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?
Advertisement
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.
I do prefer radical honesty. Perhaps I don’t always have to speak out of kindness, but if someone asks me to speak I won’t lie. Unless, of course, it is my wife asking how she looks in a particular dress, then I reserve the right to lie.
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.