This blog post is about one very specific aspect of what I call “new age” philosophy around political correctness: it is about the school of thought that says that many opinions and views are intimately personal and should not be discussed in any depth in polite company. It’s hard to explain without examples so let me give a few examples of the types of “shoulds” in this school of thought:
- You shouldn’t give advice on what someone should do, instead you should ask them questions and let them come to their own conclusions. All the coaches and therapists who are caught up with this modern way of thinking conduct their client interactions this way now. No or very little advice, mostly questions.
- You shouldn’t discuss, in any depth, controversial topics. Yours and others views on topics such as capital punishment, being “pro-choice” or “pro-life”, why you want children or don’t, whether God exists or not, whether there is an after-life or not etc. are personal and formulated personally in a personal black-box. You can discuss why your favorite mustard is your favorite mustard, but not why you hold certain political views or religious beliefs or make certain life decisions – those things are deemed sacred private decisions that should not be exposed to any debate or challenge from someone else
This “new age” way of thinking has its heart in the right place but can be taken too far. For centuries, humans have subjected other humans to uncountable misery because of trying to impose their beliefs on others. This school of thought tries to curb imposing on others. It wants to give people freedom, and respect their autonomy in coming up with their own views. This is a noble intention. But it handicaps personal growth when it’s taken too far.
The meandering path of questions or the direct path of advice: there’s a place for both
My career coach at business school, Jim, was trained to never tell anyone what to do. His job was to be a “sounding board”, a “thought partner” and get people to introspect on why they were leaning a certain way. This style of coaching was helpful in some instances, but in other instances it was frustrating. In one instance, I was choosing between two internships for the summer, each with many pros and cons. Jim and I had had a few conversations in which I had been festering in my indecisiveness.
Finally, I asked him: “Which one would you pick if you were in my shoes?”
“I can’t tell you that. Only you can make the decision” he replied. “Now let’s go over which factors are most important to you again.”
“Well I know that, but I really need to hear which one you’d pick and why.”
“But I am not you. You are you. You are a unique individual. Plus we were told in coach school to not give direct advice like that”
“Jim, please just tell me which one you’d pick and why”
“Ok, fine. I’d definitely pick SunEdison. This is a no-brainer really. It’s so much more of a prestigious company, a recognizable brand-name on your resume, and Singapore is a great place to live, and the project finance team is so much more the core of what the solar industry is about than your business development offer”
“Perfect”
A few days later, I confidently picked the one he’d told me not to pick – Clean Power Finance in San Francisco (its how my journey to San Francisco began, more on this at the end). All the questions and back and forth and his appreciating the validity of both options had not helped me get clarity as much as him articulating and arguing his point of view, which somehow caused me to crystallize mine.
I’ve had this experience multiple times now: the most helpful discussion with a friend or a coach or a mentor is them articulating why they would make a certain decision, and just hearing them be their authentic selves in explaining it. The “question and sounding board” approach, as lovely and gentle as it is, just isn’t that effective sometimes.
I think the reason why it’s not that effective is that it is removing a layer of authenticity from the discussion and a layer of emotional intelligence. The person in the question role is forced to pretend like they don’t have an opinion, when they do, and they are forced to manufacture “neutral” questions to mask their preference. This takes away authenticity from the conversation and reduces the feeling of safety. Being asked neutral questions, you get put in a box of giving answers you think you should give, rather than what your real answers are, which may not be pretty or rational but are what will ultimately guide your decision.
Human decision-making is very complex (there’s not one reason why you pick a profession or a place to live, for example. There’s multiple reasons and sometimes reasons are connected to other reasons and are conditional on other reasons being true), so trying to get at your preferences through a series of questions is sometimes less efficient than getting at it through narrative. When we tell each other our narratives, we educate each other, more sometimes than a series of questions can. Sometimes people just need advice, and they can still exercise their free will and freedom in taking it or leaving it.
Trying to get at your preferences through a series of questions is sometimes less efficient than getting at it through narrative
-Brown Girl Confidence
Why are there so many times when even questions are off-limits?
There are an increasing number of topics that I feel like I can’t easily talk about in depth even with friends — it takes heroic courage to broach them, and the list of topics seems to grown longer each year with the growing popularity of political correctness and trying to be non-judgmental. The sad thing is these are often the most meaningful topics and the ones where I could learn the most from someone walking me through their thought process and their reasons. But these topics are considered too personal, to unassailable, and apparently too fragile to withstand even the light of being gently probed, let alone argued against.
It’s ok to ask what someone’s favorite Trader Joe’s dip is and indeed this was a favorite topic of conversation at a few parties I attended back in the pre-covid days where I’d just zone out because it’s a dip, goddammit (I remember leaving a circle when everyone was asked to say their favorite item from Trader Joe’s). But here are examples of conversations cut short because of the fragility assigned to so many topics:
- A friend invites me to her Church/Temple. I go along but I don’t ask her about her faith and where it comes from and why she believes in it, though I am so curious. But I don’t want to make her feel uncomfortable. I fear any questioning may come across as me suggesting I am feeling superior to her as an agnostic, and I don’t want to make myself feel uncomfortable by taking the risk of saying something that could be offensive or damaging
- A friend mentions she’s pro-life, and I am curious again, but instead of asking her, I make a mental note to not mention this topic again. I make a mental note to google “the other side’s” views, but I miss the opportunity to hear from someone I respect and could have a two-way conversation with
- A relative mentions they voted for Brexit. They say “You don’t remember what it was like in the good old days”. I want to ask about the good old days, not in an argumentative way, but just to understand what they are referring to, but I change the topic away from politics – seemed more polite as I was staying overnight in their house!
- We’re having a group discussion about the challenges of dating as brown women, and an acquaintance wonders out loud if her slowness in getting into bed with guys is holding her back, and instead of telling her my honest opinion (yes, of course it is and she should introspect on why she’s so slow), a bunch of us reassure her with the boilerplate woke language of female empowerment that we say to women in every situation: “Well, you have to do what’s comfortable for you”. This is a convenient, comfortable, low-risk answer – and a highly incomplete and unhelpful one
Concluding thoughts
I appreciate the need to not be intentionally offensive or hurtful or poke your nose too far in other people’s business, but I also think a lot of us have taken political correctness so far that we no longer share ourselves fully or question others fully, and in doing so, we shortchange our and others’ personal growth. We go around robotically trying to be so polite and charming, steering clear of disagreements and discussions, tip-toeing around the growing list of “sacred” topics that must not be discussed, and in doing so we become more siloed and cemented in our own unquestioned beliefs.
We’re like plants hiding out in the dark, so afraid of the light that is so critical to our growth.
I have some direct advice that I’m going to assign to myself too: Be bolder, go have uncomfortable conversations, politely ask more questions and graciously answer more questions. When the conversation becomes shallow, the soil has become shallow and that’s no good for growth.
And lastly I have a few questions for you: Have you experienced more topics becoming off-limits with friends? Which topics are off-limits and why? What do you do to keep the deeper conversations going? Leave your comments down below!
*In case you are wondering why I picked a much lower-paying internship in an unknown start-up versus the most prestigious big solar company in the world at the time, it’s because I was drawn to San Francisco and the Californian dream (based on one 4 day vacation earlier in 2013 in which I fell in love with the idea of sunshine, high incomes and eco-friendliness – virtue and luxury combined!). I wanted to come back to San Francisco and see if this could be my new home. Because I’d only ever worked with big corporations as a consultant, I also wanted to see what a start-up was about. I wasn’t optimizing for money or prestige back then, and I’m glad I didn’t in hindsight!
