+0.31 Why I Quit Being So Accommodating (1922) (mikecanex.wordpress.com S:+0.10 )
866 points by Tomte 3200 days ago | 316 comments on HN | Moderate positive Editorial · v3.7 · 2026-02-28 09:40:16
Summary Autonomy & Anti-Exploitation Advocates
This 1922 personal essay chronicles a man's decision to stop being endlessly accommodating and establish personal boundaries. The narrative implicitly champions core UDHR principles—human dignity, personal autonomy, worker rights, family protection, and freedom from exploitation—while illustrating the harms that result from unlimited accommodation. Overall, the content advocates for recognition that each person has inherent rights to control their own time, labor, and life.
Article Heatmap
Preamble: +0.20 — Preamble P Article 1: +0.35 — Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood 1 Article 2: ND — Non-Discrimination Article 2: No Data — Non-Discrimination 2 Article 3: +0.30 — Life, Liberty, Security 3 Article 4: +0.60 — No Slavery 4 Article 5: +0.25 — No Torture 5 Article 6: +0.45 — Legal Personhood 6 Article 7: ND — Equality Before Law Article 7: No Data — Equality Before Law 7 Article 8: ND — Right to Remedy Article 8: No Data — Right to Remedy 8 Article 9: ND — No Arbitrary Detention Article 9: No Data — No Arbitrary Detention 9 Article 10: ND — Fair Hearing Article 10: No Data — Fair Hearing 10 Article 11: ND — Presumption of Innocence Article 11: No Data — Presumption of Innocence 11 Article 12: +0.15 — Privacy 12 Article 13: ND — Freedom of Movement Article 13: No Data — Freedom of Movement 13 Article 14: ND — Asylum Article 14: No Data — Asylum 14 Article 15: ND — Nationality Article 15: No Data — Nationality 15 Article 16: +0.65 — Marriage & Family 16 Article 17: ND — Property Article 17: No Data — Property 17 Article 18: ND — Freedom of Thought Article 18: No Data — Freedom of Thought 18 Article 19: +0.13 — Freedom of Expression 19 Article 20: ND — Assembly & Association Article 20: No Data — Assembly & Association 20 Article 21: ND — Political Participation Article 21: No Data — Political Participation 21 Article 22: -0.15 — Social Security 22 Article 23: +0.50 — Work & Equal Pay 23 Article 24: +0.40 — Rest & Leisure 24 Article 25: +0.20 — Standard of Living 25 Article 26: ND — Education Article 26: No Data — Education 26 Article 27: ND — Cultural Participation Article 27: No Data — Cultural Participation 27 Article 28: ND — Social & International Order Article 28: No Data — Social & International Order 28 Article 29: +0.25 — Duties to Community 29 Article 30: ND — No Destruction of Rights Article 30: No Data — No Destruction of Rights 30
Negative Neutral Positive No Data
Aggregates
Editorial Mean +0.31 Structural Mean +0.10
Weighted Mean +0.36 Unweighted Mean +0.31
Max +0.65 Article 16 Min -0.15 Article 22
Signal 14 No Data 17
Confidence 30% Volatility 0.20 (Medium)
Negative 1 Channels E: 0.6 S: 0.4
SETL +0.09 Editorial-dominant
FW Ratio 58% 38 facts · 28 inferences
Evidence: High: 5 Medium: 6 Low: 3 No Data: 17
Theme Radar
Foundation Security Legal Privacy & Movement Personal Expression Economic & Social Cultural Order & Duties Foundation: 0.28 (2 articles) Security: 0.38 (3 articles) Legal: 0.45 (1 articles) Privacy & Movement: 0.15 (1 articles) Personal: 0.65 (1 articles) Expression: 0.13 (1 articles) Economic & Social: 0.24 (4 articles) Cultural: 0.00 (0 articles) Order & Duties: 0.25 (1 articles)
HN Discussion 20 top-level · 30 replies
paxtonab 2017-05-25 18:17 UTC link
"People never trust an accommodating man with important things. That may sound harsh and cynical, but check it up in your own experience. If you have a severe illness, for example, you turn to the busiest, most exacting doctor in town. The fact that he is busy and can’t be bothered by little things gives you confidence in his ability and judgment."
temp246810 2017-05-25 18:25 UTC link
I'm going through this change right now.

Some words of hard earned "wisdom": make sure the pendulum doesn't swing too far out in the other direction.

