Excellent example of how the general vicinity of 'expressing sympathy while maintaining disagreement' got poisoned, leading to the current problem. Any phrase which becomes commonplace for such usage is highly vulnerable to being turned into a verbal weapon, a mean joke. There are a variety of ways this can look:
"Pretending to express sympathy but actually expressing sadistic joy at your unhappiness."
"Pretending to express respect for your differing opinion, but actually expressing disdain and disrespect. Implying that you think the other is stupid and/or bad."
"Pretending to apologize, but actually indicating both that you admit you were responsible for the bad thing that happened to the victim and that you are glad you accomplished this harm. You defy the wronged party's, or some third party's, authority to attempt to punish you for your admitted wrongdoing, you disrespect/disbelieve their power to do so."
These things can be quite humorous because they violate the expectation that someone will be conciliatory and deescalating in the context of the present conflict, but this expectation is violated while the semantic content of the sentence remains the same.
Text-based communication over the internet makes this more of a problem, since verbal tone is missing and must be implied by context, so there is room for people to equivocate between tone-differentiated meanings or misunderstand each other due to wrong assumptions of tone.
Wait, if it doesn't deliver any suffering, how is something a weapon?
The best verbal weapons are ones that create plausible deniability, where the potential for threat/aggression/insult is almost certainly understood as such by the listener but is delivered in a way that could potentially be neutral or even positive. It leaves them impotent to respond to the threat/aggression/insult without risking looking foolish.
I'm not sure what you mean by "delivering suffering" here. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a put-down, a way of rolling your eyes at someone else's concerns while maintaining the plausible deniability you mention.
"Good luck with that" is more straight-shooting. It basically means I think you're about to screw up.
I didn't say it didn't deliver suffering. What I meant was, there is no form of verbal expression that cannot ever be used as a weapon against anyone. And I'll go further and say that if a bunch of people get together and say "this verbal expression is never a weapon", that dramatically increases the chances that it will be used as a weapon.
Looking back over our exchange, it appears I somehow missed the context of there being a "neutral observer" witnessing the exchange. My comment was basically nonsensical.
FWIW, I don't think your comment was nonsensical. But a remark to someone which they realise could be considered insulting, such as "Hope that helps", is often enough to poison the well and make for future suspicion even where there is no certainty an insult was intended
I think that the feeling of being insulted is almost entirely based on (your perception of) the other party's intent to insult you, and almost zero based on the actual words they said. (Of course, to some extent, this is how all language works.)
People often seem to have the impulse to try to enforce politeness by banning specific phrases, but this basically doesn't work, because that's mostly not how insults work. Maybe you get a short reprieve while all the would-be insulters create the common knowledge that some new phrase is now an insult, but it's an endless treadmill that causes more and more phrases to become insulting, which actually makes it harder to avoid accidental offense. (While simultaneously making the banned phrase even more insulting, because you're feeding the hyperstitious slur cascade.)
I think banning phrases is wrong but you need to recognize that language changes and if a certain phrase becomes common it will pick up additional meaning and you need to adapt to that. The reason "I'm sorry you feel that way" feels insulting is because it's literal meaning is an insult. Imagine if someone said "I'm sorry you're you". As others are saying there are lots of ways to not be sorry about things but the point is in those situations you don't apologize "I love you but I think it's better that I withhold the money from you", "many good people have done bad things or been part of bad movements", "I didn't mean to re-traumatize you"
Its literal meaning is NOT an insult. The literal meaning is sympathy.
Even your straw example of "I'm sorry you're you" is not an insult in its simple plain meaning, only by implication. It's insulting (in the likely context) because it implicitly assumes that we've already established that "being you" is bad. If we HAVE already agreed on that, then it's legitimately not insulting, and is simply an expression of sympathy (imagine someone complaining about their personal neuroses, and a friend consoling them). But if this sentence is the first time that's been brought up, then the implied assertion is probably insulting (firstly because I'm implying that you're bad, and secondly because I'm implying that this is so obvious that I don't need to establish it before building upon it).
I probably used literal wrong, I meant more like the plain reading in contrast to a phrase like "good luck with that" where it is only sarcasm that makes it an insult. I can't express sympathy, contrition, or regret for a good thing (in a plain reading) so by saying "I'm sorry for X" I am implying that X is bad. In the case of "you feel that way" or "you're you" I'm saying a specific characteristic of you is bad. I think of this as similar to the phrases "You're a jerk" or "You're whiny" sometimes you need to deliver hard truths but don't be surprised when people don't like it.
> so by saying "I'm sorry for X" I am implying that X is bad.
No, you can also imply that X is painful, and you feel sympathy for the person experiencing the pain. Just because it's painful for them doesn't mean it's bad in a moral sense. There's no judgment here.
My instinctive negative reaction to the phrase is because "sorry" in that context seems particularly non-genuine. A simple "I disagree with you" (respectfully spoken) is fine. Or perhaps "I'm sorry that we disagree." Or even "I'm sorry that I brought the subject up".
But being sorry for the impact of one's words on another person, without actually being sorry about anything you've done or said, is not meaningful, and I think that's what draws some ire?
To some extent it just draws attention to the fact that you're not sorry _enough_ to adjust your stance. If something I said hurt someone, and I felt kind of bad about it, but not enough to actually change my opinion, I don't think that counts as being sorry: After all, if I was truly sorry in a meaningful way, I would change my beliefs or behavior or whatever.
True! But in the event of a disagreement you are having one-on-one with another person, saying it about the words you just spoke and their reaction... obviously is not an "I'm sorry your dog died" context. In fact, treating it as such with the remove and passivity that involves is probably what draws people's anger; perhaps they see it like you would if someone crashed their car into yours and said "oh boy, sorry you have a busted car, also I take no responsibility"
I guess it's not surprising that somebody would be angry if another who they view as having harmed them takes no responsibility, but sometimes it just is the case that that person's *correct and valid* position is "I will take no responsibility."
Yes, of course that's true. And in that case that's an irreconcilable difference between those people on that subject. That's fine. But it does not make clear why the phrase is useful or good at its job to convey, as Scott intends essentially "I still respect you and don't wish you ill, but do not back down on what I've said" - I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong.
And again, this is not a moral judgment on the person refusing responsibility. If you get in a simple argument with someone where you believe you are right while that person takes everything personally and acts like you're doing them emotional harm, I absolutely support not taking responsibility and walking away. But I would not claim to respect that person.
If you only respect people who are 100% reasonable on every issue then you don't respect anyone. People aren't robots, almost everyone is going to have issues where they're overly sensitive due to personal experience. You can absolutely still respect someone while telling them "your reaction here is unreasonable."
From my perspective, if I have a strong negative emotional reaction and the response is "your reaction here is unreasonable" from someone who claims to respect me, unless I *agree* with them (which I might, depending on the subject), then of course I'm going to think that they're only being more disagreeable, not less.
In Scott's first instance, "You don't love me!" if you refuse to give them drug money is not about their genuine emotions, it's about trying to manipulate you. So I don't see why you should even say "I'm sorry" in "I'm sorry you feel that way", because you have nothing to be sorry about.
"If you loved me, you would enable my self-destructive behaviour and do yourself harm in the process" "It's because I care that I'm not going to do it, and I'm not sorry about that".
> I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong.
I'm a little confused about this sentiment as I think it would be even more important when married to be able to see from one another's perspectives, no? Do you have an example of when one party is feeling emotionally hurt by the other (enough to say so) and the other is only able to feel "sorry they feel that way"?
I think the people closest to us are likely to inadvertently cause pain, but I generally think that should come with willingness to apologize and understand the other's perspective (on the part of the offender) or willingness to accept they're overreacting or uncharitably interpreting what was said (on the part of the offended), one or the other as the situation calls for. If conflicts just stop with one person expressing hurt and the other "not apologetic sorry", that seems miserable.
Sometimes you are legit hurting them but also it's not wrong for you to do so. An easy example is breaking up with your girlfriend--you're hurting her, she's sad, but you're not doing something wrong, this is a decision you are allowed to make. You can be sorry she is sad, you can be sad too, and you can still be making the right decision.
And there are many things like this. Informing you that you didn't get cast in the play will make you sad and hurt you, as will telling you you're fired because you're not getting your work done, or a judge telling you you're sentenced to a year in the county jail for your DUI. But all of those are legitimate and necessary things. A little extra courtesy of saying "sorry this is so hard for you" doesn't hurt.
"I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong." - boop
I find myself in disagreement here. I've had people tell me that me spending time with a 3rd party was harmful to them. They believed said 3rd party was a "toxic person" any my association with 3rd party caused harm to my friend. I respect my friend, and according to them I was causing them harm and absolutely could have stopped. But expecting me to change who I associate with simply because of your preferences isn't acceptable.
Conflict is not abuse. Harm is in the body of the harm-beholder as much as it's from the harm-creator.
Hmm. I question the definition of respect everyone is using. I think it can mean 'generally like and admire' but it can also mean 'regard their wishes highly'. In this case I'm thinking of it as the latter.
Like, if my acquaintance put me in that position I wouldn't appreciate it. I don't rate their desires over mine.
However, if my fictional brother's wife cheated on him, I would not want to maintain a friendship with her out of respect for him even if I previously liked her. I'm not sure that's true of all my friendships; if I met someone new and they demanded I drop a friend because that friend had cheated on them, well, I likely wouldn't on the spot. Given the variance, I would have to admit I must respect (in the sense of "their feelings are very important to me") some people more than others.
I also think sometimes it is okay to incidentally cause harm. If you are behaving in a reasonable way and other people are harmed merely by what you do with your own time, separately from them, having made no promises to them, that really is their problem. But again, in my view that comes with a lowered respect for them. It's difficult to essentially think "well, if they're sad about this that's on them being nuts, I'm still not budging" and claim to hold them in high esteem.
>I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong.
You only feel sympathy for people you respect?
You only respect people you agree with always?
Unrelated, but I will send you $10 rn if it turns out I'm wrong about your sex: 1000%, gotta be a woman. I cannot conceive otherwise
Advice on that situation is generally to say something like "Are you all right?". Which is probably closer to what you want to say anyway. The car's obviously busted, but hopefully the people are uninjured.
I think this is the cause of most of the friction. When someone says "I'm sorry you feel that way," the person on the receiving end us usually expecting an apology, and what they're getting is sympathy. If the person on the giving end isn't just being snarky, then what they intend to give is sympathy, not an apology.
