What's really so bad about "I told you so"? (insecure, person)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm always confused by people who think that when I respond to their comments of disagreement with questions or other examples to consider, that they believe I'm defending myself, or trying to convince people I'm right. I said multiple times, the point of my threat is not to try to prove I'm right, just to ask if people could honestly consider exceptions to this supposed hard-and-fast "rule." Evidently, they cannot.
It seems to go like this:
Other posters: "I told you so" is always wrong to say.
Me: I agree in most cases, but aren't there any exceptions?
Other posters: No
Me: Well what about this scenario? ...or this one....?
Other posters: You're just trying to prove you're right, and you like to make everything about YOU, and you're arrogant for ever thinking "I told you so" is appropriate, and you're also arrogant for your posts here.
Me: So is anyone going to respond to the specific scenarios and questions I posted?
Other posters: No, you're just wrong we all agree, so deal with it.
Well, isn't that an open, honest, mature debate?
It would just be refreshing if even one person could say "I generally think 'I told you so" is wrong, but I do see that in the few examples you gave, it might be appropriate, and I do admit that I've said it myself a few times."
I am always the first person to admit I'm wrong. I am consistent. Wrong about a fact that can be checked? Yes, I readily admit if I'm wrong. Wrong about an always/never assertion? Yes, I would also readily admit if I'm wrong. If someone believes something is "always" or "never" true, and when asked about a few examples, how they might respond to those examples, they see there's an exception, then the rule is no longer that the thing is always or never true. If at any time I've claimed that something is "always" true, and then someone points out an exception, I readily say, "Okay, then it's almost always true; I change my position."
I was very willing to say repeatedly that yes, in MOST cases, "I told you so" is a negative or unwarranted thing to say. But no one is able to admit that even though they believe it's a bad thing, that there might be very few, even one single exception to that rule.
I seriously doubt that everyone here has NEVER said "I told you so" or has never been faced with a person who mouthed-off so much, who was later proven wrong, that you didn't taken just an eeensy weensy little bit of satisfaction in saying "I told you so." I guess everyone here is a perfect saint but me. I bow to your superiority, and hope I can one day reach that level.
So because we don't feel there are exceptions, we're being immature? You've presented your scenarios, and we've countered that even in those specific scenarios the ITYS is still unecessary and often rude. Could it be that there just aren't exceptions, no matter how badly you want there to be?
So because we don't feel there are exceptions, we're being immature? You've presented your scenarios, and we've countered that even in those specific scenarios the ITYS is still unecessary and often rude. Could it be that there just aren't exceptions, no matter how badly you want there to be?
But no one seems to be responding to my questions about the possible exceptions I proposed. Just saying "Nope, there are no exceptions" is not really a mature way to debate. Why not actually read the proposed exceptions, try to put yourself into the place of the person in the scenario, and answer the questions I posited? If the answer still ends up being "no" I accept that, and we can disagree. But to respond to specific questions with blanket generalizations is not a very effective method of intelligent, honest, and mature debate.
Someone brought up my "sarcasm" thread, and now that I think about it, this does remind me of that. Once we got past the classic and evolved definitions of sarcasm, the discussion went like this one: Sarcasm is always bad.
What about this example? or this one? or this one? How would you respond to this situation?
Nope, always bad, so exceptions, and you're a bad person for saying otherwise.
But you didn't answer my questions. What about this example, or this one?
You're just a mean person and we all agree.
It's kind of funny, because outside of these two threads, I get people posting in threads and in rep comments how helpful I've been or how empathetic my posts were. But in these two threads, people draw conclusions that I'm self-centered and mean.
But no one seems to be responding to my questions about the possible exceptions I proposed. Just saying "Nope, there are no exceptions" is not really a mature way to debate. Why not actually read the proposed exceptions, try to put yourself into the place of the person in the scenario, and answer the questions I posited? If the answer still ends up being "no" I accept that, and we can disagree. But to respond to specific questions with blanket generalizations is not a very effective method of intelligent, honest, and mature debate.
I responded to your scenario with your mentee ... you just didn't like my response. I didn't say "oh yes, that's an exception." Because I won't agree with you, I'm not having an open, honest, mature discussion.
But no one seems to be responding to my questions about the possible exceptions I proposed. Just saying "Nope, there are no exceptions" is not really a mature way to debate. Why not actually read the proposed exceptions, try to put yourself into the place of the person in the scenario, and answer the questions I posited? If the answer still ends up being "no" I accept that, and we can disagree. But to respond to specific questions with blanket generalizations is not a very effective method of intelligent, honest, and mature debate.
Someone brought up my "sarcasm" thread, and now that I think about it, this does remind me of that. Once we got past the classic and evolved definitions of sarcasm, the discussion went like this one: Sarcasm is always bad.
What about this example? or this one? or this one? How would you respond to this situation?
Nope, always bad, so exceptions, and you're a bad person for saying otherwise.
But you didn't answer my questions. What about this example, or this one?
You're just a mean person and we all agree.
It's kind of funny, because outside of these two threads, I get people posting in threads and in rep comments how helpful I've been or how empathetic my posts were. But in these two threads, people draw conclusions that I'm self-centered and mean.
