And yet, I’ve recently come to realize the (perhaps) obvious — in many cases a whole system of thought isn’t “right” or “wrong”, but a mix of both.  It sometimes happens that in the middle of some “ridiculousness” there is hidden a vein of pure gold.  In other words, instead of accepting and rejecting something as a whole, we sometimes have to do the harder work of figuring out what parts are valuable and what parts are not.

In particular, over the past few months I’ve been looking at Eastern philosophies and practices such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Yoga, and Taoism.  Each of these have beliefs that, in the past, I have found to be in some ways romantic, and yet at the same time (to me) unlikely to be true — things like reincarnation, various deities, and present-life immortality.

My reexamination of these systems of thought hasn’t caused me to change my stance on most of these beliefs — I still don’t think reincarnation happens, or that there are supernatural deities running around behind the scenes.  However, I’ve realized that in addition to a set of beliefs, each of these contains methods for changing our conscious experience.  By “changing our conscious experience” I mean such things as, oh, feeling ridiculously happy, getting rid of anxiety, and increasing self-discipline.  Most of these aren’t stated so directly, and are often written with mystical language accompanying them.  But this is exactly what they are doing.  Yoga, for example, contains a truly massive amount of thought and experience aimed at figuring out how to feel ridiculously happy, in a wide range of circumstances.

Of course, even within these various systems, there is much that is vague or inconsistent or unhelpful alongside that which is helpful, and it involves some sifting though.  But I am beginning to suspect that there are some real techniques here for mastering our minds and emotions, something I care very much about.  Stay tuned for more.

1. Direct evaluative processes (non-model-based). An “evaluative process” evaluates certain information and says whether it is “good” or “bad” (or potentially makes other distinctions).  In this case, direct evaluative processes are evaluations of our immediate present experience.  These are not based on evaluations of our larger situation (our “model of the world”).  For example, tasting a delicious food or the sensory experiences one has during sex might be directly evaluated as “good”, and touching something very hot (aka “getting burned”) or stepping on something sharp might be directly evaluated as “bad”.
2. Model-based evaluative processes. In contrast, model-based evaluative processes are evaluations of our “model of the world” — what we think is true, and how we feel about it.  For example, thinking about the past or the future, or whether we are a “good person” might be evaluated positively or negatively.  Believing that tomorrow you will get a promotion at work could be a positive model-based evaluation, and believing that you made a big mistake in the past can be a negative model-based evaluation.
3. Non-evaluative processes. Additionally, there are processes which aren’t really evaluating anything, but are instead aspects of the “feeling machinery” itself.  This includes things like neurochemical balances, or taking drugs.  For example, someone who is “high” on drugs might feel great even though they are sitting in a room with nothing going on (so no positive direct evaluation), and even if there are bad things going on in their life (so no positive model-based evaluation).
4. Attention. Another factor which seems to make a difference is attention.  Since there are so many things happening at any one time (tons of sensory information coming in, extremely detailed models of the world), the brain likely can’t handle processing everything at once, and so it must select some things to process.  The things that are attended to likely have the most input into the evaluative processes.  For example, by distracting yourself you might shift your attention away from a negative model-based evaluation (my girlfriend just dumped me) or negative direct evaluation (I just stepped on a thorn).
5. Other moderating factors. There are likely to be other things that influence feelings as well, and there are probably complex interactions between all of these factors.  For example, one kind of negative evaluation might limit another kind of negative evaluation (such as sadness inhibiting anxiety, for example).  Many (or most) evaluations are also likely to be relative rather than absolute (you feel good not about having a fixed amount of money but rather about having more than other people, or you enjoy a food more the longer it’s been since you ate).  And there may be (or not) a “baseline” feeling that you get when no evaluations are really telling you anything.

Different people like different things — what makes others happy may not make you happy.

People are different, and different things make different people happy.  As basic as it may sound, you have to evaluate, for yourself, what makes you happy.  It may happen that other people genuinely enjoy things that don’t do much for you.  Conversely, you may get a lot of enjoyment out of things that other people don’t enjoy.

For example, I personally don’t really enjoy watching sports on TV, going out for gourmet food, or getting drunk.  And yet, many people enjoy these very much.  On the other hand, I enjoy some things that other people may not enjoy, such as reading mathematics, listening to happy pop music, or (as a 36-year-old guy) watching Sex and the City.  Which leads to another point –

Every culture has expectations about what people should and shouldn’t enjoy — and in some cases these expectations are different from what people actually enjoy.