Given this framing, maybe it is best to avoid the words "I'm sorry" if you mean to give sympathy but you suspect the other person wants an apology. To take the first example, maybe something like "I can see that you're upset by my answer, and I didn't intend to make you mad." But I took 5 minutes to think of that, rather than needing to come up with it in the moment, and I think it comes off condescending.
“I can see that you’re upset that your dog died. That is not my responsibility, and I won’t apologize for it.” I bet your kids love you!
I’m being snarky, but the words “I’m sorry” have been used in the English language for hundreds of years to be an expression of sympathy as well as an expression of contrition. Wokies are intent on redefining words to suit their narrow, rigid, radical ideology (see “woman”). The rest of us do not have to accept this attempt to redefine words to suit the desires of The Cult. “Sorry”!
Hence the qualification I included that you suspect the other person is expecting an apology. I would assume that someone's not expecting an apology for their dead dog.
Unless I hit them with my car, in which case an apology would be appropriate.
Yes, but surely it is a commonplace universal human social experience to have someone expect an apology from you when all they are due is sympathy. Ask a customer service rep about how many times someone has attempted to a used condom or whatever, accompanied by protests that they’ve been a faithful Trojan customer for 25 years and how dare you refuse to accept the return, and the rep has had no choice but to tell them, “I’m sorry, but Trojan company policy is not to accept returns of products that are full of jizz”. This is a normal, polite way to address someone who expects and apology but isn’t due one.
"I'm sorry your mom died" is also common and has been for a very long time, and it does not imply that you feel any guilt or contrition about the fact that you failed to invent a cure for cancer in time to save your friend's mom.
I feel that this goes way beyond apologies - many of the examples are not fully about the past but rather about something ongoing, and that the expectation is that there's some action which the other person wants you to do (or stop doing), and the major part of the response (however you word it) is that despite the acknowledgement and sympathy, you still consider that it is right and proper to *not* act in the way that the other person wishes or expects; that you sympathize with their feelings but explicitly refuse to do what they want to make them feel better.
Aside: I sometimes try to go back to the roots for this one to disambiguate and use "I'm sorrowed ..." instead of "I'm sorry ...", which is a bit awkward (because it's dated), but definitely helps differentiate it from an apology.
Eh, etymology doesn't stop you from using "I'm sorrowed". :) "I'm sorrowed" is a term that has historically been used for this use-case, regardless whether it's related to "sorry" or not.
I admit, I stole the first two from someone long ago, off the Internet. I wish I'd overheard what their "third type of sorry" was, but I did my best to make one up.
I think this double meaning is a big part of why people argue about the phrase. In the worst case it can be a kind of motte and bailey; the motte is "I just want you to say sorry to show that my feelings matter. A couple of words is not much to ask for." and the bailey is "I want you to say sorry as an acknowledgement that you were wrong and a promise to make up for it or behave differently in future."
Strictly speaking "I disagree with you" is not a valid response to "what you just said hurt my feelings". Are you disagreeing that you hurt their feelings? "I'm sorry you feel that way" is intended to convey "I don't like that I hurt your feelings but I don't think it is enough of a reason to take back what I said or change my stance".
Sure, fair enough. As a direct response, imo, "I don't enjoy disagreeing with you" as another commenter said suffices without being sympathy in the structure of an apology.
>without being sympathy in the structure of an apology.
...why should that be a bad thing?
In fact, your formulation is /worse/: not enjoying it isn't the same as being sympathetic over it. You *don't enjoy* putting down vermin. You're *sorry* you had to put Old Yeller down.
“ But being sorry for the impact of one's words on another person, without actually being sorry about anything you've done or said, is not meaningful, and I think that's what draws some ire?”
But it is meaningful. When I, e.g., refrain from loaning someone money, I genuinely regret not being able to help, and I actually grieve that the reasoning I give hurts their pride or offends them in some other way.
They may not believe this; they may think I get some sort of thrill out of denying them something or am completely uncaring. But I am not. I do in fact respect their feelings and wish them joy.
<When I, e.g., refrain from loaning someone money, I genuinely regret not being able to help,
But there must be occasions when you could part with the sum they ask for, but you are not willing to lend it. (And just to be clear, I am not criticizing you at all here for not lending the money.) So what is the nature of your regret then? It isn't that you couldn't help, because you could. It isn't that you wouldn't help, because you chose not to and do not regret your decision.
In the situations I’m thinking of, when I say I am “not able” to help I rarely mean that I don’t have the money. I mean that I am unable to help because I believe that loaning or giving money will not be helpful (e.g., will actually harm the recipient, or will reinforce a poor decision making process) or that it would violate a principle which I cannot violate to do so. I regret that these are the circumstances and that therefore I am unable to help.
I like the idea of “I’m sorry that we disagree.” There’s definitely a flavor in “I’m sorry you feel that way” of “…but it’s obviously just because you’re an idiot” that’s hard to avoid.
Yeah, thats way better. "Im sorry you feel that way" explicitly puts the responsibility on the other person, which you shouldnt do if you want to end the discussion peacefully. A lot like how people dislike Nonviolent Communication.
Uh... NVC would specifically endorse "I'm sorry that we disagree" and would specifically not endorse "I'm sorry you feel that way". Seriously. NVC puts a fair bit of energy into not describing (or projecting) other people's states of being, and instead describing your own feelings about facts and reality. That is actually pretty much the core of the whole NVC idea. That and some body language crap I kind of think is correct but too woo-woo to be useful.
So, I actually think you're right, it's a lot like how people dislike NVC... because they dislike a thing they don't understand!
I don't think NVC would endorse any response that begins with "I'm sorry...". It's fundamentally about hearing what's going on inside the other person, and letting them know that you hear that. "I'm sorry" goes wrong in two ways. First, it focuses on you when you probably meant to focus on them. Second, the way it's usually used, it's about rightness and wrongness, which gets in the way of "what's going on inside".
A fourth option that Scott didn't mention above is to stay firm in your position kind of like #3, but instead of talking about that at all, just actively listen to what the other person has going on. "Someone in your family died in the war?" "[trauma] happened to you?" And then, usually vert importantly, *silence*. Space. There's not really a goal with any of this, other than the common humanity that's possible when we listen to each other. Nobody has to be wrong or change their mind or whatever. You don't even have to bother with any of this if you're not feeling it. But it's a fourth option.
It is fun to have someone to discuss this with, I find the amount of allergy to NVC in my community so strong that I usually don't try to engage at all.
With that said: I think you're probably right that "I'm sorry" isn't perfectly formed, but my experience of NVC is you want to focus on emotions that are true for yourself, and I think "I'm sorry that we disagree" is pretty good. "Disagreement feels frightening to me, but I also think it's OK to disagree" is probably closer to the right framing.
Reflective listening seems like a *distinct* tool, which is good also, but I don't think is in conflict, you may want to do both (and as it happens, this particular technique has been anathematized in my subculture; it is of course best if you do it actively and don't include the trigger words "I hear you saying <verbatim>", but unfortunately folks in my circle are annoyed by the reflection even when done, I think, authentically).
Yeah I think there are kind of two sides to NVC, and I'm sure the same can be said of a lot of "people stuff". One side is "What are we really trying to accomplish here?" The core ideas, the main goals. This part of the internet likes to play the replace-the-word-with-its-definition game, and I think NVC is quite good at that game. The core ideas aren't attached too strongly to any particular words.
The other side is "How do we teach this?" The problem is that most of us have ingrained habits that are *incredibly* counterproductive for the main goals of NVC. Judgments, defensiveness, making demands, etc. Most of us have already put in our 10k hours of practice at being judgmental. We do it constantly, unconsciously, effortlessly, and out loud. Marshall Rosenberg, the original author of NVC, calls this sort of thing a "suicidal expression of an unmet need": we sabotage ourselves the most when we feel like we're fighting for ourselves. Getting people who've been at each other's throats for a few months/years to break some of those habits and listen to each other is long, hard work. Most of us are ok at it when we're thinking about other people's problems, but garbage-tier at it when we're dealing with our own problems :) So NVC has all these hacks, like the whole 4-step observation/feeling/need/request thing, to try to give people a doable first step. Usually it sounds super awkward, but maybe we can forgive beginners for sounding awkward. When you get good at it, and your mind naturally focuses on the core questions, it sounds a lot better. True of most things, I'm sure.
So to your specific situation, "I'm sorry that..." is definitely a taboo in NVC, and probably a taboo in a lot of therapy-talk-ish schools of thought for the same reason. It's *technically* a feeling, but it's got so much cultural baggage attached to it that we might as well make it an explicit Schelling point and build a habit like "Oops I said the thing, I should probably slow down."
I do think it's interesting an useful to notice that "I'm sorry that we disagree" is probably not an accurate description of what's going on in you. A lot of us actually *enjoy* debates and disagreements, when folks are feeling interested instead of angry. So in an unpleasant disagreement, it's probably more accurate to say "I'm afraid that you're going to feel angry and then say things to me that I don't want to hear." But like, is it socially normal to say that out loud? No of course not. In normal social situations, you probably want to keep that particular feeling to yourself, at least at first. But having at least noticed the feeling explicitly, it can naturally lead to some good-therapy-habit-building follow-up thoughts that most of us have heard before in lots of different places: 1) "If they get angry, that's not something wrong with me." 2) "If they get angry, that's not something wrong with them." 3) "Try not to offer solutions." Etc.
One explicit NVC hack that I like in situations like this is *guessing*, . "So you're...worried...that if ABC happens...then XYZ will get hurt?" "So you're...remembering when ABC said XYZ...and that still feels awful?" It's not quite the same as reflective listening, because the goal isn't just to parrot back the other person's words to them. Often the other person's story is wrapped up in the past and not making it particularly clear what they're worried/angry/sad/disgusted about in the present. You're trying to come up with a guess that the other person can agree with, and of course not some judgmental framing of what's wrong with them that they'll hear as criticism. But the key to the whole hack is, it doesn't particularly matter if the guess is *correct*. If the other person corrects you, that's just as good. Most of us (in genpop maybe more than in the ACX comments specifically) are pretty good at picking up sarcasm and judgment, and when we hear something that's genuinely not sarcastic or judgmental, it stands out. They can hear the effort that you're putting in, and that's more important than guessing right.
