Sometimes the path to getting what you want winds through another person's hands.
Knowledge, approval, connection are some of our deepest yearnings, and we can find ourselves dependent on someone else who holds the power to grant or withhold what we seek.
I think one of the best ways to get someone to understand something is to flat out tell them it is beyond their understanding.
It is as if you've belittled them so much that they have no other option but to prove you wrong by diving deeper into the subject, which is what you've wanted in the first place but achieved through an indirect angle.
The indirect way is an interesting blend of psychology and subtle manipulation. It'll probably never cease to amaze me how effective reverse psychology can be, especially with certain personalities who bristle at the suggestion of their own limitations.
More practical people like myself who prefer the direct way view the indirect approach as flirting with unnecessary complexity.
Yes, it is a means to an end, but the means could well be more time-consuming and emotionally taxing than a straightforward request or explanation.
That said, I don't think human communication would be this colorful without these psychological intricacies.
In claiming someone can't understand, I'm simultaneously acknowledging their capacity to prove me wrong. So, the statement itself contains the seed of its own undoing.
I've noticed this contradiction play out numerous times already. For example, when I tell a friend they wouldn't understand my passion for, say, reading, I'm secretly hoping they'll ask questions that allow me to elaborate. The dismissal becomes an invitation, though one I'd never openly admit to extending.
I think it's somewhat fundamental human nature that we resist being told what we cannot do almost as instinctively as we breathe. The minute someone draws a boundary around my intellectual capacity, something in me needs to transgress it.
It's just one of those psychological triggers that's almost impossible to ignore.
Is this ethical? Using psychological triggers to manipulate someone into engagement? At this point in time, I'm not sure and wrestle with this question more than I'd like to admit.
When I deploy the "you wouldn't get it" tactic, I'm treating the conversation and by extension, the person as a means to my end. I want them engaged and interested, and I've chosen subtle manipulation over straightforward invitation.
But at the back of my mind, I also wonder if all communication isn't, in some sense, strategic.
We choose our words carefully to produce desired effects, and craft narratives designed to lead others toward conclusions we've predetermined.
When examined too closely, the line between effective communication and manipulation is almost inexistent.
Still, there's something that feels more honest about simply saying, "I'd love to tell you about this if you're interested," rather than negging someone into curiosity.
My preference for directness isn't universal. I've watched friends navigate social situations with an elegant indirectness that achieves results I probably could never manage with my blunter approach.
Also, with some cultures, directness registers as rudeness and indirectness reads as dishonesty with others.
What I've come to recognize is that the choice between direct and indirect communication usually hinges more on power dynamics.
For example, when you feel secure in your standing(e.g professionally, socially, emotionally) directness comes easily. But when it's the feeling of being vulnerable or dependent on someone else's goodwill, you'll almost subconsciously find yourself reaching for indirect tools.
I suspect that our understanding of understanding itself remains incomplete. The path to "getting it" may be as individual as we are. Since what's obvious to you might be opaque to me. Not because of intelligence but because of lived experience.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