In many cases, social expectations about what brings happiness will match with people’s actual experience of what makes them happy.  But social expectations can sometimes be just plain wrong about what makes people (or some people) happy.

The bottom line is that if you want to be happy, you’ll ultimately have to discover what makes you happy — not what makes other people or most people happy, and not what society more generally feels ought to make you happy.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t learn from others — what other people say makes them happy may very well make you happy too.  But at the end of the day, we’re all unique and the pursuit of happiness is an individual pursuit.

Each of these has a different take on things, however.  For example:

• Some of them have a religious belief that there is a God who loves them and is taking care of everything.  They believe that life may have ups and downs, but in the end, everything is going to be downright wonderful — they have found out a deep truth about the universe and are part of it, they will live forever in a wonderful place, and there will be no end to enjoying the delights of the universe.  The bad things that may happen in the short term are part of a bigger picture which involves their every desire being fulfilled.
• Others believe that we live forever through reincarnation or through some other extension of life beyond this one.  They believe that the purpose of life is to learn and grow to be better and better beings.  All of the bad things that happen in life are in reality opportunities to learn and grow.  In this way, life is like a giant training program, helping us reach higher and higher forms of existence.
• Still others believe that the only thing that is “real” is the present moment.  The future and the past are illusions — only the present moment exists.  Additionally, the idea that each individual has a separate unique existence is incorrect, and everything is a part of the same whole.  They believe then that there is only this present experience, right now — there is no past or future, and no self.  Therefore, there is nothing to worry about or regret, and no “self” to “have things” or “have problems”.

I can see how each of these could lead to happiness.  In effect, with each of these, things are great, and they are great whatever might happen in life.

Well I would like to be extremely happy as well (of course!), and “being okay with anything” seems to lead to happiness.  There is just one problem, which is that I don’t believe that any of the above beliefs are… actually true.  It’s not that I don’t want to believe them (they all sound very nice), it’s just that I think the evidence is against them, believing in science and its findings as I do.

So a few days ago I decided to try just imaging that I am okay with anything happening, without any belief system backing it up.  Whenever I would have an anxious thought about something bad happening, I would just try to imagine that I was fine with any worst-case scenario happening.  Including, for example, such normally unspeakable things as:  being murdered on the street on my way home from school, people I love dying, forgetting my own name during introductions at an important school meeting, having other people hate me, losing my vision, etc., etc.

I’ve found in the past that there is often a sort of “beginner’s luck” when trying a new technique for feeling good.  By this, I mean that I sometimes hear about a new technique, imagine that it might just work, try it out, and find that amazingly it does seem to work.  It works for a short time, that is, and then seems to lose its effectiveness with further use.  This makes me suspect that just believing in a technique might make it work, even if there isn’t really anything to it.

Having said that, I did actually find that doing this “imagining that I’m okay with anything happening” seemed to work — incredibly well, actually.  I found that I could actually convince myself that I was okay with anything happening, and I found myself feeling… really happy.  In fact, the first two days of trying this I felt happier than I’ve felt in a long time, and even walked around with a ridiculous grin on my face some of the time.

I said this worked the first two days.  Well, now I’m in day three, and I have to say it hasn’t been working so well today, so far.  Nothing big, but basically a lot of anxiety has come back, and I haven’t been able to get rid of it with this technique, or get that great feeling back.

So unsurprisingly, this technique isn’t an easy, magical technique that makes you suddenly feel great for the rest of time.  But given how I felt the first two days of trying it, I feel like there may just be something to it.

I’ve always felt frustrated when I find myself in a situation where people are watching TV while I’m trying to work.  However, recently I started thinking about this situation differently, by viewing this as a sort of meditation.

Let me explain.  In meditation, you sometimes try to focus your attention on something (such as your breath), and keep your attention on that thing in spite of distractions (such as anxious thoughts).  I know, I know — this isn’t every type of meditation, and some people would say you aren’t “trying” to do anything when meditating.  But some forms of meditation (that I practice) do involve focusing your attention.  This is then very much like the situation I find myself in — wanting to focus on one thing (my work) when distractions are present (the TV).

In some ways, meditation is a skill that you can get better at, in that you can get better at focusing your attention.  So it seems likely that I could get better at focusing my attention on my work with practice.