You got the analogy wrong. What being told "Sorry you feel that way" demands of you is like what *practicing* NVC demands of you. Do you see the primary complaint about NVC being about being spoken to that way, rather than not wanting to do it?
I just don't see why Scott thinks it's necessary to express sorrow specifically at the fact of the other person's feelings. As you say, it's just as easy, usually just as true, and far less likely to enrage the other person, to say "I'm sorry we disagree about this." This is mainly true, in my opinion, because "I'm sorry you feel that way" invariably translates to "I'm sorry you're wrong."
And on the other hand I also agree with Deiseach and others that sometimes even using the word "sorry" may be too conciliatory, as with the drug addict relative trying to guilt you into giving him money. Again it boils down to the appropriateness of saying something that boils down to "I'm sorry you're wrong"--in this case, what I'm really sorry about is the fact that the drugs have so deeply fucked up my loved one's rewards system as to obliterate their moral values such that they're now subjecting me to emotional extortion. I'm not sorry at all about refusing to submit to it!
Right. When you say “I’m sorry that…” you’re identifying the specific problem. I’m sorry your dog died - the problem is your dog died. Alternatively, if you say “I’m sorry you let your dog out without a leash”, you’re implicitly blaming the person for the dog’s death.
Similarly if you say “I’m sorry we disagree” you’re not putting the onus on either party. But if you say “I’m sorry you feel that way” you’re saying the problem is the way the other feels. You’re pretty directly saying “your reaction is bad”; and insofar as one does not choose their own emotions, you’re saying “I’m sorry you are the way you are”. Of course this is not conciliatory.
Contra Scott, there is no defense for "I'm sorry you feel that way" when it is in fact trivial to strike the desired conciliatory tone without embedding a passive-aggressive attack on the other person into your message OR backing down from your own position at all.
The main complaint about this expression is that it’s “not a real apology,” and that’s true, it isn’t. The error is in thinking it is therefore a fake apology. But it isn’t, because “I’m sorry” is not a statement of contrition, it’s a statement of sorrow. Somehow everyone has gotten confused into thinking an apology is the only correct use for that phrase despite the plain meaning of the words.
(Edit: It turns out, as people said in the replies, that I was mistaken in thinking there is a direct etymological connection between "sorry" and "sorrow," and one is not necessarily an expression of the other. I think the broader point stands that "I'm sorry" does not inherently imply contrition, but it is not necessarily implying sorrow either; it is a secret third thing.)
>“I’m sorry” is not a statement of contrition, it’s a statement of sorrow.
I generally agree, but - do you think there's been any shift over time in how people understand "I'm sorry"?
I feel like I've used the phrase "I'm sorry" my whole life to express sorrow but not contrition, e.g. "I'm sorry to hear your aunt is in the hospital". But only in the past few years have I started hearing a response: "it's not /your/ fault". Which, like, of course it's not my fault. I didn't intend that meaning of the phrase.
Either I've begun spending time with people who have a random quirk of communication, my memory is faulty and I've always gotten this response, or there's been some shift over time in what apologies are supposed to mean.
I think it started as an attempt at humorous misinterpretation/dad joke. Albeit frequently in contexts where that really doesn't feel appropriate, and comes across as a rebuff.
It's possible that someone young or socially awkward might genuinely misinterpret, but the average adult who's, e.g., been to a funeral has enough experience to recognize an expression of sympathy however they choose to respond. (Presumably they don't think they've heard serial confessions to homicide.)
> I think it started as an attempt at humorous misinterpretation/dad joke. Albeit frequently in contexts where that really doesn't feel appropriate, and comes across as a rebuff.
I agree, and I hate that (the feeling of rebuffedness). At some point I started always making sure to say “I’m sorry *to hear that*”, or some other phrase to disambiguate. Kind of like how I trained myself to say “difficult” instead of “hard” as a teenager, when my little brother was in his “that’s what she said” phase.
<i>I think it started as an attempt at humorous misinterpretation/dad joke. Albeit frequently in contexts where that really doesn't feel appropriate, and comes across as a rebuff.</i>
I think it's normally an attempt to lighten the mood a bit, by people who don't really know how to act when genuine tragedy strikes. (Not that I'm blaming these people; modern society really doesn't prepare us well for tragedy.)
I'm glad I'm not alone in noticing this. Today is the first time I'm connecting this observation with the "I'm sorry you feel that way" discourse. I wonder why or how this shift in meaning occurred.
It reminds me how one time I thanked a plumber who came to change the faucet in my kitchen. He told me that there was no need to thank him since he was only doing his job.
(I'd say it was generally irrelevant, but in addition he did his work professionally, was not rude &c and merited gratitude.)
That's largely just because someone thanks you, "you're welcome" seems weird when they're paying you money, "no worries, thanks for paying me!" is weird and almost status-grabbing and a silent, laconic nod takes a lot of confidence to pull off convincingly.
This might bleed into the "sorry" semantic shift, if "sorry" and "thank you" are both words to effect status transfers, "sorry" as compensation and "thank you" as reward (the equivalent of tipping someone). I've never felt that way when apologising or thanking someone, but it's the 21st century and I'm too atomised to consider myself in a status economy with the sorts of people I thank/apologise to.
That last point might explain why people don't like "I'm sorry you feel that way," as it's a fake status compensation, a bit like handing them a check for $0.
Status transfer, what? It's an expression of obligation. I say thank you, you know I appreciate your deed and you imagine you could ask for a favour in the future. Many interactions in the modern world are transactional and brief, but people don't just appear and disappear, you share a world, you don't know when you might encounter the same person again. Either way, the thank you is genuine, and people don't use it otherwise. Indeed, just like with tips. You wouldn't tip a waiter who had made your dinner a nightmare, or thank him otherwise.
This contrary to the ingenuine "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Either you don’t thank many people or you’re absurdly generous. Among friends, if I thanked someone I guess they could ask for a comparable favour then, but most of my thanking and being thanked is occupational or transactional (or spousal, where there’s a blank cheque for reciprocity anyway).
An “obligation” which implies future reciprocity is a form of social debt. Just as debt can be reified into money, obligation can be reified into status (“social capital” etc). I think “status transfer” is just the market version of “expression of obligation.”
Status is "social". My obligation to another individual isn't. Another individual is a part of society, but calling the obligation "social debt" is undue (I'd say) movement on an abstract dimension.
That’s fine, but you sometimes get profuse thanks at the job-complete, non-payment stage for something relatively routine, and want to shut the other person up out of social embarrassment.
Can we just agree the [modern] English is broken in this regard? You should have two different expressions for these two very different meanings, and indeed there are words for each - "I apologize" and "My condolences" e.g. - but I guess those are too many syllables or something and people are stuck with apologizing when someone they never saw dies from cancer.
Phrases that make the difference more clear, like "in a sorry state", have become less common since a while back. This might be the fallout catching up to us, as younger people who never heard those genuinely don't realize it ever had that meaning.
I'm sorry, but sorry and sorrow are not related words and do not mean the same thing. Sorrow has to do with sadness, while sorry is an expression of regret. An expression of regret does not imply that I feel any guilt or shame or even that I wished I had done differently.
It is fine. It means that I think it is not good that your dog died. It does not mean that I am admitting guilt for killing your dog, or that I personally am particularly sad that your dog died.
Okay, fine, I can accept that it points to this generalized sort of regret rather than just "anything I feel sad about." But that is sort of tangential to the point that it doesn’t imply contrition, which it seems like you agree with.
How do you think sorrow differs from regret? The definition necessarily involves something one has done or failed to do. You may use it differently, but that is not the common understanding. One cannot regret something they have no part in: "I feel regret for all those deaths" is very silly if you did not have a hand in them, while "I feel sorrow for" is not.
If you're making an etymological point, you're wrong. EDIT: My bad. They ARE unrelated.
Practically, yes, when someone says he's sorry for or about something, he probably isn't feeling particularly sad, but I'd say what the word still means, and it's just become the template for a standard polite lie.
*Sometimes* it means "it's unfortunate and makes me sad". Sometimes it means "I briefly considered offering an apology here but decided against it because you don't deserve an apology", and sometimes that last has an appended "...and I want you to know that, and everyone else listening too".
It sucks that literally the exact same words are used for all of these, and often in about the same context. But there's no way for the recipient to know what you meant, and if you meant the "I feel sad" version then you should perhaps find different and less ambiguous words.
Yes I agree. I think this specific phrase is burned into unusable and finding more specific wording, especially one that doesn't imply the offended party SHOULDN'T feel bad, is better.
Even when we do mean it as an apology: I kind of wish there were a phrase that meant “I’m sorry, it was an accident”, as opposed to “I’m sorry, I did something wrong; I realize that now and I’ll do better.”
But, of course, if this existed, it would be used in bad faith and then the distinction would collapse anyway.
Exactly. This should be obvious if you speak almost any other language, because you'd translate "I'm sorry that you feel that way" into something closer to 'it saddens me that you feel that way' than to 'I apologize that you feel that way'.
Well it's very confusing because "I'm sorry" means both things - sorrow and regret - depending on context. Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" in a context where an apology is expect understandably upsets people. If I wanted you to say "I'm sorry I was a jerk" and you say "I'm sorry you feel that way" I'm correctly interpreting that you're dismissing my concerns and don't regret what you did to me. That's the context in which I see people get upset over it most often, and it seems totally reasonable
If you want me to say "I'm sorry I was a jerk" and I say "I'm sorry you feel that way", I think you're correctly interpreting that I don't think I acted badly, but I don't think you're correctly interpreting that I'm dismissing your concerns. I might genuinely feel bad for your feeling bad, and wish that were not the case. I can simultaneously feel sorrow that what I did made you feel bad while not thinking that I did anything wrong.
Sure, but speaking personally, I often don't care that you feel bad. What I want is to know that you agree with me that you shouldn't behave that way, and to know that if we're faced with a similar situation in the future, you'll behave differently. If, instead, you say "I'm sorry you feel that way," you're telling me that this is the kind of behavior I can expect for the foreseeable future despite how it affects me
Yeah, I have this suspicion that a lot of people who think "I'm sorry you feel that way" is insincere just don't know what it's like to feel bad about someone's feelings when they don't think they did anything wrong.
