.