I’ve recently been trying to view working with the TV on as an “attentional training” exercise.  I stay aware of my attention and consciously try to keep it focused on my work.  While I’m still not as productive as I am when it’s quiet (so far), this has helped me get more done than before, and has taken away some of the frustration.  I imagine a similar technique could apply to other distractions as well.

In some ways this might seem like a simple task — you can “just tell them”.  And sometimes it is as simple as that.  But in many cases it isn’t easy — our thoughts and feelings are complex, or they are conflicting, or we have a sense of something but we’re not really sure how to put it into words.  And there may be a lot of background information that we know but the other person doesn’t (imagine telling a stranger about something that just happened to your best friend).  On top of this, we have to use a language where almost every word has several different meanings.

Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems to me that miscommunication and lack of communication are everywhere.  I’ve been in more than my share of business meetings where almost no real communication happens — people talk at length about something that others pretend to understand but don’t, or different people express conflicting points of view while congratulating themselves about reaching agreement.  And in personal relationships I’ve had my share of arguments that later turned out to be… just misunderstandings.

Here are a few ideas I’ve had (or, more often, borrowed from others), and I’d love to hear your thoughts on ways to “get your message across” more effectively.

Keep it simple

This is classic advice, and I think, very useful.  The simpler you make something, the easier it is for the other person to process and understand.  After all, you’ve probably had a long time to think about your way of viewing things, but the other person must process what you’re saying almost instantly.

If you have conflicting thoughts about something, keeping it simple may mean just picking the one that you feel the most.  If someone asks your opinion about, say, the economy and you have twelve different theories about it, it may mean just picking one and explaining it, instead of trying to talk about all of them.

Another way we add complexity is by communicating our uncertainty, or “hedging” — using phrases like “maybe”, “kind of”, “I’m not really sure but”, “it could be this or it could be that”, etc.  Sometimes this uncertainty is important, and it makes sense to convey it.  But of course nothing in life is certain, and hedging can make what you’re saying less simple and harder to follow (and can weaken its impact).  So when appropriate, removing hedging can make your communication simpler and easier to understand.

Keeping it simple does often mean that you are cutting things out and modifying things just a bit to reduce the complexity.  Does this mean you’re misleading people or “not telling the whole truth”?  If you’re cutting out things that make you look bad and “enhancing” the story in your favor a bit, for example, then yes it does.  But I think you can be true to the spirit of what you’re conveying in a way that gives a faithful approximation to the truth.  For example, when someone asks you what time it is and your watch says that it’s 4:32 PM and 17 seconds, telling them that “it’s four thirty” isn’t misleading — it’s giving your best simple approximation to the truth.

However, at times communicating what you want to communicate requires sharing something more complex.  I think Albert Einstein said it best when he said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”  Do your best to tell the simplest story you can, while still being true to what you need to communicate.

Just to make a point explicit — effective communication is usually not just giving the other person a “brain dump” of everything you’re thinking.  It usually involves putting your thoughts into a form that the other person can best understand.

One more point on this.  “Keeping it simple” also doesn’t mean that you treat your listener as if they were an idiot.  Treating someone like a four-year-old can be frustrating for them, and result in leaving out relevant information.

Bad Example
Al: What do you think of Sara?
Lenny: Well, I think she’s pretty nice.  I mean, sometimes she can be a little, I don’t know, pushy.  But then again, she’s had a rough couple of months, and it’s actually kind of refreshing to have someone that stands up for themselves.  So overall, I mean, good.

Better Example
Al: What do you think of Sara?
Lenny: A bit pushy, but I can handle it.  I like her.

Similarly, keeping it simple means not needlessly repeating yourself — talking on and on and saying the same thing over and over can get in the way of a clear understanding (and cause the other person to “tune you out”).

Make sense

Simply… make sense.  Choose words that work well together, and be consistent with yourself and with what people know to be true.

Bad Example
George W. Bush: Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.

Better Example
George W. Bush (revised): Families are the hope of our nation;  it is within families that our dreams take wing.

Speak to the other person “where they are”

It may be hard to believe, but, yes, other people have thoughts and feelings, and they are often different from your own!  In many cases, there is a big difference between what’s in your head, and what’s in the other person’s head.  As mentioned above, an example of this is trying to tell a stranger about something that just happened to your best friend — much of what you want to communicate only makes sense if you know your friend.

I think the first step is simply to recognize that the other person has a different perspective, and to attempt talk to them so that it makes sense from that perspective.  It may also involve a lot of simplification, since you often don’t have the time to go into the background in detail.