But in that case, "I'm sorry you feel that way" was a very well chosen phrase, as it got the intended message across correctly and clearly - asserting that you don't consider that changing the behavior is appropriate and are refusing to do so is a key part of that response, and any alternative phrasing has to have that intent or it's not a suitable replacement.
i think a "i'm sorry you feel that way" or any other variant of the phrase only comes across as arrogant when it's written. i feel like saying it face to face seems different.
because the former gives you the option to immediately shut it down and then remove yourself from the conversation, while doing that in person isn't that easy and may help the other person elaborate their phrase into something more coherent and empathetic.
We should ebrace the adagio: "you will suffer and you will make other suffer".
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it. Or feel sorry when we do. Or try to communicate to others that while we stand by our decisions, we have tried to minimize everyone's suffering.
Otherwise we are just an hypocrite PoS - but no one knows.
I was confused by this for a moment, so it's maybe worth clarifying:
"Adagio" in Italian means (1) "slowly" (derived from ad + agio, at + ease) and (2) "adage" (derived from Latin "adagium", which is possibly ad + a word meaning to say yes).
The first of those -- the Italian word "adagio" with which English-speakers are familiar if they're into classical music -- does not have the same etymology as English "adage". The second one does.
So: yes, English "adage" and _an_ Italian "adagio" share an etymology, but it's not _the_ Italian "adagio" that 1123581321 was talking about.
The downside of “I’m sorry you feel that way” is that it doesn’t take responsibility for causing the feelings of the other person: it sounds like you’re expressing your sympathies for some unrelated problem they’re facing. But in fact regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them. So unless you consciously thought hurting people emotionally was worthwhile in this context, you’ve made some sort of mistake, and a more appropriate apology would be “I’m sorry for [offending/triggering/upsetting/etc] you”
“But in fact regardless of what views you have, it's possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them.”
Hard disagree. I think this is just obviously false, some people will feel hurt by the view itself regardless of the manner in which it is expressed. Sometimes it is only possible to choose between staying silent or hurting someone’s feelings, and sometimes on reflection the latter is the right choice. I can’t give a true apology for something I think was the right choice even if I wish there had been another one available.
Also, if you adopt the standard of "people should go to great lengths to express their opinions in a way that avoids hurting other people's feelings" then you provide an incentive for people to claim that their feelings are hurt whenever they encounter an opinion they disagree with.
"you provide an incentive for people to claim that their feelings are hurt whenever they encounter an opinion they disagree with."
And that's where the entire "I feel unsafe in this space (if that person is permitted to stay here/if those views can be expressed/if you don't agree with me 100%)" kind of manipulation comes from.
I do think people carry *some* responsibility for the way they express their views and the effect that has on people's feelings. And when you do screw up in that way, you should say something like "I'm sorry I said that in a needlessly upsetting way", rather than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
But yeah, I agree that this responsibility has clear limits.
Yeah, it's good to try to avoid putting on your extra-heavy boots and stomping on peoples' toes, and there are certainly plenty of people, in real-life and online, who take a positive pleasure in that sort of thing. But also, there are many topics where expressing your views, perhaps very defensible ones, will upset and offend and hurt some listeners. I'd say that is common in discussions of religion and politics, for example.
There's a related thing where your proposed policies would hurt someone. And that happens, and sometimes those are still the best policies, and you can say you're sorry for the impact that will have on some of the listeners without ceasing to support the policy. If you propose a policy that will double the income taxes I pay in order to support some huge new federal program, you are proposing to make me quite a bit worse off, to screw up my budget and make my life harder. That doesn't mean you must stop supporting the policy or apologize for supporting it, but it also doesn't preclude trying to be polite enough to acknowledge that this will actually impose hardships on people whose unhappiness matters.
tl;dr: some people at a party were telling stories about their pets past and present; an acquaintance who the commenter didn’t know well had recently lost their pet, and was very upset by the conversation.
As the commenter themself put it: “How do I apologize? I am not sorry that I was making conversation about old pets with a group of apparently interested people. I really do think that the topic was fair game for polite conversation.”
A lot of the responses to the thread, IMO, miss the point: i.e., that an apology for doing something unknowingly (essentially, causing an accident) is necessarily different from an apology for doing something that was unethical.
>Sometimes it is only possible to choose between staying silent or hurting someone’s feelings, and sometimes on reflection the latter is the right choice.
You don't even go far enough. Sometimes staying silent will still hurt someone's feelings, so it's only possible to choose between *lying*/*being a doormat* and hurting someone's feelings.
This is true, but also, we're always predisposed to think well of ourselves. Whenever Alice says something that hurts Bob, it's always tempting for Bob to feel like Alice should have stayed silent or phrased things better, and it's always tempting for Alice to feel like Bob is oversensitive or maybe even exaggerating.
The thing that it's tempting for you to feel is what seems like reality to you at the time. So the only effective rule to follow to avoid the temptation is to be kinder than necessary, even if the other person does not deserve it; to apologize for expressing your views badly, even if you did not express them badly; to forgive something that was said bluntly and hurt your feelings, even if it was obviously a bad idea to say.
It's not always the most important thing to follow this rule, of course. Kindness is only one of several considerations. But in order to be kind, this is the sort of rule we must follow.
This is clearly false and I know it because I've done it to people. There are times I've pressed someone close to me for their view on an issue -- making it clear I would be hurt if they didn't tell me -- and was then hurt because they did tell me.
This can happen when someone has an emotional need to feel like they aren't alone in believing or thinking something but they actually kinda are. Like when someone has been an asshole and is desperate for someone to be on their side and say they were right and brushes away your attempts to stay out of it.
And some of us really do value having the ability to ask for an honest opinion from a friend and -- if it matters enough to us to press past attempts to demure -- actually get it. So it really is impossible to avoid hurting someone like me in that situation. I'd be even more hurt if they refused to share an opinion after I really insisted.
That is it. "I'm sorry you feel that way" leaves out the important part of what makes it a genuine apology: "I'm sorry FOR WHAT I DID THAT MADE you feel that way".
The first is just "for some unknown reason you feel bad or offended or sad or angry, sorry for you!" and denying responsibility or blame. That is what makes it a fake apology. Who knows *why* "you feel that way", it could be that you are hysterical and over-react like that all the time, or that a cat jumped out of a tree onto your head, or the coffee machine was broken, or you lost your winning lottery ticket. Me? I did/said something that was hurtful and offensive? Oh no, that's not the reason at all!
I mean, but isn’t the point of “I’m sorry you feel that way” that it is explicitly phrased as NOT to constitute an apology? When I say that, I say it because I want the person hearing it to be clear that I am sorry but I refuse responsibility and I am not apologizing.
It’s not a fake apology because no apology is intended.
Pain is the price of engaging in social interaction while having gaping unhealed emotional wounds. That's on me. I shouldn't expect the rest of the world to accommodate me.
I think pain is the price of engaging in social interaction where there are any stakes higher than "I'd like a soy latte with an extra shot." If you can benefit from the interaction, you can probably be hurt by it.
> "But in fact regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them."
This framing forces you to take responsibility for everybody else's emotions, and implies that everybody else should take responsibility for yours.
As others have pointed out, this structurally favors the aggreived, with all the problems that entails. And that's not to mention the external emotional locus of control it assumes and the problems that lie therein.
That's not the downside, it's the whole point of the expression.
Because sometimes people are offended by something you said without having done anything wrong. I could give many examples of factual claims being considered offensive.
And then you need a way to deflect the implicit accusation of having done something wrong without looking mean.
Its not a binary thing though. "Im sorry you feel that way" explicitly denies responsibility. You can usually avoid that without explicitly accepting responsibility - just leave it open, if you dont want to fight that fight right now.
No, I'm just apparently barking up the wrong tree; I have a giant hateboner for what Zvi calls "immoral mazes" and those sufficiently steeped in such mazes sometimes actually do mean "need" in such sentences due to the shame-society-like attributes of mazes.
If you think I'm just being pedantic, then you presumably didn't intend that connotation, hence: I apologise for the unnecessary moral rebuke.
> But in fact regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them.
You seem to be saying that there are no people who care about the substance of your views.
I tend to think the opposite is the case; mostly, if your views are going to hurt someone else, they'll be hurt regardless of the wording you use, because they'd have to be really, really stupid to be fooled by that.
In place of “I’m sorry if you’re offended,” I prefer some form of “Apologies for offending you” or “Sorry I offended you, it wasn’t my intention.” I think the “if” can come off as disingenuous if the person is clearly offended. If you really need to express uncertainty, a few extra words can help, like “it seems like I’ve offended you. If so, sorry about that.”
I know some people will still object to my preferred versions, but in practice I’ve had better luck with them. Your mileage may vary.
That’s a different meaning though, because your response *is* accepting responsibility for offending the other person, which is not really what you want to say if you genuinely do not feel that you’ve done anything wrong.
“I’m sorry you feel that way” is deliberately a (polite) non-apology.
It is exactly this. I’ve scanned a few comments on here and those who hate this phrase (I’m moderately sympathetic) because they feel it is manipulative. It isn’t fun for anyone to be told to, “calm down” or “you’re overreacting” or “so/and” in so many words.
What I can’t wrap my head around AT ALL is how people can’t seem to see how much more manipulative it is to have the onus of validating everyone else’s emotion state/response foisted upon you in perpetuity. (I ’m maximally sympathetic to this position to Hitchensonian levels). And on top of this fostering an emotional manipulative cultural practice begets highly emotional manipulative people and that seems like a bad idea to turn every average Sam, Dick, and Harry into pariahs unnecessarily. It’s not healthy.
Have to agree with this. I've often thought the most prosocial way to deal with these issues is 1) try to be considerate of others' feelings, 2) try to have a thick skin, and 3) be forgiving of others because it won't be long before you're in their position.
When people do these three things, we can associate in relative safety and freedom.
I think these are good options. I think even taking a second of effort to say a version that's not the cliche version, signals that you take their feelings at least a bit seriously. It's a shame one version has become a cliche, but the fact is it has, and using it in the knowledge that it's a cliche signals lack of empathy.
An apology that doesn't require anything from you is no apology at all. "I'm sorry you feel this way" doesn't convey compassion at all, it basically reflects back blame onto the other person: "the way you feel made me sorry".
You are right that this is no apology at all. It is a statement of emotion. The speaker is “sorry” i.e. experiencing the emotion of sorrow. Not regret, not contrition. There are many things worth saying that aren’t apologies.
