Most stories are built with a heavy reliance on using peoples fundamental unwillingness to communicate with other people in mind to manufacture conflict and therefore narrative progress.
A majority of films and book plots, were they taken and rewritten by a person who rejects the idea that it's acceptable to expect others to read one's mind, would end partway into the story.
Aka “the idiot plot” - where the entire issue at hand could be solved if any single main character stops acting like an idiot for 5 minutes and just says to the other character(s) what’s actually going on
I used to be the person who would always tell it as it is - it doesn't work in general, because often times people don't want to hear it. They treat it as a grievous bodily harm and they lash out in defence.
small talk and euphemisms evolved for a good reason - you need to be able to judge what's going on in the other person's head before you risk exposing yourself to their wrath.
There are different ways to say the same thing and using language like in the linked article often allows people to listen better and not get defensive.
I find that using "softer" language, since it requires more work, also often sharpens my message to really say what I think is important.
A bit like a rubber duck[0] for my inner script writer.
as an autist, I used to consider that as manipulation and therefore unethical. thankfully I got that virtue beaten out of me by life and now I go for pragmatism.
I have some issues with the sentiments in this thread, which seems to be saying that stories are good in real life discourse too. To some extent I agree, but I think it is overexaggerated.
TL;DR: This is all well and good in current society, but I feel that says a lot about the flaws of current society.
"Reality is stranger than fiction because fiction needs to make sense, but reality doesn't". Stories are written for a purpose, whether that's to entertain, to instruct, etc.. That's why it makes sense to have plot twists and unrealistic tension. Stories are meant to be contrived to some degree; that's what makes them valuable. But I think real life should have a plot that isn't like a tidy, comfortable story. If there is to be a plot, it should be complex and strange.
> I used to be the person who would always tell it as it is - it doesn't work in general, because often times people don't want to hear it.
Indeed, but I'm not sure then that couching your language towards them is better. It won't ease most people into your narrative. It will just allow them to sink further into a narrative. I think moderation is generally correct, but moderation that isn't the golden mean can also be quite harmful. (See "Letter from Birmingham Jail" for MLK Jr.'s thoughts on white moderates during the Civil Rights movement.)
> small talk and euphemisms evolved for a good reason
Evolution by natural selection does not work like this. "I observe feature A" does not remotely mean "feature A is beneficial". It just means "feature A is not a dealbreaker". We as humans have certainly evolved for gossiping and storytelling, and it is often beneficial to appease the group, but attributing a bigger moral reason on that line is doubtful. It is not necessarily good that we engage in so much "small talk and euphemisms" (I would even say it's quite bad), it's just that we've made it comfortable to live like that.
> I find that using "softer" language, since it requires more work, also often sharpens my message to really say what I think is important.
I disagree on both points. "Softer language" is easier to grasp for since we are accustomed to it, and even for the speaker it may be a hassle to distinguish using it carelessly versus deliberately. Since it works as a shield and intentionally employs ambiguity, I doubt it communicates the actual message well.
I am myself a big fan of stories, and I do see value in using them in real life to enhance communication. But I think this requires a lot more care and scrutiny than we normally use. Our whole culture around communication is flawed.