I went from being an accommodating person to an intense asshole - trying to dial it back now but it's hard, especially when you notice that people definitely respect you more for good or bad reasons when you're like that. Take it too far though, and it will of course go all the way around and bite you in the ass.

temuze 2017-05-25 18:27 UTC link
Old submission with more comments here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4969041

nrjames 2017-05-25 18:43 UTC link
It's ok to be accommodating as long as you have learned to be introspective. We all have demands of our own time and money. Introspective accommodating people are able to help others in a generous way while protecting the time and resources they need to help themselves. It's a difficult balance to achieve.

Through experience, I've come to believe that this holds true in long-term personal relationships, too. While many will tell you that compromise is the key to a successful marriage, I think that standing up for yourself and who you need to be usually is more important.

There's a needle on the gauge of life that experiences pressure to move from both directions. When you are too accommodating or compromise unequally, the needle moves towards you and establishes a new norm for expected behavior. Your job should be to push back just enough to keep the needle balanced at a point where you retain a full sense of self and the space within which to exercise it. That requires a strong sense of introspection and can take years of adult life to develop.

codegeek 2017-05-25 18:48 UTC link
Being accommodating is not necessarily a black or white thing. For me, it depends. I generally consider myself to be a nice easy going person who tries to be accommodating as long as it doesn't hurt me or others. Notice the "me" in my last sentence. Yes, be selfish and then be accommodating. Now, I can be a real jerk if I come across one. Nothing wrong with that.
CapitalistCartr 2017-05-25 18:49 UTC link
On a related note is "reasonable". In English this word is routinely abused. I consider it a huge red flag.

"4+4=11"

"No, 4+4=8"

"Oh, c'mon, Joe, don't be difficult."

"4 and 4 is 8, 11 isn't correct.

"Be reasonable here. OK, let's compromise on 9.5, OK?"

wordupmaking 2017-05-25 18:55 UTC link
When you're trying that hard to please every trivial whim of anyone, regardless of the cost to yourself: what are you compensating? Who hurt you? Who lied to you? I mean, there's gotta be something that made you rate the approval by others so highly, and your approval of others so unimportant. Something or someone that stole you from you. Would you take 2 weeks of the life of one person to save another person 5 minutes? Unlikely, and it isn't so different when you are one of those persons.

We'd be super weirded out if someone in front of us in the queue in the supermarket committed suicide so we could pay faster. Apart from that probably increasing checkout times for everybody -- just imagine the chaos -- we wouldn't even appreciate "the thought", we'd be like "how DARE you use me for this?". Most of us don't mind being catered to or even pampered, but we don't want others to just throw themselves away for us. There are limits, even though it's kind of invisible most of the time, there is a line where hurting ourselves too much to help others a little bit actually hurts society, and offends others, correctly so.

Last but certainly not least: this over-the-top, dysfunctional selflessness in the sense of having no self (or rather, not respecting one's self) attracts not only knights in shining armour, but mostly baaaad types. You might say abuse breeds abuse in that someone who for some reason is playing doormat is emitting pheromones for people who like to trample on others. I really don't mean this to victim blame at all, but it's sadly true. And the less you let others violate your boundaries, the clearer your sight becomes for what you can freely give for mutual benefit. E.g. don't spend 2 weeks to save someone 5 minutes, but do spend 5 minutes to save someone 2 weeks.

TL;DR: you can't be a good friend to others without being a good friend to yourself first.

relyio 2017-05-25 19:00 UTC link
I was explaining this point of view to a good old aunt of mine one afternoon and she exclaimed: “But, Joe, it is so selfish for a man to put his work ahead of everything! It’s unchristian.”

“On the contrary, it is Christian in the very finest sense,” I replied. “What was it that Jesus said when his parents rebuked him for his failure to keep his engagement with them on that first journey down from Jerusalem? ‘Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?’ He demanded. He had work to do — great work and little time in which to do it. Even He was no exception to the eternal rule that achievement comes only through the subordination of every power to a great ideal; and that no man is really obliging who does not first discharge in full his obligations to his work.”

graphitezepp 2017-05-25 19:04 UTC link
As someone who trends towards heavily accommodating, I often seem to find my actions that I judge as selfish or arrogant are the ones that I get respect for. Definitely a phenomena I don't understand, but its real so it should be very valuable to learn where to draw the line.
exclusiv 2017-05-25 19:42 UTC link
I'd consider myself accommodating and people often come to me for all sorts of advice. Or help with their new amazing idea. It's nice having a reputation of being able to do a wide variety of things, including building companies which many people fantasize about. I have a successful SaaS with a partner that brought me an idea/opportunity because I had built a reputation as collaborative/knowledgeable/accommodating. I'll invest my time and expertise to explore opportunities and people know I'm candid.