Certainly, but then what is the point of the expression of emotion? It's to communicate; but what? According to Scott, it's to: "Stay firm in your object-level position, but make it clear that you respect their feelings, didn’t mean it personally, and hope you can stay on good terms with them" - and I don't think that it shows those things from the perspective of the person being spoken to, which means it's a failure to communicate.
These days, when I say eg, “I’m sorry your car broke down,” I often get the reply, “It’s not your fault.”
I know it’s not my fault. I was expressing sympathy, not contrition.
If everyone has now forgotten the existence of the sympathy sorry, perhaps we should retire it. Instead of, “I’m sorry you feel that way,” it will have to be something like, “I sympathize with your distress, but I still disagree.”
Clearly it doesn't reliably convey it. It can just as well be intended to convey "I'm annoyed that you're being an idiot" while maintaining plausible deniability.
I appreciate where you're coming from but when I've seen it used in anger its always been presaging utter denial of any wrongdoing. I know human relationships are tricky but outside of kneejerk "umm you said the words" I think a lot of wariness comes from the fact that people deploy it *as* a fake apology. I learned to dislike it after finally complaining about workplace bullying where it was the start of "I didn't do it but if I did you only read it as bullying because you're weird and autistic". I also know anecdotes aren't very good evidence but when "I'm sorry if you're offended" comes up most people who dislike it will have similar anecdotes.
But you're relying on the accounts of the people who were offended by the phrase in question, who are hardly disinterested observers and don't have privileged access into what is in the minds of the people saying things they object to.
I agree but by definition that is no more relevant here than in any other form or level of communication and I don't understand what point you are making about my comment. Most disagreements in interpersonal matters don't come about because one party is acting in bad faith, but simply because people see things differently and have different interests at stake.
It wasn't a point specifically about your comment, more of something that your comment insulted me to write?
The whole subtext of the conversation is roughly "here's a useful set of words that I want to use", and a lot of the pushback is because the words have been exploited by people to man other things. And the whole thing is an arms race, and there's no way to know, and even when someone spontaneously generated an entirely new expression of their feelings, they could just be a bad faith actor with more verbal skill.
Sometimes denying any wrongdoing is exactly appropriate, and not a sneaky trick to get away with something, because there isn't any wrongdoing to admit to. And sometimes there is wrongdoing and a stubborn refusal to admit to it, which of course can be infuriating, but it is infuriating regardless of whether that person is "sorry you feel that way" or not.
>And sometimes there is wrongdoing and a stubborn refusal to admit to it, which of course can be infuriating, but it is infuriating regardless of whether that person is "sorry you feel that way" or not.
In context, these kinds of phrases tend to be used to win points with third parties by appearing to be conciliatory, without actually being conciliatory. If such point-winning succeeds, then it is in fact more infuriating, as it is successful and hostile social manipulation.
I think if you endorse doing an action, you can't coherently apologize for it. But the phrase is structured like an apology, so it ends up looking like "I did nothing wrong, you're just mad, but also you should forgive me and not hold it against me.".
Exactly; a lot of the defenses of the phrase in these comments are saying "well, it's NOT an apology, so it shouldn't be treated as a bad one, because it's not one at all" - but it is certainly disguised as one, purposefully or no, and people interpreting it as a faux apology is sensible based on that.
If what is intended can be phrased accurately as "this isn't meant as an apology even though it sounds like one: I'm sorry you feel that way" then that's not very good communication.
I think this is the key point. I mostly hear this kind of thing (and the objections to it) when a public official screws the pooch and people demand an apology and this is what they get.
It’s similar to when a public official says, “I take full responsibility,” but, having “taken full responsibility,” they suffer no other retribution for falling down at their job.
In both cases they are words designed to get the official off the hook by convincing people there is contrition and an acknowledgment, but without accepting any other consequences for the failure.
But in a situation where someone is hurt in some surprising way by something that seemed to be innocuous…what else can you do?
I gave an example earlier of someone who told a story about their pet at a party, while unbeknownst to them, an acquaintance was dealing with the death of their own pet. Acquaintance got very upset.
If it were me, I’d probably send them a text along the lines of “hey, I just wanted to say that I’m sorry about the other night; if I’d known about your dog, I wouldn’t have gone on about mine” or something like that.
But to be a real apology, one must acknowledge that what they did was wrong and that they will do better in the future! Whereas in this case…there’s not really any “better” to do. Unless “trigger warning, I’m going to tell a story about my dog” is to become the protocol for casual social events evermore.
In that case, "I'm sorry about that, in the future I will refrain from telling those anecdotes to you" would be fine, no? That seems like perfectly adequate "better" to do. You weren't immoral-unethical-wrong, but you were hurting-someone-by-reminding-them-of-dead-pet-wrong, which isn't very wrong but is also easy to not do (edit: once informed).
Of course, in a situation where they're triggered by something that is truly burdensome to not talk about, like words with the letter 'e' or something absurd, you would obviously be reasonable for refusing to change. This doesn't sound like that, though.
edit: I think in some cases people (not saying you) in that position feel defensive because they are thinking "what *could* I have done? Nothing! So why should I be feeling negatively about it? I refuse" and double down on refusing to feel bad about it. When really, of course they couldn't have done anything differently, but the negative feeling is meant to be useful as a touchstone in the future, as it will be rather easy to associate that acquaintance with their dead pet. That's really all guilt/regret is about, our brains going "oop, don't make that happen again".
As others have said elsewhere in the comments, this seems to be a difference in what people think the phrase "I'm sorry" means. To many people it can easily convey sympathy without conveying contrition or even hinting at it (e.g. "I'm sorry your dog died"). But clearly to some people, it always carries some connotation of contrition, so "I'm sorry you feel that way" sounds like it's a non-apology disguised as an apology.
I think it's important to understand that, to many people, it really, truly does not sound like it's trying to be an apology at all. I honestly hadn't realized until reading all these comments that "I'm sorry" carries strong connotations of contrition for so many people. It just seems obvious to me that people use it all the time for things that are obviously not apologies and obviously not pretending to be apologies. But I guess I must be insulated from most of the people who only use it as an apology or I'm too oblivious to notice.
I think Scott is spot-on about why the phrase is good when used properly, but is wrong about why people hate it, which is how often it is used improperly.
I think the problem with the phrase is when people pretend it's an apology. As Scott shows, it's not; it's saying you stand by what you said/did, but have no malice towards the other person and are sorry they are upset (but *not* for what you did). And used that way, it's just fine.
But sometimes people say the phrase and then say "I apologized", or treat it as if it were an apology. And since it's not, that's really obnoxious. It's a way to pretend apologize—hey, I used the word "sorry" in the neighborhood of this issue!—without admitting wrongdoing.
To put it another way: people hate it because it's *used* as a fake apology. It's not necessarily one; used properly, it's not an apology at all. But it can be used as a fake apology, a way to pretend to say you're sorry without saying so. And used *that* way it is in fact noxious.
So we should be fine with people using the phrase, but decide, as a culture, that it *doesn't* count as an apology. Instead, it is, openly, a refusal to make one. Which is fine if that's your position! But you can't say that phrase and *then* say that you *did* apologize.
Seconding this. "I'm sorry you feel this way" expresses sympathy without expressing regret. That's good for cases where what was done was not wrong and was not regretted. But if I punch someone in the face and just express sympathy ("I'm sorry if you are in pain") without regret ("I'm sorry that I caused you pain"), then I come across as not taking responsibility for my wrong action. I am not apologizing. That's the move that bothers people, where instead of offering an apology/regret, they offer sympathy.
But sometimes (often, in fact, when disputes arise), people disagree about whether the action that has offended another is indeed regretful. Those are surely the cases in which people are likely to reach for this phrase.
Sure! There are absolutely cases where we disagree if it's regretful, and then you are looking for an apology where non is coming. It's precisely those cases which may be the worst, because "I'm sorry if I offended you" is saying "I am pointedly not expressing regret for this action". And if the receiver of the offense feels an apology is warranted, this is the other person doubling down on not offering one.
Edit: Here's a realistic example. I am having a conversation with a friend, and bring up child abuse in the conversation. My friend suffered from child abuse, but I did not know that. In spite of that, my friend tells me he is upset because I did not provide a trigger warning about a very difficult topic. I don't believe that trigger warnings are appropriate, so I don't think I did anything wrong, but I of course don't want my friend to be in pain (all things being equal), so I say "I'm sorry if you feel upset". My friend, expecting an apology, is now even more upset, because what they hear is "I wronged you, but I will not acknowledge that I did anything wrong".
To be explicit, I'm not saying who in this example is right or wrong, I'm sure reasonable people can disagree about that. It's just a realistic case where an "I'm sorry for you being hurt" causes more hurt.
Yes, this is an exactly accurate explanation. I'm kind of shocked Scott doesn't seem to understand that. I had something similar happen - someone said something racist, I vented to some close friends, one friend asked what was racist about it, I explained, he said he didn't understand and wouldn't find it offensive if it was said about him but was sorry this offended me. Obviously, that made me significantly angrier. He was coming from a genuine place, but that genuine place was thoughtless, ignorant and inconsiderate. (He later apologized and we made up, not that it's important to the story).
Point being, "I'm sorry you feel that way" implies "you are not correct to feel that way - *I* certainly wouldn't feel that way - but I wasn't trying to make you feel that way on purpose" which is, all things considered, a very weak sentiment.
> Point being, "I'm sorry you feel that way" implies "you are not correct to feel that way
But it can also express "both of our feelings are valid, and I'm sorry that this object-level disagreement risks destroying our friendship because we can't find a meta-level meeting of minds on this one issue."
As a youngster, I had a friend who would do things like kick you and then say "Just kidding". I think that's an even greater misuse of language than to punch someone and then say sorry if you're in pain.
Yeah, it's a nasty bullying technique, doing something bad to you or telling you terrible things, and when you act distraught to say, "I'm just kidding / fucking with you bro", "sorry you're such a snowflake", "what, can't you take a joke". Makes my blood boil just typing it...
I think you’re mostly right, but missing another factor: “I’m sorry you feel that way” is often a deliberate implication that the offended party is *wrong* to feel that way. That *they* have committed a sin by having incorrect feelings.
That is, you are not merely dismissing the idea that you are responsible, but also dismissing the validity of the aggrieved’s feelings.
