This advice is probably well intentioned, but is diametrically opposed to allowing people to clearly set boundaries. Sometimes, a direct "No." is the healthy response if someone asks you to cross a personal boundary. Where to eat lunch isn't a great example of such a case, but disallowing people to say "No" is a poor precedent to set between people.
JohnFen · 14h ago
True, but I think his point is that where there's a negotiation happening (which is what deciding where to eat is), just saying "no" isn't that helpful. More helpful is to say why you're saying "no" so that the other people can formulate an alternative proposal that resolves your objection. That back-and-forth is the essence of a successful negotiation.
Boundary-setting is something entirely different in that it's not about negotiations. In those situations, a plain "no" is often the best thing.
PaulHoule · 16h ago
Huh?
clan · 16h ago
You are basically McBlocking any further discussion.
The point is that it is too easy to be a nay sayer. Show effort. Be more that a "huh?"
Making up new words, particularly over charged interpersonal issues, gets in the way of communications. The magic of language is not that we have a word for everything but that we can talk about everything with the words we have. [1]
[1] The left in the U.S. is slowly waking up to the fact that coining a new word that circulates online makes the vote go +500,000R
Boundary-setting is something entirely different in that it's not about negotiations. In those situations, a plain "no" is often the best thing.
The point is that it is too easy to be a nay sayer. Show effort. Be more that a "huh?"
Making up new words, particularly over charged interpersonal issues, gets in the way of communications. The magic of language is not that we have a word for everything but that we can talk about everything with the words we have. [1]
[1] The left in the U.S. is slowly waking up to the fact that coining a new word that circulates online makes the vote go +500,000R