However, I get ideas brought to me from everywhere, incl. friends of friends of friends. I'm happy to provide detailed thoughts and notes but now I make sure to challenge the person and the idea.

If it's a good idea, I want them to do some work upfront before I put anything else into it. Sad to say that most people start really excited about their idea, then I'll note that there are companies doing the same or nearly the same thing already, that they need to differentiate, what it's going to take to compete, etc and they will get completely deflated. Most of the time there's no follow up. That's why most people can't be entrepreneurs.

I've helped out way too many people in the past only to have them give up so easily. So if you're in this camp - I'd recommend challenging those that want your help - it's a great filter and also a way to say yes and no at the same time. You'll end up wasting less time and you'll still be open to great collaborations and more rewarding experiences from helping others out.

Mz 2017-05-25 19:49 UTC link
Something I have concluded: Genuine respect is a two way street. People expecting things they won't equally do in return are not expecting you to respect them. They are expecting you to kowtow to them and be their bitch.

Those people can go to hell. They will never give back. They do not for one minute believe in a social contract where both people invest in the relationship. They are just using you. Doing anything for them just signals that it is okay for them to use you. This is a terrible social contract to make.

You can still do nice things for other people because it serves something you believe in. Just don't agree to be anyone's bitch, ever, for any reason.

zekevermillion 2017-05-25 20:17 UTC link
This rings a bit hollow to me, kind of reminds of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" -- a moral play, a fictional story passed off as autobiographical. Aimed to enforce our self-doubting instinct that we are somehow being a chump and letting society take advantage of us. Taking this literally is a path to regrets.
stvnchn 2017-05-25 20:27 UTC link
> “You are thirty-five years old,” I said to myself. “More than half of your life has already been spent. Who is living your life, anyway? Is it actually yours? Or is it a kind of public storehouse of odd jobs? A pile of days and hours put on the counter of the world with a sign inviting every Tom, Dick, and Harry to take one?”

This was probably the best part for me. We have longer life spans and so we trick ourselves into thinking that we have more time to waste on things we don't really want to do. We can procrastinate all we want but in the end, we still come back to this question without a single clue of how to answer it.

DubiousPusher 2017-05-25 20:43 UTC link
I have had a very similar realization regarding customer service. I used to think manners obliged me to be patient on the phone or at the customer service counter. That I should jump through all the hoops put before me. And finally if the outcome put before me was unsatisfactory that I should accept it and move on. But I've come to see that customer service is just as much something I'm paying for as the root service or good I'm buying.

Furthermore, the notion that an acceptable remedy to the problem that a company cannot have it's shit together enough to adequately service the occasional difficulties surrounding the transactions of its products is to impose upon me has become unacceptable in my mind.

I know this is going to sound entitled but think of it this way, it is also an entitled position to assume people should be obliged to fill out forms, perform extra steps or wait in line because of a mistake a company has made.

I'm not encouraging anyone to treat people like garbage but my threshold for corporate BS has become extremely low and I ask for issue escalation pretty fast if a company isn't fixing a problem.

manmal 2017-05-25 20:53 UTC link
For anybody learning to say "no" currently - learn to say "no" gently and kindly. I'm quite bad at this myself. I let people impose stuff on me, and once I have had enough, I have a very rude way of telling people off. One reason for this rudeness is a fear that I will lose something when declining (e.g. a relationship or money), so I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place - I don't want to help, but I feel I should not decline. Most of the times, my rudeness while finally saying "no" is out of place, e.g. when my fiance needs something from me that actually makes sense, or a customer who needs some small task that they would actually pay for.

Watching other people (esp my fiance) saying "no" ever so gently has me wondering how easy life could be if I were able to do the same. I'm practicing it, and I think I'm getting better at it. Telling the other person the root cause why you say "no" helps a lot to instill empathy for your situation. The root cause always stems from a need or necessity that you currently have, like need for rest/food/time to think/time to finish this or that task properly/... Even if you are lazy and simply don't want to help right now, remember that this laziness also fulfils one of your needs - probably you need to rest or think.

ADDED: Telling people that you just cannot help _right now_ also softens the blow. Also, if it's a customer then delaying might even be more beneficial than just declining - you might need the billable hours in the following week.

komali2 2017-05-25 20:54 UTC link
His drug store father example struck me - I don't really experience this "service worker" thing anymore, even when I was a service worker.