Totally agree. There are often two questions hanging in the air. Q1: is an apology called for? and Q2: was an appropriate apology given?
If you were clearly in the wrong, and an apology is owed, then "sorry you feel that way" is an infuriating thing to say.
If you're on solid ground in thinking no apology is called for, then Q2 is moot (at least for you), but "sorry you feel that way" can be a diplomatic (or passive-aggressive, depending on tone and context) attempt at moving on.
If Q1 is reasonably debatable, then "sorry you feel that way" is a way of dodging that debate, which could be wise or unwise depending on the situation.
And if both parties are at fault, but one gives a genuine apology and the other responds with "and I'm sorry if you were offended," that's maybe the worst and most relationship-damaging scenario.
I hold a number of positions that I don't feel in my gut, but have been persuaded by apparently rational arguments. If someone says "I'm sorry you feel that way" that is literally false.
Not many takers for this one but I still think it's relevant. The position I take on an issue is a complex interaction of my own feelings at the time, my likely feelings in the future, other people's feelings, the law, culture, philosophy, religion etc. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is seriously reductive and patronising.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3_gSTM3IQE
Nice!
Excellent example of how the general vicinity of 'expressing sympathy while maintaining disagreement' got poisoned, leading to the current problem. Any phrase which becomes commonplace for such usage is highly vulnerable to being turned into a verbal weapon, a mean joke. There are a variety of ways this can look:
"Pretending to express sympathy but actually expressing sadistic joy at your unhappiness."
"Pretending to express respect for your differing opinion, but actually expressing disdain and disrespect. Implying that you think the other is stupid and/or bad."
"Pretending to apologize, but actually indicating both that you admit you were responsible for the bad thing that happened to the victim and that you are glad you accomplished this harm. You defy the wronged party's, or some third party's, authority to attempt to punish you for your admitted wrongdoing, you disrespect/disbelieve their power to do so."
These things can be quite humorous because they violate the expectation that someone will be conciliatory and deescalating in the context of the present conflict, but this expectation is violated while the semantic content of the sentence remains the same.
Text-based communication over the internet makes this more of a problem, since verbal tone is missing and must be implied by context, so there is room for people to equivocate between tone-differentiated meanings or misunderstand each other due to wrong assumptions of tone.
I think anything can be used as a verbal weapon. And the more it sounds innocent to a neutral observer, the better a weapon it is.
Wait, if it doesn't deliver any suffering, how is something a weapon?
The best verbal weapons are ones that create plausible deniability, where the potential for threat/aggression/insult is almost certainly understood as such by the listener but is delivered in a way that could potentially be neutral or even positive. It leaves them impotent to respond to the threat/aggression/insult without risking looking foolish.
I'm not sure what you mean by "delivering suffering" here. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a put-down, a way of rolling your eyes at someone else's concerns while maintaining the plausible deniability you mention.
"Good luck with that" is more straight-shooting. It basically means I think you're about to screw up.
As I said to Moon Moth, I somehow managed to miss the basic premise of his comment. My comment in response is functionally nonsensical. Nevermind me!
I didn't say it didn't deliver suffering. What I meant was, there is no form of verbal expression that cannot ever be used as a weapon against anyone. And I'll go further and say that if a bunch of people get together and say "this verbal expression is never a weapon", that dramatically increases the chances that it will be used as a weapon.
I think we're on the same page here?
Looking back over our exchange, it appears I somehow missed the context of there being a "neutral observer" witnessing the exchange. My comment was basically nonsensical.
FWIW, I don't think your comment was nonsensical. But a remark to someone which they realise could be considered insulting, such as "Hope that helps", is often enough to poison the well and make for future suspicion even where there is no certainty an insult was intended
No worries! :-)
I think that the feeling of being insulted is almost entirely based on (your perception of) the other party's intent to insult you, and almost zero based on the actual words they said. (Of course, to some extent, this is how all language works.)
People often seem to have the impulse to try to enforce politeness by banning specific phrases, but this basically doesn't work, because that's mostly not how insults work. Maybe you get a short reprieve while all the would-be insulters create the common knowledge that some new phrase is now an insult, but it's an endless treadmill that causes more and more phrases to become insulting, which actually makes it harder to avoid accidental offense. (While simultaneously making the banned phrase even more insulting, because you're feeding the hyperstitious slur cascade.)
I think banning phrases is wrong but you need to recognize that language changes and if a certain phrase becomes common it will pick up additional meaning and you need to adapt to that. The reason "I'm sorry you feel that way" feels insulting is because it's literal meaning is an insult. Imagine if someone said "I'm sorry you're you". As others are saying there are lots of ways to not be sorry about things but the point is in those situations you don't apologize "I love you but I think it's better that I withhold the money from you", "many good people have done bad things or been part of bad movements", "I didn't mean to re-traumatize you"
Its literal meaning is NOT an insult. The literal meaning is sympathy.
Even your straw example of "I'm sorry you're you" is not an insult in its simple plain meaning, only by implication. It's insulting (in the likely context) because it implicitly assumes that we've already established that "being you" is bad. If we HAVE already agreed on that, then it's legitimately not insulting, and is simply an expression of sympathy (imagine someone complaining about their personal neuroses, and a friend consoling them). But if this sentence is the first time that's been brought up, then the implied assertion is probably insulting (firstly because I'm implying that you're bad, and secondly because I'm implying that this is so obvious that I don't need to establish it before building upon it).
I probably used literal wrong, I meant more like the plain reading in contrast to a phrase like "good luck with that" where it is only sarcasm that makes it an insult. I can't express sympathy, contrition, or regret for a good thing (in a plain reading) so by saying "I'm sorry for X" I am implying that X is bad. In the case of "you feel that way" or "you're you" I'm saying a specific characteristic of you is bad. I think of this as similar to the phrases "You're a jerk" or "You're whiny" sometimes you need to deliver hard truths but don't be surprised when people don't like it.
> so by saying "I'm sorry for X" I am implying that X is bad.
No, you can also imply that X is painful, and you feel sympathy for the person experiencing the pain. Just because it's painful for them doesn't mean it's bad in a moral sense. There's no judgment here.
...you okay there, buddy? Did this article come at a bad time?
“How do you know?!?!”
‘It was revealed to me by the Lord Jesus Christ in a dream 🤷 get over it’
Is this a quote?
Yes I have said this verbatim to a few people
the proper quote is "it was revealed to me in a dream"
https://silverdragontees.com/cdn/shop/files/mens-classic-tee-black-front-655e3334ea2c7.jpg?v=1700672340&width=1100
My instinctive negative reaction to the phrase is because "sorry" in that context seems particularly non-genuine. A simple "I disagree with you" (respectfully spoken) is fine. Or perhaps "I'm sorry that we disagree." Or even "I'm sorry that I brought the subject up".
But being sorry for the impact of one's words on another person, without actually being sorry about anything you've done or said, is not meaningful, and I think that's what draws some ire?
To some extent it just draws attention to the fact that you're not sorry _enough_ to adjust your stance. If something I said hurt someone, and I felt kind of bad about it, but not enough to actually change my opinion, I don't think that counts as being sorry: After all, if I was truly sorry in a meaningful way, I would change my beliefs or behavior or whatever.
Sorry doesn't just mean "I apologize", it can also mean "I consider this a regretful situation". As in "I'm sorry your dog died".
True! But in the event of a disagreement you are having one-on-one with another person, saying it about the words you just spoke and their reaction... obviously is not an "I'm sorry your dog died" context. In fact, treating it as such with the remove and passivity that involves is probably what draws people's anger; perhaps they see it like you would if someone crashed their car into yours and said "oh boy, sorry you have a busted car, also I take no responsibility"
I guess it's not surprising that somebody would be angry if another who they view as having harmed them takes no responsibility, but sometimes it just is the case that that person's *correct and valid* position is "I will take no responsibility."
Yes, of course that's true. And in that case that's an irreconcilable difference between those people on that subject. That's fine. But it does not make clear why the phrase is useful or good at its job to convey, as Scott intends essentially "I still respect you and don't wish you ill, but do not back down on what I've said" - I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong.
And again, this is not a moral judgment on the person refusing responsibility. If you get in a simple argument with someone where you believe you are right while that person takes everything personally and acts like you're doing them emotional harm, I absolutely support not taking responsibility and walking away. But I would not claim to respect that person.
If you only respect people who are 100% reasonable on every issue then you don't respect anyone. People aren't robots, almost everyone is going to have issues where they're overly sensitive due to personal experience. You can absolutely still respect someone while telling them "your reaction here is unreasonable."
I think this is where people differ.
From my perspective, if I have a strong negative emotional reaction and the response is "your reaction here is unreasonable" from someone who claims to respect me, unless I *agree* with them (which I might, depending on the subject), then of course I'm going to think that they're only being more disagreeable, not less.
In Scott's first instance, "You don't love me!" if you refuse to give them drug money is not about their genuine emotions, it's about trying to manipulate you. So I don't see why you should even say "I'm sorry" in "I'm sorry you feel that way", because you have nothing to be sorry about.
"If you loved me, you would enable my self-destructive behaviour and do yourself harm in the process" "It's because I care that I'm not going to do it, and I'm not sorry about that".
> I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong.
It sounds like you’re probably not married.
I'm a little confused about this sentiment as I think it would be even more important when married to be able to see from one another's perspectives, no? Do you have an example of when one party is feeling emotionally hurt by the other (enough to say so) and the other is only able to feel "sorry they feel that way"?
I think the people closest to us are likely to inadvertently cause pain, but I generally think that should come with willingness to apologize and understand the other's perspective (on the part of the offender) or willingness to accept they're overreacting or uncharitably interpreting what was said (on the part of the offended), one or the other as the situation calls for. If conflicts just stop with one person expressing hurt and the other "not apologetic sorry", that seems miserable.
Sometimes you are legit hurting them but also it's not wrong for you to do so. An easy example is breaking up with your girlfriend--you're hurting her, she's sad, but you're not doing something wrong, this is a decision you are allowed to make. You can be sorry she is sad, you can be sad too, and you can still be making the right decision.
And there are many things like this. Informing you that you didn't get cast in the play will make you sad and hurt you, as will telling you you're fired because you're not getting your work done, or a judge telling you you're sentenced to a year in the county jail for your DUI. But all of those are legitimate and necessary things. A little extra courtesy of saying "sorry this is so hard for you" doesn't hurt.
