This thought has been bugging me since few days. Just thought sharing with you, your inputs are needed.
Being a “Direct or adapt diplomacy”.
I would define “Directness: as not being rude, but speaking you heart & mind, basically being honest to yourself and others.
In my opinion diplomacy has a sense of falseness whilst being direct may be being honest.
Now if you have to choose any one, what will you do?? My generation would answer diplomacy, What do you suggest?
My argument:
My answer would be being direct, as then you don’t need to remember where, to whom you said what?.
You will not be embarrassed if you can’t remember what you said last time, because you are always your true self.
Though directness could be misconstrued as rudeness, but the sense of trust could be build upon it. As a direct person would never change his attitude and will keep giving the right inputs. And in the world which lacks trust, this could bring in little ray of hope & faith.
On a metaphysical level -
They say when you have a certain feeling about anybody you speak it through the vibes (EM waves), and the other person can sense it. That’s the reason why we are like the company of some and can’t stand some. So when you are honest to yourself and other i.e. you are direct you give positive vibrations and others trust you easily.
Constructive criticism is welcome
My take is DIRECT - being transparent helps in the long run, as your opinion or view is not dependent upon the adresseee but you yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe new look is good. :) But not too much in sync with the blog contents.
Interesting !!! Diplomacy is something close to librians .. as they are natural diplomats .. But yes .. if its crucial be straight fwd sometimes diplomacy sends wrong messages and thats when its can effect relationships as well . so be open and clear in your thoughts when handling with directness ..
ReplyDelete