It seems to me the playing field is being extraordinarily leveled. When I was a bagger at a grocery store, nobody looked down on me. Maybe because of my town, but I was never expected to "serve" someone's whims - I was just expected to do my job, and when I did my job people thanked me.

Now whenever I'm out and about getting a thing done, I don't think of the people "serving" me as "serving me." I'm at the mechanic's, I'm pinging him for his expert advice. I'm at the carwash place, I'm asking them if they wouldn't mind doing the interior windows for a bit extra, etc.

Maybe I just am very lucky that I never underwent the brunt of service work torture because of my town, but is it still a "thing" to be asked to do a bunch of random shit at the convenience of others? Am I just so lucky in all of my jobs that everybody is respectful of eachother an their time?

makecheck 2017-05-25 22:37 UTC link
Part of the problem is that “good manners” only seem to be considered in one direction. It is time to redefine “rude” to include people that do not know how to communicate their needs very well and/or are just super-entitled.

Why am I the one considered “impolite” by not dropping everything and helping you immediately, if you haven’t bothered to do things like:

- Indicate everything you have tried already (or worse, you haven’t done any basic research yourself)?

- Consider the possibility that I can’t respond instantaneously because my Inbox has dozens of other items already? Or that I didn’t answer my phone or your text because I was actually busy, or in a bathroom, or due to some other totally reasonable explanation?

- Consider that you are basically asking for free help, when there are people who pay for my time?

- Show even the slightest interest in helping others yourself?

erkaes 2017-05-25 23:01 UTC link
I was an accommodating person until I realize what people value is not you doing what they want when they ask you. But it is when you doing something with them or for them with a motivation from within yourself, just because you want to or just because you feel like to or just because you think they deserve it or something like that.

To them I am just an all nice fellow who is kind to everybody. I earned their gratitude but not their love and in the process I hurt people that truly care and love about me.

ge96 2017-05-26 03:38 UTC link
Man, I'm a person that can't seem to say no.

Always eager to please other people before I even think about how it will affect me. Would you like to work two doubles in a row and potentially go insane? Ah sure... sure I'd love to!

Hey man, I'd like to catch this bus so I don't walk 6 miles home "Oh sure but before that, can you do this one thing..." ahhhhh

What happens when you let people walk all over you. It's funny too when I observe other people say no or F-off, people remember that and don't ask them to do things... hahaha. Ah well.

Someday my balls will drop.

balabaster 2017-05-26 13:57 UTC link
Wow! This thought thread is a what's what on the list of horrifying and inauthentic bullshit.

When did we lose the ability to have authentic relationships?

If someone needs your help and you have the capacity to help and they haven't burned you in the past, why not actually be human and help them? Perhaps one day you'll need help and they'll return the favour. If they don't without good reason, then next time say "hey, you know what, I was there when you needed help last time and when I needed help you were nowhere to be found, you flaked out on me because you didn't take my needs seriously." or whatever.

If you're hanging out with flaky people who give you bullshit excuses for not helping you out when you genuinely need help and you're not helping out when they genuinely need help then you don't have friendship, you have acquaintances.

Being a friend is being there when your friends need you and your friends being there when you need them. If one side of that relationship isn't being honoured, it's not friendship. One or the other of you is taking advantage of boundaries that aren't being enforced or respected.

Kudos to everyone for wanting more time for themselves to find value in what they do but when you get to the pinnacle of whatever it is you're doing and you realize you've cast aside your friends and relationships for whatever shiny thing it is that currently has your attention, I hope the shiny thing is more valuable to you than your friendships, because you'll have none.

Addendum: I don't want to devalue those that are selfless and just trying to scramble back a bit of time for their own selves, I get it, I'm an introvert, I need time for myself to do my own things too, but don't lose sight of the fact that human connection is where happiness and love lays. If the giving of yourself to make those you love happy isn't making you happy, then you should probably closely examine the quality of those relationships and either fix them or end them so you are.

will_pseudonym 2017-05-25 18:28 UTC link
There's a great 5 minute clip of the clinical psychologist and professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson talking about the dangers of being too agreeable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVMvQhxN_M8

iamacynic 2017-05-25 18:30 UTC link
the trick is to finely calibrate your bullshit meter through life experiences.

what people tend to respect innately is a genuinely nice person who can instantly turn into a no-holds-barred asshole if bad intentions are detected.

will_pseudonym 2017-05-25 18:35 UTC link
Well, there's also the fact that the best doctors are the most in demand, so a doctor who isn't busy isn't that in demand, which is a good indicator that he isn't the best.
theoh 2017-05-25 18:54 UTC link
"Introspection" is not usually associated with standing up for yourself or your needs. It just means looking inward, which does require that you not be run off your feet taking care of others, but I've never heard it used to refer to the tactics necessary to acquire that space. "Self-advocacy" is one phrase that might be close. Or assertiveness?
nostrademons 2017-05-25 19:14 UTC link
You want to compromise on the stuff that other people find important and hold fast on the stuff that you find important. Goes for both relationships, friends, teammates, and business associates.