"I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong." - boop
I find myself in disagreement here. I've had people tell me that me spending time with a 3rd party was harmful to them. They believed said 3rd party was a "toxic person" any my association with 3rd party caused harm to my friend. I respect my friend, and according to them I was causing them harm and absolutely could have stopped. But expecting me to change who I associate with simply because of your preferences isn't acceptable.
Conflict is not abuse. Harm is in the body of the harm-beholder as much as it's from the harm-creator.
Hmm. I question the definition of respect everyone is using. I think it can mean 'generally like and admire' but it can also mean 'regard their wishes highly'. In this case I'm thinking of it as the latter.
Like, if my acquaintance put me in that position I wouldn't appreciate it. I don't rate their desires over mine.
However, if my fictional brother's wife cheated on him, I would not want to maintain a friendship with her out of respect for him even if I previously liked her. I'm not sure that's true of all my friendships; if I met someone new and they demanded I drop a friend because that friend had cheated on them, well, I likely wouldn't on the spot. Given the variance, I would have to admit I must respect (in the sense of "their feelings are very important to me") some people more than others.
I also think sometimes it is okay to incidentally cause harm. If you are behaving in a reasonable way and other people are harmed merely by what you do with your own time, separately from them, having made no promises to them, that really is their problem. But again, in my view that comes with a lowered respect for them. It's difficult to essentially think "well, if they're sad about this that's on them being nuts, I'm still not budging" and claim to hold them in high esteem.
>I think you cannot respect someone if they are telling you you are responsible for hurting them and able to stop, and you either think they're lying or wrong.
You only feel sympathy for people you respect?
You only respect people you agree with always?
Unrelated, but I will send you $10 rn if it turns out I'm wrong about your sex: 1000%, gotta be a woman. I cannot conceive otherwise
Advice on that situation is generally to say something like "Are you all right?". Which is probably closer to what you want to say anyway. The car's obviously busted, but hopefully the people are uninjured.
I think this is the cause of most of the friction. When someone says "I'm sorry you feel that way," the person on the receiving end us usually expecting an apology, and what they're getting is sympathy. If the person on the giving end isn't just being snarky, then what they intend to give is sympathy, not an apology.
Given this framing, maybe it is best to avoid the words "I'm sorry" if you mean to give sympathy but you suspect the other person wants an apology. To take the first example, maybe something like "I can see that you're upset by my answer, and I didn't intend to make you mad." But I took 5 minutes to think of that, rather than needing to come up with it in the moment, and I think it comes off condescending.
“I can see that you’re upset that your dog died. That is not my responsibility, and I won’t apologize for it.” I bet your kids love you!
I’m being snarky, but the words “I’m sorry” have been used in the English language for hundreds of years to be an expression of sympathy as well as an expression of contrition. Wokies are intent on redefining words to suit their narrow, rigid, radical ideology (see “woman”). The rest of us do not have to accept this attempt to redefine words to suit the desires of The Cult. “Sorry”!
Hence the qualification I included that you suspect the other person is expecting an apology. I would assume that someone's not expecting an apology for their dead dog.
Unless I hit them with my car, in which case an apology would be appropriate.
Yes, but surely it is a commonplace universal human social experience to have someone expect an apology from you when all they are due is sympathy. Ask a customer service rep about how many times someone has attempted to a used condom or whatever, accompanied by protests that they’ve been a faithful Trojan customer for 25 years and how dare you refuse to accept the return, and the rep has had no choice but to tell them, “I’m sorry, but Trojan company policy is not to accept returns of products that are full of jizz”. This is a normal, polite way to address someone who expects and apology but isn’t due one.
"I'm sorry your mom died" is also common and has been for a very long time, and it does not imply that you feel any guilt or contrition about the fact that you failed to invent a cure for cancer in time to save your friend's mom.
I notice the phrase you took 5 minutes to think of doesn't actually express sympathy, but only the absence of malice.
I feel that this goes way beyond apologies - many of the examples are not fully about the past but rather about something ongoing, and that the expectation is that there's some action which the other person wants you to do (or stop doing), and the major part of the response (however you word it) is that despite the acknowledgement and sympathy, you still consider that it is right and proper to *not* act in the way that the other person wishes or expects; that you sympathize with their feelings but explicitly refuse to do what they want to make them feel better.
Aside: I sometimes try to go back to the roots for this one to disambiguate and use "I'm sorrowed ..." instead of "I'm sorry ...", which is a bit awkward (because it's dated), but definitely helps differentiate it from an apology.
Well, only that sorry and sorrow apparently don't have a common origin. See the other comments.
Eh, etymology doesn't stop you from using "I'm sorrowed". :) "I'm sorrowed" is a term that has historically been used for this use-case, regardless whether it's related to "sorry" or not.
Well, confusion does differentiate.
"I am as wood."
Nothing wrong with "I'm sad" (or, if that feels childish, "I'm saddened").
Yep! Definitely also an option.
Yeah.
"I'm sorry your dog died." - regret
"I'm sorry I ran over your dog." - apology
"I'm sorry your dog chose to sleep under my car." - not my problem
"I heard your dog died. That's ruff."
"I canine imagine how you feel."
I hope you fido way to move on.
Nice! A whole new class along the lines of Russell conjugations? :-)
I admit, I stole the first two from someone long ago, off the Internet. I wish I'd overheard what their "third type of sorry" was, but I did my best to make one up.
Maybe something that had "doggone it" in it?
That sounds like a good choice too! Many Thanks!
It was a good one, Many Thanks!
This is why I say "My condolences" instead of "I'm sorry". The latter is too easy to misconstrue.
I think this double meaning is a big part of why people argue about the phrase. In the worst case it can be a kind of motte and bailey; the motte is "I just want you to say sorry to show that my feelings matter. A couple of words is not much to ask for." and the bailey is "I want you to say sorry as an acknowledgement that you were wrong and a promise to make up for it or behave differently in future."
Strictly speaking "I disagree with you" is not a valid response to "what you just said hurt my feelings". Are you disagreeing that you hurt their feelings? "I'm sorry you feel that way" is intended to convey "I don't like that I hurt your feelings but I don't think it is enough of a reason to take back what I said or change my stance".
Sure, fair enough. As a direct response, imo, "I don't enjoy disagreeing with you" as another commenter said suffices without being sympathy in the structure of an apology.
>without being sympathy in the structure of an apology.
...why should that be a bad thing?
In fact, your formulation is /worse/: not enjoying it isn't the same as being sympathetic over it. You *don't enjoy* putting down vermin. You're *sorry* you had to put Old Yeller down.
“ But being sorry for the impact of one's words on another person, without actually being sorry about anything you've done or said, is not meaningful, and I think that's what draws some ire?”
But it is meaningful. When I, e.g., refrain from loaning someone money, I genuinely regret not being able to help, and I actually grieve that the reasoning I give hurts their pride or offends them in some other way.
They may not believe this; they may think I get some sort of thrill out of denying them something or am completely uncaring. But I am not. I do in fact respect their feelings and wish them joy.
<When I, e.g., refrain from loaning someone money, I genuinely regret not being able to help,
But there must be occasions when you could part with the sum they ask for, but you are not willing to lend it. (And just to be clear, I am not criticizing you at all here for not lending the money.) So what is the nature of your regret then? It isn't that you couldn't help, because you could. It isn't that you wouldn't help, because you chose not to and do not regret your decision.
In the situations I’m thinking of, when I say I am “not able” to help I rarely mean that I don’t have the money. I mean that I am unable to help because I believe that loaning or giving money will not be helpful (e.g., will actually harm the recipient, or will reinforce a poor decision making process) or that it would violate a principle which I cannot violate to do so. I regret that these are the circumstances and that therefore I am unable to help.
I like the idea of “I’m sorry that we disagree.” There’s definitely a flavor in “I’m sorry you feel that way” of “…but it’s obviously just because you’re an idiot” that’s hard to avoid.
>I'm sorry that we disagree.
Yeah, thats way better. "Im sorry you feel that way" explicitly puts the responsibility on the other person, which you shouldnt do if you want to end the discussion peacefully. A lot like how people dislike Nonviolent Communication.
Uh... NVC would specifically endorse "I'm sorry that we disagree" and would specifically not endorse "I'm sorry you feel that way". Seriously. NVC puts a fair bit of energy into not describing (or projecting) other people's states of being, and instead describing your own feelings about facts and reality. That is actually pretty much the core of the whole NVC idea. That and some body language crap I kind of think is correct but too woo-woo to be useful.
So, I actually think you're right, it's a lot like how people dislike NVC... because they dislike a thing they don't understand!
I don't think NVC would endorse any response that begins with "I'm sorry...". It's fundamentally about hearing what's going on inside the other person, and letting them know that you hear that. "I'm sorry" goes wrong in two ways. First, it focuses on you when you probably meant to focus on them. Second, the way it's usually used, it's about rightness and wrongness, which gets in the way of "what's going on inside".
A fourth option that Scott didn't mention above is to stay firm in your position kind of like #3, but instead of talking about that at all, just actively listen to what the other person has going on. "Someone in your family died in the war?" "[trauma] happened to you?" And then, usually vert importantly, *silence*. Space. There's not really a goal with any of this, other than the common humanity that's possible when we listen to each other. Nobody has to be wrong or change their mind or whatever. You don't even have to bother with any of this if you're not feeling it. But it's a fourth option.
It is fun to have someone to discuss this with, I find the amount of allergy to NVC in my community so strong that I usually don't try to engage at all.
With that said: I think you're probably right that "I'm sorry" isn't perfectly formed, but my experience of NVC is you want to focus on emotions that are true for yourself, and I think "I'm sorry that we disagree" is pretty good. "Disagreement feels frightening to me, but I also think it's OK to disagree" is probably closer to the right framing.
Reflective listening seems like a *distinct* tool, which is good also, but I don't think is in conflict, you may want to do both (and as it happens, this particular technique has been anathematized in my subculture; it is of course best if you do it actively and don't include the trigger words "I hear you saying <verbatim>", but unfortunately folks in my circle are annoyed by the reflection even when done, I think, authentically).
Yeah I think there are kind of two sides to NVC, and I'm sure the same can be said of a lot of "people stuff". One side is "What are we really trying to accomplish here?" The core ideas, the main goals. This part of the internet likes to play the replace-the-word-with-its-definition game, and I think NVC is quite good at that game. The core ideas aren't attached too strongly to any particular words.