That's what I've thought, often agreed with you in posts, but these two paint a completely different picture...
Here was my proposed example of an exception. The questions I asked are bolded for convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TracySam
So here's another example to consider (please, consider it honestly). It's an example of my saying "I told you so" about something positive.
My younger colleague is only out of graduate school a couple of years, and she was preparing for her clinical social work licensing exam. I'm one of the people who helped her prepare, and I'm one of her mentors.
The day before the exam, she's very nervous. Can't sleep, can't eat lunch, stomach in knots. I remind her that she knows this stuff, she's proven it daily with me, she's studied more than sufficiently, and in the past she's proven to perform well under stress--she tends to snap into "crisis mode" and remembers information and applies it even under pressure. She kept saying that she feels like she's going to freeze up, and she's almost convinced she'll fail and have to try again next year. She's even considering calling and postponing the exam. I again reassure her with the kinds of things I just said.
She took the exam, and passed, actually doing very well. Now she's licensed.
My response is "Yay, I'm so happy for you! I knew you could do it--I told you so, didn't I? Now remember what I told you the next time you get all nervous like that."
Now in that example, Is my "I told you so" reflecting my need for praise or about my arrogance or self-importance? Is it hurtful to her? Could she take it the wrong way, in a negative way? How? Is it even slightly, remotely, possible that the next time she faces a challenge and she gets herself extremely anxious, she might remember how I reassured her about how she tends to handle these things well once she faces them, how she's likely to succeed despite her worries? Might she ever even tell herself "TracySam pointed this out to me back when I took my licensing exam, and she was right then. I think she'd probably tell me the same thing about this current situation, and she'd probably be right again."
I've learned similar lessons from past mentors whom I respected. Part of the process of introjecting and internalizing the things I learned from them involved me reminding myself silently what they said, especially when those lessons were reinforced with an "I told you so." These were usually things related to my confidence in myself. I told you you could handle it. I told you you had the ability to do it.
Here was your first response. Did not address my questions.
Note: I did say things like that. But in some "guiding" relationships, the person goes through a period where they trust and rely on the "guide's" frame of reference. And I clarified that what I said was not at all about my taking credit. It was a way of "lending" her my confidence in her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexgds
But why not just say "There was no need to worry. You did just fine. Next time you get stressed out, just have more faith in yourself." Why do you have to make it about what YOU said so YOU can take credit?
Then this was your other response, still not addressing the questions. Again, it's completely fine with me if you disagree, and if even in answering the questions you answer "No" where I might say "yes" but to be intellectually honest, debaters should not ignore or avoid questions, but respond to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexgds
But she survived her crisis of confidence and proven that she can do it ... this is the perfect opportunity to encourage her to trust her own perception of herself. To put the focus on HER and what SHE achieved. That she doesn't need YOUR confidence. This is the BEST time to not make it about YOU. That's where the true transition is.
You don't see to be getting how a "guide" lending confidence, temporarily, to a person being guided is not about the guide, and not about the guide taking credit for anything. Maybe you've just never experienced it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many people who have had a "guide" of some sort in life (mentor, coach, teacher, etc) and they go through a period when they say to themselves, "What did Jane tell me? I trust Jane, and she told me I can achieve this. So even though I don't really have confidence in myself about this yet, I'm gonna rely on her confidence in me for now." Then after they have their next success, it starts to get incorporated, internally, and there is less reliance on the guide's assurances.
That's what I've thought, often agreed with you in posts, but these two paint a completely different picture...
I remember you, and yes, we've agreed a lot.
So since I'm honest in all my posts (except when I change little non-relevant personal details in a story to protect my identity or someone else's) this must mean that in general, I'm a thoughtful person who genuinely cares about others, and I'm not a self-centered arrogant jerk, but I also believe that there are some accepted "universal rules" of relationships that exist that shouldn't be universal rules, because they have certain exceptions. What you would also get from my posts is that I admit when I'm wrong, I "always" try to seek exceptions to "always" and "never" statements, and that I don't attack posters personally (apart from little side jokes when someone is not sticking to the questions being debated), and I don't react as if I've been attacked personally, but gently steer people back to the point.
I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, as long as it's done in a civil way.
I could address all this, but I'd only be repeating what I and others have said throughout the thread. I'm done going in circles with you. We've all addressed your questions. Just not with the answers you're looking for.
Other posters: "I told you so" is always wrong to say.
Me: I agree in most cases, but aren't there any exceptions?
Other posters: No
Me: Well what about this scenario? ...or this one....?
Other posters: You're just trying to prove you're right, and you like to make everything about YOU, and you're arrogant for ever thinking "I told you so" is appropriate, and you're also arrogant for your posts here.
Me: So is anyone going to respond to the specific scenarios and questions I posted?
Other posters: No, you're just wrong we all agree, so deal with it.
Me: But can't we discuss this in an adult and civil manner, and when someone posits questions, actually respond to them, even if we disagree?
Other poster: I did respond to your questions, you just didn't like that I disagreed.
Me: Let's see, here were my questions and here were your responses. You didn't really respond to the questions, you see.
Other poster: I'm done, you're just beating this to death and you don't like that you're wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