This also means trying to figure out what the other person is really thinking and feeling, and addressing their concerns and values, even if the other person isn’t stating them explicitly.  If the other person asks “Is this the way to Times Square?” you don’t just tell them “no”, but tell them what the right way is and point out something interesting along the way.  Making what you’re saying relevant to the other person is also important, by making it interesting to them and something they can relate to.  Finally, if your views differ from those of the other person, it often makes sense to address those differences explicitly, instead of stating your views as accepted fact.

Pay attention to rhythm and timing

Rhythm and timing are important aspects of conversation.  One a small scale, the rhythm of your own speech matters.  Frequent pausing to search for words can make it more difficult for the other person to understand you, as can stopping one sentence halfway through and starting a different one (“John is really… the important thing is that…”).

On a larger scale, the rhythms of the conversation as a whole are also important.  Taking turns talking, interrupting and dealing with interruptions, handling distractions and “side tracks”, and deciding when to change the topic or bring up an important question are all issues of rhythm and timing.  In many cases, speaking and transitioning smoothly instead of abruptly can make it easier for people hear and understand what you’re saying.

Bad Example

Al: Look, I’m sort of feeling that…  well, to give some background, I’ve always loved football.  And when I get that… when that time of year comes around… I just feel that… I don’t know…

Better Example
Al: I love football season — it’s probably the thing I look forward to the most.

Make it interesting

People can only hear your message if they’re paying attention to it — making it interesting makes it much more likely that they’ll pay attention.

Be aware of the implicit message

The words we say form an explicit message.  But the other person isn’t only listening to our words — they’re also listening to our tone of voice, and watching our body language and other behaviors.  In fact, this implicit message is very important in helping the other person understand what we’re saying, and whether they agree with it.  It makes sense to be aware of this and realize that sending conflicting or negative implicit signals can make it more difficult to understand your message (or for the other person to accept it).

James:  Thanks for cutting me off!  You just failed your driving test, genius!
Pierre:  Oh yeah, well I bet you haven’t gotten laid in twenty years!

When we get insulted, it seems like our feelings may be mainly a reaction to two things:

• Feeling like other people may accept the insult as true and view us in a negative light
• Feeling attacked, and that others may now view us as having a lower position in the social hierarchy if we’re unable to defend ourselves

I imagine that giving a counter-insult addresses the second point — we’re defending ourselves, and not letting the other person get away with attacking us.

So attacking the other person back may keep us from looking like we’re lower on the social hierarchy, but it has its own problems.  You end up with an antagonistic relationship, where both of you come across as looking bad.  A better goal might be not just defending yourself, but defending yourself and having fun and maintaining the possibility of having a good relationship with the person who delivered the insult.  But how can you get there?

One way might be to “spin” what the other person said as playful or obviously exaggerated, without attacking them back.  Another is to sincerely call the person out on the attack (often indirectly), without taking offense.  Let’s look at the above scenario again, with some alternatives that Pierre might have used:

James:  Thanks for cutting me off!  You just failed your driving test, genius!
Pierre (Take 2):  Oh yeah?  Well you’re… a doody head!
Comments:  By making an obviously childish comeback, Pierre is spinning James’ insult as childish name-calling, and doing it in a funny way, without attacking James back (since “doody head” is not a serious insult).

James:  Thanks for cutting me off!  You just failed your driving test, genius!
Pierre (Take 3): Sorry, Officer Friendly — I’ll try harder next time!
Comments:  This time Pierre continues James’ comment about failing his driving test, by putting James as the officer giving the test.  This make it fun, without really attacking James back.  He does call James out on being unfriendly by calling him Officer Friendly.

Another example:

Biker:  Get out of the way!  Jesus, look at the traffic light please!
Pedestrian (sincerely):  Um, alright… It’s just a bike ride, dude.
Comments:  Biker didn’t really mean his remarks as a request (to look at the traffic light), since at that point it was too late — he meant it as an insult.  But by acting as if it were a request, and sincerely agreeing with the request, he throws Biker off and makes him look out of control and angry in contrast with Pedestrian’s calm and sincere response.  His sincerity also makes it possible for Biker to give a sincere response.