Most people come into the world assuming that their desires are everybody's desires. We live life by the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This obscures that there's often a wide variety in the things we would like others to do unto us, and that assuming everybody wants what you wants often leads us to do exactly what they don't want.

It was a revelation when my therapist told me "You need to show love in the ways that other people want to receive it, not the way you want to send it." It hadn't really occurred to me before then that things I considered really inconsequential - checking if she got home okay, or leaving the porch light on for her at night - might really matter to my girlfriend (now wife), or that things that I considered really important - like listening to my latest theory on reality, or showing enthusiasm when I show her my latest product demo - might be considered inconsequential by her.

Many people have this intuitive idea that service & favors are a zero-sum game, but in actuality, some actions cost you a lot less than the recipient benefits from them, and some cost you a lot more than the recipient cares. It makes a lot of sense to perform favors that are cheap for you but benefit the recipient a lot. It's on you to figure out how much the recipient cares and how much time & energy you can spare for them.

rdiddly 2017-05-25 19:20 UTC link
Put it in the context of dominance and submission among apes and it becomes clear. The one who does nice things for you is displaying a submissive posture and trying to win your favor. They are probably your social inferior: beneath you in the hierarchy, or at most, a peer. The one who doesn't care about you and does what he wants, shows that he's above you in the hierarchy. And some people just can't resist their internal ape tendency to think "wow that's sure an impressive alpha ape right there." But some, who consider themselves alphas themselves, will take it as a challenge. Etc. etc. etc. All somewhat dreary thoughts in the light of soaring techno-optimist talk about the glory of the human spirit, but I think we're all still apes and I've said so, enough times on HN, that I'm at risk of becoming known as the "ape guy."

Manners are in fact detailed prescriptive means & methods for being submissive, or rather for sending submissive signals, as the default behavior in societies where there are more humans living together than normal, i.e. anytime after 1800 when the population really started to shoot upward and to urbanize. It ends up being very practical to train people to be submissive in an urban industrial society, because if you have a thousand supposed self-declared alpha-apes constantly fighting it out "out there," things become a mess very quickly.

Edit: to the respondents, I am intentionally keeping morality out of it (decency and so forth), because a strictly moralistic right/wrong judgment-based view didn't seem to be enhancing the parent's understanding. But dominance & submission, like morality, is just another narrow rubric for viewing the world, doesn't describe the whole world, and isn't the only way of describing the world. So it's best not to take it too far beyond a blurry big-picture view!

drunken-serval 2017-05-25 19:24 UTC link
Might want to read the entire article, it discusses that. The original author was more charitable and more effective in his charity towards others in the end.
metaphorm 2017-05-25 19:37 UTC link
yep. it has become a weasel word where the speaker means to say "agreeable" but knows that "reason" has more social status than "agreement" in most contexts.
abandonliberty 2017-05-25 19:41 UTC link
Accommodation and compromise are zero sum. You're leaving a lot on the table if that's the extent of your paradigm.

Here's a sample model: http://righttojoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Assertive-v...

Collaboration is value-generating. It takes more effort and yields more return. Rather than 'pushing back' you work together to understand what is important to each party and find ways to meet those needs. This must be built on an equal foundation - your needle in the middle - for most effective good-faith negotiation. Your partner needs to be reasonably intelligent and reasonable for this to work.

You need to teach people what's important to you, rather than expecting them to read your mind.

Highly recommend the negotiation book 'Getting to Yes' for a thorough treatment of these concepts.

brookside 2017-05-25 20:05 UTC link
These types of arguments on whether something is or isn't Christian or so prevalent on my FB feed, especially in regards to current politics, even being posted by non-Christians trying to convince their Christian relatives and friends to renounce a policy or politician.

My take would be - this is arguing within a nonsensical framework, and we are prolonging the hopefully last stages of the superstitious demon-haunted world era of humanity.

incongruity 2017-05-25 20:12 UTC link
I'd argue being able to know what you need is actually the critical part of the marriage – standing up for it is only one route – but it's the self awareness (or lack thereof) that seems to drive so many relationships (marriage and business) into the ditch.

