[bryarcanium]

The subtler point of this article is that a simple no is a good test of your authority- service personnel, students, people he had power over; they had to except his "no." Girlfriend? Not so much.

The power in question isn't the added power of using the word- it's the way the word reveals the power dynamics at play. He didn't gain more authority by using the word; the word revealed to him his authority and its limits.

[caffeine]

Surely you must see the Tao in all this?

Reject duality. "Yes" and "No" create each other. They are both to be used, in harmony.

This article is really about honesty. Eliminating posturing and the little face-saving nothings from "No" half-way empowered the author. But at the end, he found it was not enough. Now, he must find honesty in "Yes."

[masklinn]

> they had to except his "no."

They didn't. They could have asked for explanations, justifications, clarifications. He might have given them or not, might have continued the conversation or not (as he notes he did with a student), but that doesn't mean they had to accept his "no" for an answer.

[bryarcanium]

Well, yes, they could have asked for any number of things, but the end decision still rested with him. Which means, yes, actually, they did have to accept his "no." If he refused to answer any further questions except with "no," they would have to accept that too.

I don't mean accept in the sense of "be at peace with the decision." I mean accept in the sense of "there ain't shit you can do about it, kiddo."

[pkulak]

Well, sure, no one _has_ to do anything if you take free will far enough.

[scott_s]

If you have the power to not clarify and walk away, they do.