Doing an excellent job… on things that aren’t very important

It might seem that the most effective person would be the one who made sure things were done right.  After all, a great job is always better than a mediocre job, right?  This is true up to a point.  However, there is a fatal flaw in this reasoning, which is that it doesn’t consider that there is often a cost to doing a great job, which is often… spending more time on it.  Time isn’t free, and spending more time on something doesn’t just mean you’ll do a better job on that thing — it also means you’ll do something else less well, or not be able to do something else at all.  Bottom line:  spend a lot of time where it counts, and do an adequate job where it doesn’t count so much.

Doing things that improve our lives… a little bit

Doing things to better your life is of course a good thing, everything else being equal.  But again, there is a cost associated with doing something to improve you life, which is the time spent doing it.  Doing something that gives you a positive but small return may actually stand in the way of doing something that gives a bigger return.  Of course, some things we have no choice about — they must be done, even though we don’t get much out of them (unloading the dishwasher, for example).  But where we have a choice, not doing things that improve our lives a little may actually make time for doing things that improve our lives a lot.

Doing things we enjoy… a little bit

Continuing with our theme, anything that takes time has a cost.  Doing something you enjoy just a little bit can take time away from something you enjoy a lot.  For example, I enjoy checking the news online often during the day.  I’ve found that each time I check the news, I end up spending ten minutes or so reading news stories.  Over the course of a day, this adds up to a lot of time, and all I get out of it is… a very mild enjoyment.  This isn’t to say that taking a break isn’t important — it can be very useful to stop working and do something relaxing or unimportant for a bit to “recharge your batteries”.  But if something isn’t helping you be more productive later, and it’s not that enjoyable now, it might be hurting your productivity with little to show for it.

Doing things for others… because of social obligation and because we’re not assertive

Relationships are very important, and doing things for others can be among the most valuable things we do.  We may do things for others because we care about the other person, we get something valuable out of doing it ourselves, or because it’s a necessary part of our life (such as doing things for your boss at work).  These all make a lot of sense.  But there are other things that we do simply out of a sense of social obligation, because someone has asked us to do something (that may not even be important to them), and it can be difficult to say no without feeling uncomfortable or “looking like a jerk”.  Sometimes, you just don’t know how to say no without looking bad in an important relationship, and in such cases you may just have to give in.  But if the relationship isn’t especially important or (importantly) if you’re able to say no without coming across as a jerk, then being assertive can give you more time to do things that are important (for yourself or others).  So improving your skill at saying no without “looking like a jerk” can help you be more productive.

The bottom line may be that we should, but often don’t, take “the time it takes” into consideration when deciding what to do.  Additionally, we should probably consider the other things we won’t do in addition to the thing we’re currently considering doing or not doing.  The choice is often not between “doing a great job” and “doing a mediocre job” but rather between “doing a great job” and “doing a mediocre job PLUS getting something else done”.  Similarly, instead of a choice between “doing something I enjoy little” and “not doing something I enjoy a little”, there is instead a choice between “doing something I enjoy a little” and “not doing something I enjoy a little PLUS doing something I enjoy a lot”.

Depending on our political and religious beliefs, it might also include Obama being an “outstanding” or a “disaster” president, and it might include “we are physical machines described by the laws of physics” or alternatively, “Jesus is my Lord and Savior”.  We also have thoughts about what other people’s attitudes and beliefs are (such as “he did that because he only cares about himself”) as well as what we think the best course of action is in a given situation (“we should raise taxes to pay for the fight against global warming”).  Even our understanding of what happened in the past is part of our view of the world.  By a “view of the world” then, I simply mean everything we believe to be true about the world.

Our views of the world are, ultimately, in our heads.  Sometimes we have good reasons for our beliefs, sometimes they are based on incorrect information, and sometimes they are just guesses.  Sometimes we’re right, and sometimes we’re wrong.

When we’re interacting with other people, our views of the world often differ.

And we often want other people to accept our view of the world and attempt to “sell” them on our view.  For example, we might want others to agree with our political or religious beliefs (“We should present all sides of the story in biology, including intelligent design” vs. “Intelligent design goes against everything we know from science and doesn’t belong in the classroom”).  We might want others to agree with our view of the past (“You told me I could return this vacuum cleaner if it was defective!” vs. “I told you you have to contact the manufacturer with any problems!”).  And, we might want others to agree with our evaluation of ourselves (“I am an excellent driver” vs. “You are a terrible driver”).

