[momokoko]

> in my experience, the latter is more effective at getting the best outcome, regardless of who is nominally at fault.

This is exactly my point. You are using politeness as a manipulative tactic to get your way.

Instead, realize getting the wrong order at a restaurant is an incredibly insignificant issue. There was never anything to be upset about in the first place. Regardless the outcome. If someone messes up your order you just say “Looks like we have the wrong order. We ordered X”. There is zero requirement of being polite or impolite unless your goal is to manipulate the situation for your own gain.

For example if you are trying to get your meal for free now or something else they did not immediately offer. If you are a decent human being, you’ll realize the free meal probably comes out of the server’s paycheck so you don’t push for it.

See, in this case it is your actions, not whether you are polite matters.

Of course, just being a jerk maniac and screaming at someone is awful. That is no different than trying to be polite for your own advantage. Both hurt people. I was not saying you should be a jerk or that being a jerk is okay. I’m saying you don’t need to be polite as much as you need to not hurt people.

[danparsonson]

> You are using politeness as a manipulative tactic to get your way.

That's a very cynical view and not what I'm talking about at all.

Yes, people manipulate other people using politeness sometimes. Being polite does not in general make a person manipulative.

> Regardless the outcome. If someone messes up your order you just say “Looks like we have the wrong order. We ordered X”

But... your example is a polite response, albeit impersonal. This is more or less what I would say. Do we have a different definition of politeness?

> I’m saying you don’t need to be polite as much as you need to not hurt people

I agree that trying not to hurt people is the right thing to do - but using the right language can be important in achieving that. Gentle language can reduce the pressure the other person is feeling if there is a problem to resolve. That's not manipulation, it's empathy.

You highlighted the phrase I used: "the latter is more effective at getting the best outcome, regardless of who is nominally at fault" - here I think we're just using language differently to each other. When I talk about getting the best outcome, I'm not talking about trying to trick someone into doing something for me. If I raise an objection, I have a specific outcome in mind - e.g. I would like my order to be fixed (and yes, this is a trivial example - in reality I would probably just eat what I'm given unless I don't like it, but in any case this is just a thought experiment). Having an outcome in mind and hoping for it to be a good outcome are not about manipulation; it's about understanding that some conversations involve transactions, and they can be concluded pleasantly and positively for all involved, or not. Manipulating someone in fact aims to achieve maximum benefit for one party at the expense of the other party, and even if it wears a "polite face" it is in fact the opposite of genuine politeness.

I feel like you and I probably actually agree but are just talking about slightly different thing. Otherwise I still don't understand what you're saying.

[alasdair_]

Your example of “Looks like we have the wrong order. We ordered X” seems perfectly polite to me.

You seem to have the opinion that basic politeness is manipulation. I suppose it can be construed as such but only in the sense that all communication is manipulation in some sense.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Here's one way to learn courtesy:

Deal with folks that are on the bad end of the stick, and consider violence to be an appropriate way to solve problems. Be someone that is trying to help them, which includes teaching them that there are other ways to resolve issues.

This kind of relationship means that we need to have an empathetic, respectful, authoritative aspect, but that we also need to realize that we could have a real, physical threat of violence directed our way, if we are not respectful and courteous (and sometimes, even then). We also need to not be doormats.

Teaches you to be polite, but firm, real quick.

[542354234235]

> If you are a decent human being, you’ll realize the free meal probably comes out of the server’s paycheck so you don’t push for it.

In the US, servers cannot be charged for free meals given out to customers. In some states, they could be charged for food mistakes, only if the mistake was directly their fault due to negligence.

> in my experience, the latter is more effective at getting the best outcome, regardless of who is nominally at fault.

> This is exactly my point. You are using politeness as a manipulative tactic to get your way.

They didn’t say the best outcome for them, they said the best outcome. Being polite and showing basic respect for others generally leads to better outcomes for everyone. You sound like how a robot might look at human interactions, not understand that humans are hardwired to be social animals and social interactions are not a calculated tactic to gain advantage.