So, I think your point really was spot on. Introspection is critical.

Karunamon 2017-05-25 20:16 UTC link
This comparison falls apart the moment you're talking about matters of moral, conscience, or basically anything that doesn't have an epistemologically solid answer.

People can debate these issues, arrive at different answers, and still get along at the end of the day.

When those issues are compared to math, where one side is automatically Right and the other side is automatically Wrong and you are Unreasonable if you don't agree... not so much.

A part of being a reasonable person is recognizing this and understanding that the process you went through to arrive at the opinion you hold is not even a little bit comparable to the rigor and certainty of the answer to a child's math problem. The comparison is inherently dishonest.

anigbrowl 2017-05-25 20:27 UTC link
Unsure why you're being downvoted; this is one of the best comments on the thread (and I remember this story from the last time it was posted).

You might say abuse breeds abuse in that someone who for some reason is playing doormat is emitting pheromones for people who like to trample on others.

This is absolutely true. Perhaps some readers were confused by your metaphorical use of 'pheromones' to mean signalling in general. A great example of this is griefing behavior in MMORPGs (and trolling in general, but in games it's already quantified and thus far easier to measure). Most games implement some sort of safe zone and/or NPC policing function to prevent griefers from hassling new players to the point of wrecking the game, which is the griefers' underlying and often unconscious objective (so as to 'own' the territory of the game space even if this is poisonous to the growth of the player pool).

Denied the ability to pick on newbies, griefers then usually collect in small packs and lurk around entry-exit routes to danger zones (whether from NPCs or territorial conflict) where there's a possibility to target outcoming damaged players or incoming ones pushing up against their skill envelope. Griefers like to think of themselves as apex predators, but typically lack the self-discipline and strategic vision required to organize as such, so more often than not they occupy the same environmental as scavengers such as hyenas, vultures etc.

I haven't kept up with the latest research on this, but I recall that EVE had an economist on staff several years ago and I'd imagine that the larger participants in that market are open to or already working with sociologists, game theorists, and other quantitative social scientists to better understand the dynamics of their virtual ecosystem.

For 'nice' players (in games and in life) who don't comfortably slot into large teams, the usual advice is to be more of an asshole. And while that's partly true, being an armored up lone wolf will only take you so far. Unless the system as a whole is dysfunctional, individual lone wolves are never competitive against anything bigger than a small-medium team. However, lone wolves can team up and be very effective; to do so they (obviously) have to overcome significant trust barriers, but can succeed by maintaining smallish flat structures and growing hierarchies below those.

c3534l 2017-05-25 20:36 UTC link
That line struck me as unexpectedly grim. You forget that it used to be most people didn't make it to retirement.
watwut 2017-05-25 20:38 UTC link
Do you have a concrete example?
watwut 2017-05-25 20:51 UTC link
On the other hand, you have all those non-accommodating nerds who wonder why their more accommodating colleges with less skills are being promoted.

Also: the busiest doctor in town is the one who did not said "no my schedule is full" despite being overworked already.

astockwell 2017-05-25 20:56 UTC link
Indeed, as Mark Manson puts it[1]: "For a relationship to be healthy, both parties need to be able to both give and receive rejection". Eye-opening for me, and explained many of the unhealthy relationships in my life (including employee-employer dynamics).

[1] https://markmanson.net/books/subtle-art (quasi-NSFW)

watwut 2017-05-25 21:06 UTC link
I found it oftentimes easier to say no without saying reason. The issue for me was that when I state reason, people wanted to negotiate, attempted to "advise" me on how organize my time better and so on and so forth. Overtime (at least against many people) I found it much less draining to simply insist on politely stated no without further explanation.
tnecniv 2017-05-25 21:21 UTC link
I worked at a restaurant for a while and had a similar experience. I had no bad experiences with customers like the horror stories you always hear.
lomnakkus 2017-05-25 21:21 UTC link
Maybe I'm off my rocker, but isn't this exactly what "white lies"[1] were invented for?

You don't actually always have to be 100% truthful with everyone. (That will also serve you badly in other social situations, BTW.)

[1] Point being that even if people eventually find out that you did tell them a "white lie", they'll actually usually be very understanding because that's the societal norm and they realize that you were just trying to "spare them" from embarassment/awkwardness/losing face/whatever.

lacampbell 2017-05-25 21:25 UTC link
I often seem to find my actions that I judge as selfish or arrogant are the ones that I get respect for.