We directly observe only a very few things, and yet we need to know about many things that we don’t directly observe — so we have to make guesses and inferences about things we don’t know.  Our views of the world are then part direct observation and part guessing (based on reasoning, past experiences, feelings, etc.).  This is one reason why there is so much room for disagreement, since much of everyone’s view of the world is not directly observable.  There is no easy way to verify who is right, so we argue about the more indirect parts of our views of the world.

For example, let’s say a member of Congress has been accused of spending public money for private vacations.  His opponents might have a view of the world that includes, unsurprisingly, that this congressman knowingly spent public money for lavish personal vacations.  The congressman himself on the other hand, might have a view of the world that holds that the trips were for legitimate official business, or that they were paid for with his own money and not the public’s.  So while the two sides have very different views of the world in some ways, they both agree that certain trips were taken.  The very fact that some of the information is not commonly known (what was done on the trips, where did the money come from) allows there to be disagreement about how to “fill in the gaps” around the known information.

These “not easily verifiable” areas are where “spin” comes in, in politics and in relationships in general.  In this example, the agreed on facts might be that this congressman took certain trips, and that he is being investigated.  Both sides then try to fill in the additional details with (and get others to believe) their own preferred view of things.  In this case the two sides might be “more corruption in Washington” vs. “a politically-motivated witch hunt targeting an innocent man”.  This also illustrates that

we sometimes want others to accept views of the world that we ourselves don’t believe

(whether this turns out to be a good idea or not).  In sales, we might want someone to believe that our brand of fertilizer is the best, even if we don’t think so ourselves.  In a job interview, we might want the interviewer to think that we’re outstanding in all areas, even if we have some doubts about some of our abilities.  And of course, sometimes we just outright lie about things (Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!”).

For right or wrong, there are practical reasons then why someone might try to sell others on a view they don’t themselves believe.  And there are (important) “values questions” about whether or not doing this is in general a good idea.  But aside from these, I’m particularly interested in this question from a “great relationships” perspective:

Are there times when trying to sell others on a view of the world you don’t hold is a good idea, in terms of helping you have great relationships?

This is related to previous posts (such as this one about being yourself and this one about great relationships).  In particular, it seems that sometimes getting people to accept certain views of the world can be a good thing (such as thinking they themselves are “awesome” or that the two of you have a close relationship).  At the same time, it also seems that being authentic and sharing your real thoughts and feelings makes for good relationships.  Many times there is no conflict — you actually believe the things that you want others to believe.  But what about times when you don’t quite believe the things you’d like people to accept?

Let me give an example.  Let’s say you have a problem with low self-esteem.  You don’t think you’re good at most things, but you know you have this problem and you’re working on it.  You’d like other people to believe you’re confident.  Does it make sense to act “as if” you’re confident?  This might help others like you more and treat you with more respect, and might even help you actually have more confidence.  However, as I’ve mentioned before, I think that sharing more of your real self in an authentic way has some strong benefits (such as feelings of intimacy).  And I think that sometimes being fake or pretending to support a view of the world that you don’t really hold can get in the way of those benefits.

Having said that, my current thinking is that there are some times when trying to sell a view of the world that is slightly different from the one you actually hold can be overall beneficial and have limited impact on the benefits of authenticity.  In this example, I think that trying to project confidence when you don’t really have it (within limits) can actually help you have more confidence, and can help others enjoy being around you more.  I do think you still have to be grounded in reality, and if you’re really anxious, admitting this might be the best thing to do.  And all of this should take place in a context of openness and authenticity, so that, for example, if someone asks you point blank if you’re nervous, you might share that you were (but perhaps in a funny way or with a dose of confidence thrown in, so they don’t incorrectly think you’re more anxious than you are).

As another example, take intentionally “misinterpreting” what someone says.  If someone asks you with a rude tone of voice “Why did you do that?”, you may believe they’re implying “that was a stupid thing to do”, but you can act as if they were asking you a legitimate question because they were interested.  So you can respond “Oh, because I love the theater and was interested in …” etc. — responding as if they asked a real question.  This can throw them off, since they now have to work harder to be a jerk — they have to be more direct in saying they think you did something stupid (which they may not be able to do without looking like a jerk).

I do think you have to be careful because if you do too much “selling views you don’t hold” you will come off as (and feel) fake.  I suspect that being authentic is a very important principle (for having great relationships) but that in a few judicious ways you can benefit from slight changes to the view of the world you’re selling, and still maintain an overall feel (and reality) of authenticity.  As always, I love to hear any thoughts on this.