A lot of timid people are attracted to strong people. You say the things they wish they had the bravery to say, and they respect it. It's aspirational.

therealx 2017-05-25 21:29 UTC link
I've been using this to great benefit also - require the person to put a decent amount of effort into the idea first. Some people resent you for it, but those that are destined to succeed and are able to make it will keep persevering.

I used to not do this and wasted a lot of time in the process. Do you find it hard to shake the reputation you had from before? I know I do.

dwaltrip 2017-05-25 21:32 UTC link
We can view it as containing slivers of truth, and then look at how to best extract those slivers and strengthen our mental models with them.

Of course, this is a lifelong and error-prone process :)

groby_b 2017-05-25 22:00 UTC link
No tip: Say "No, but..."

I.e "Can you just take on $LARGE_TASK?" -> "No, I'm currently overbooked. But I can put you in contact with X, who might be able to help"

"Can you fix dinner?" -> "No, I need to wrap this up. Maybe we can cook something together after?"

It doesn't always work - sometimes a plain no is really called for - but in many cases, it takes off the pressure of flatly declining.

DeuceDaily 2017-05-25 22:22 UTC link
I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention. Would you mind just putting in a ticket?
maxxxxx 2017-05-25 22:36 UTC link
"I went from being an accommodating person to an intense asshole "

I have gone through the same process. Maybe it's because I am getting old, meditation or I just don't care anymore, I have slowly learned what's really important to me. I am generally pretty accommodating but for some things I won't negotiate and just say "No" without any further explanation.

This seems to work reasonably well with most people.

I don't really know what I am trying to say but maybe it's to have your priorities figured out and be flexible with unimportant stuff but firm with important stuff. That is, stuff that's important to you, not somebody else.

ericd 2017-05-25 22:55 UTC link
Yeah, this might be an locality dependent culture thing.
draw_down 2017-05-26 00:18 UTC link
I agree with you, but I think it's important not to take the bait. If someone is implying you're a rude person for not doing what they want, and you know you're not that, you can simply disregard. What they think of you is their problem and not yours. Always maintain the frame of what you think is right and what is best for you, and do not buy into their frame.

Of course, it gets trickier in different situations for different reasons. But basically, people try to use shaming and emotional blackmail to get what they want, don't let them.

One other thing: I think about the fundamental attribution error / actor-observer bias a lot. You're an asshole because you won't do the thing I want, but when someone else asked me for a thing and I said no, it was because I was busy and etc etc. This dynamic influences so much of what people think about others and themselves.

Bakary 2017-05-26 01:29 UTC link
One method I found works disturbingly well is to have a busy life or cultivate the appearance of a busy life. It's counter-intuitive for some and obvious for others, but people will value you more if you are less available whereas they will treat your time with increasing contempt if you can be reached and interrupted easily.

With this reputation in place, people are much less likely to try to trick you into doing what they want, and more likely to try to get you to do things with them.

You have to be a little careful though. If you don't have much social capital to begin with, it could backfire into being ignored altogether. If you overdo it, it may also be counterproductive.

im3w1l 2017-05-26 03:47 UTC link
If you have a strong bias towards accomodating, then the rare instances where you choose a different approach are presumably ones where it is strongly called for. It would make sense that you get respect for taking the right course of action.

Someone who is almost always selfish may find they are the most respected when they accomodate.

Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.65
Article 16 Marriage & Family
High A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.65
SETL
ND

The essay explicitly prioritizes family relationships and advocates for recognizing family obligations as a person's chief duty.

+0.60
Article 4 No Slavery
High A+ F+ P- C+
Editorial
+0.60
SETL
ND

The essay explicitly describes exploitation as a form of servitude and advocates for freedom from unlimited accommodation demands.

+0.50
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay
High A+ F+ P- C+
Editorial
+0.50
SETL
ND

The essay advocates for fair working conditions and freedom from customer exploitation; it critiques how workers' time and energy are stolen for non-essential demands.

+0.45
Article 6 Legal Personhood
High A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.45
SETL
ND

The essay advocates for recognition of each person as a full individual deserving respect as a person in their own right.

+0.40
Article 24 Rest & Leisure
High A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND

The essay explicitly advocates for control over one's time and rest, emphasizing that time and leisure are essential to human well-being.

+0.35
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.35
SETL
ND

The essay advocates for recognition of human dignity by critiquing reduction of persons to functional roles.

+0.30
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
ND

The essay explicitly discusses personal autonomy and the right to control one's own life and decisions.

+0.25
Article 5 No Torture
Medium A+ F+ P- C+
Editorial
+0.25
SETL
ND

The essay implicitly recognizes that exploitation inflicts emotional and psychological harm—a form of degrading treatment.

+0.25
Article 29 Duties to Community
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.25
SETL
ND

The essay advocates for a balanced understanding of duties to community—one that preserves individual rights and boundaries while fulfilling genuine obligations.

+0.20
Preamble Preamble
Low A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND

The essay implicitly affirms human dignity through critique of being treated as a utility available for public use.

+0.20
Article 25 Standard of Living
Medium A+ F- P- C+
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND

The essay illustrates how exploitation and unreasonable demands prevent individuals from achieving adequate living standards for their families.

+0.15
Article 12 Privacy
Low A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
ND

The essay implicitly values privacy and autonomy over one's personal time and decisions.

+0.15
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
Medium A+ F+ C+
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
+0.09

The essay demonstrates free expression—a personal opinion piece shared without apparent censorship or restriction.

-0.15
Article 22 Social Security
Low F- P- C+
Editorial
-0.15
SETL
ND

The essay illustrates the failure of systems to provide adequate living standards, implicitly advocating for better protections.

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 14 Asylum

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 15 Nationality

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 17 Property

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 21 Political Participation

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 26 Education

Education is mentioned briefly in passing but is not a focus of the essay.

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

Not addressed in content.

Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.10
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
Medium A+ F+ C+
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
ND
SETL
+0.09

The WordPress platform enables free publication of the author's views without institutional gatekeeping.

ND
Preamble Preamble
Low A+ F+ C+

The essay implicitly affirms human dignity through critique of being treated as a utility available for public use.

ND
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Medium A+ F+ C+

The essay advocates for recognition of human dignity by critiquing reduction of persons to functional roles.

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security
Medium A+ F+ C+

The essay explicitly discusses personal autonomy and the right to control one's own life and decisions.

ND
Article 4 No Slavery
High A+ F+ P- C+

The essay explicitly describes exploitation as a form of servitude and advocates for freedom from unlimited accommodation demands.

ND
Article 5 No Torture
Medium A+ F+ P- C+

The essay implicitly recognizes that exploitation inflicts emotional and psychological harm—a form of degrading treatment.

ND
Article 6 Legal Personhood
High A+ F+ C+

The essay advocates for recognition of each person as a full individual deserving respect as a person in their own right.

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 12 Privacy
Low A+ F+ C+

The essay implicitly values privacy and autonomy over one's personal time and decisions.

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 14 Asylum

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 15 Nationality

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family
High A+ F+ C+

The essay explicitly prioritizes family relationships and advocates for recognizing family obligations as a person's chief duty.

ND
Article 17 Property

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 21 Political Participation

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 22 Social Security
Low F- P- C+

The essay illustrates the failure of systems to provide adequate living standards, implicitly advocating for better protections.

ND
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay
High A+ F+ P- C+

The essay advocates for fair working conditions and freedom from customer exploitation; it critiques how workers' time and energy are stolen for non-essential demands.

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure
High A+ F+ C+

The essay explicitly advocates for control over one's time and rest, emphasizing that time and leisure are essential to human well-being.

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living
Medium A+ F- P- C+

The essay illustrates how exploitation and unreasonable demands prevent individuals from achieving adequate living standards for their families.

ND
Article 26 Education

Education is mentioned briefly in passing but is not a focus of the essay.

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order

Not addressed in content.

ND
Article 29 Duties to Community
Medium A+ F+ C+

The essay advocates for a balanced understanding of duties to community—one that preserves individual rights and boundaries while fulfilling genuine obligations.

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

Not addressed in content.

Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.46 medium claims
Sources
0.3
Evidence
0.4
Uncertainty
0.5
Purpose
0.8
Propaganda Flags
0 techniques detected
Solution Orientation
0.76 solution oriented
Reader Agency
0.6
Emotional Tone
solemn
Valence
+0.2
Arousal
0.3
Dominance
0.5
Stakeholder Voice
0.25 2 perspectives
Speaks: individuals
About: workersfamilycommunityemployers
Temporal Framing
retrospective long term
Geographic Scope
national
United States, Midwest
Complexity
moderate low jargon general
Transparency
0.20
✗ Author
Audit Trail 1 entries
2026-02-28 09:40 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.36 (Moderate positive)