The other side is "How do we teach this?" The problem is that most of us have ingrained habits that are *incredibly* counterproductive for the main goals of NVC. Judgments, defensiveness, making demands, etc. Most of us have already put in our 10k hours of practice at being judgmental. We do it constantly, unconsciously, effortlessly, and out loud. Marshall Rosenberg, the original author of NVC, calls this sort of thing a "suicidal expression of an unmet need": we sabotage ourselves the most when we feel like we're fighting for ourselves. Getting people who've been at each other's throats for a few months/years to break some of those habits and listen to each other is long, hard work. Most of us are ok at it when we're thinking about other people's problems, but garbage-tier at it when we're dealing with our own problems :) So NVC has all these hacks, like the whole 4-step observation/feeling/need/request thing, to try to give people a doable first step. Usually it sounds super awkward, but maybe we can forgive beginners for sounding awkward. When you get good at it, and your mind naturally focuses on the core questions, it sounds a lot better. True of most things, I'm sure.
So to your specific situation, "I'm sorry that..." is definitely a taboo in NVC, and probably a taboo in a lot of therapy-talk-ish schools of thought for the same reason. It's *technically* a feeling, but it's got so much cultural baggage attached to it that we might as well make it an explicit Schelling point and build a habit like "Oops I said the thing, I should probably slow down."
I do think it's interesting an useful to notice that "I'm sorry that we disagree" is probably not an accurate description of what's going on in you. A lot of us actually *enjoy* debates and disagreements, when folks are feeling interested instead of angry. So in an unpleasant disagreement, it's probably more accurate to say "I'm afraid that you're going to feel angry and then say things to me that I don't want to hear." But like, is it socially normal to say that out loud? No of course not. In normal social situations, you probably want to keep that particular feeling to yourself, at least at first. But having at least noticed the feeling explicitly, it can naturally lead to some good-therapy-habit-building follow-up thoughts that most of us have heard before in lots of different places: 1) "If they get angry, that's not something wrong with me." 2) "If they get angry, that's not something wrong with them." 3) "Try not to offer solutions." Etc.
One explicit NVC hack that I like in situations like this is *guessing*, . "So you're...worried...that if ABC happens...then XYZ will get hurt?" "So you're...remembering when ABC said XYZ...and that still feels awful?" It's not quite the same as reflective listening, because the goal isn't just to parrot back the other person's words to them. Often the other person's story is wrapped up in the past and not making it particularly clear what they're worried/angry/sad/disgusted about in the present. You're trying to come up with a guess that the other person can agree with, and of course not some judgmental framing of what's wrong with them that they'll hear as criticism. But the key to the whole hack is, it doesn't particularly matter if the guess is *correct*. If the other person corrects you, that's just as good. Most of us (in genpop maybe more than in the ACX comments specifically) are pretty good at picking up sarcasm and judgment, and when we hear something that's genuinely not sarcastic or judgmental, it stands out. They can hear the effort that you're putting in, and that's more important than guessing right.
You got the analogy wrong. What being told "Sorry you feel that way" demands of you is like what *practicing* NVC demands of you. Do you see the primary complaint about NVC being about being spoken to that way, rather than not wanting to do it?
Yes, the primary complaint about NVC in my life is people complaining they don’t like it when other people attempt it in their direction.
Essentially no one is interested in *practicing* it themselves, it’s far beyond the Overton window for them.
I just don't see why Scott thinks it's necessary to express sorrow specifically at the fact of the other person's feelings. As you say, it's just as easy, usually just as true, and far less likely to enrage the other person, to say "I'm sorry we disagree about this." This is mainly true, in my opinion, because "I'm sorry you feel that way" invariably translates to "I'm sorry you're wrong."
And on the other hand I also agree with Deiseach and others that sometimes even using the word "sorry" may be too conciliatory, as with the drug addict relative trying to guilt you into giving him money. Again it boils down to the appropriateness of saying something that boils down to "I'm sorry you're wrong"--in this case, what I'm really sorry about is the fact that the drugs have so deeply fucked up my loved one's rewards system as to obliterate their moral values such that they're now subjecting me to emotional extortion. I'm not sorry at all about refusing to submit to it!
Right. When you say “I’m sorry that…” you’re identifying the specific problem. I’m sorry your dog died - the problem is your dog died. Alternatively, if you say “I’m sorry you let your dog out without a leash”, you’re implicitly blaming the person for the dog’s death.
Similarly if you say “I’m sorry we disagree” you’re not putting the onus on either party. But if you say “I’m sorry you feel that way” you’re saying the problem is the way the other feels. You’re pretty directly saying “your reaction is bad”; and insofar as one does not choose their own emotions, you’re saying “I’m sorry you are the way you are”. Of course this is not conciliatory.
This is exactly it, yes.
Contra Scott, there is no defense for "I'm sorry you feel that way" when it is in fact trivial to strike the desired conciliatory tone without embedding a passive-aggressive attack on the other person into your message OR backing down from your own position at all.
The main complaint about this expression is that it’s “not a real apology,” and that’s true, it isn’t. The error is in thinking it is therefore a fake apology. But it isn’t, because “I’m sorry” is not a statement of contrition, it’s a statement of sorrow. Somehow everyone has gotten confused into thinking an apology is the only correct use for that phrase despite the plain meaning of the words.
(Edit: It turns out, as people said in the replies, that I was mistaken in thinking there is a direct etymological connection between "sorry" and "sorrow," and one is not necessarily an expression of the other. I think the broader point stands that "I'm sorry" does not inherently imply contrition, but it is not necessarily implying sorrow either; it is a secret third thing.)
>“I’m sorry” is not a statement of contrition, it’s a statement of sorrow.
I generally agree, but - do you think there's been any shift over time in how people understand "I'm sorry"?
I feel like I've used the phrase "I'm sorry" my whole life to express sorrow but not contrition, e.g. "I'm sorry to hear your aunt is in the hospital". But only in the past few years have I started hearing a response: "it's not /your/ fault". Which, like, of course it's not my fault. I didn't intend that meaning of the phrase.
Either I've begun spending time with people who have a random quirk of communication, my memory is faulty and I've always gotten this response, or there's been some shift over time in what apologies are supposed to mean.
I've noticed that too! Noticeable semantic shift, and the "not your fault/no need to apologise" response is much more frequent from younger people.
I've also heard this form people. And there's an XKCD (which must be several years old now):
https://xkcd.com/945/
I think it started as an attempt at humorous misinterpretation/dad joke. Albeit frequently in contexts where that really doesn't feel appropriate, and comes across as a rebuff.
It's possible that someone young or socially awkward might genuinely misinterpret, but the average adult who's, e.g., been to a funeral has enough experience to recognize an expression of sympathy however they choose to respond. (Presumably they don't think they've heard serial confessions to homicide.)
> I think it started as an attempt at humorous misinterpretation/dad joke. Albeit frequently in contexts where that really doesn't feel appropriate, and comes across as a rebuff.
I agree, and I hate that (the feeling of rebuffedness). At some point I started always making sure to say “I’m sorry *to hear that*”, or some other phrase to disambiguate. Kind of like how I trained myself to say “difficult” instead of “hard” as a teenager, when my little brother was in his “that’s what she said” phase.
<i>I think it started as an attempt at humorous misinterpretation/dad joke. Albeit frequently in contexts where that really doesn't feel appropriate, and comes across as a rebuff.</i>
I think it's normally an attempt to lighten the mood a bit, by people who don't really know how to act when genuine tragedy strikes. (Not that I'm blaming these people; modern society really doesn't prepare us well for tragedy.)
I'm glad I'm not alone in noticing this. Today is the first time I'm connecting this observation with the "I'm sorry you feel that way" discourse. I wonder why or how this shift in meaning occurred.
It reminds me how one time I thanked a plumber who came to change the faucet in my kitchen. He told me that there was no need to thank him since he was only doing his job.
(I'd say it was generally irrelevant, but in addition he did his work professionally, was not rude &c and merited gratitude.)
That's largely just because someone thanks you, "you're welcome" seems weird when they're paying you money, "no worries, thanks for paying me!" is weird and almost status-grabbing and a silent, laconic nod takes a lot of confidence to pull off convincingly.
This might bleed into the "sorry" semantic shift, if "sorry" and "thank you" are both words to effect status transfers, "sorry" as compensation and "thank you" as reward (the equivalent of tipping someone). I've never felt that way when apologising or thanking someone, but it's the 21st century and I'm too atomised to consider myself in a status economy with the sorts of people I thank/apologise to.
That last point might explain why people don't like "I'm sorry you feel that way," as it's a fake status compensation, a bit like handing them a check for $0.
Status transfer, what? It's an expression of obligation. I say thank you, you know I appreciate your deed and you imagine you could ask for a favour in the future. Many interactions in the modern world are transactional and brief, but people don't just appear and disappear, you share a world, you don't know when you might encounter the same person again. Either way, the thank you is genuine, and people don't use it otherwise. Indeed, just like with tips. You wouldn't tip a waiter who had made your dinner a nightmare, or thank him otherwise.
This contrary to the ingenuine "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Either you don’t thank many people or you’re absurdly generous. Among friends, if I thanked someone I guess they could ask for a comparable favour then, but most of my thanking and being thanked is occupational or transactional (or spousal, where there’s a blank cheque for reciprocity anyway).
I thank people often and I'm not absurdly generous.
An “obligation” which implies future reciprocity is a form of social debt. Just as debt can be reified into money, obligation can be reified into status (“social capital” etc). I think “status transfer” is just the market version of “expression of obligation.”
Status is "social". My obligation to another individual isn't. Another individual is a part of society, but calling the obligation "social debt" is undue (I'd say) movement on an abstract dimension.
The normal ritual in my experience is to say "thank you" as you are paying the person, and for them to say "thank you" back to you.
That’s fine, but you sometimes get profuse thanks at the job-complete, non-payment stage for something relatively routine, and want to shut the other person up out of social embarrassment.
Fair enough!
"It's not your fault," is not a recent phenomenon. I've been hearing it and saying it myself for decades here in the Acela corridor.
Can we just agree the [modern] English is broken in this regard? You should have two different expressions for these two very different meanings, and indeed there are words for each - "I apologize" and "My condolences" e.g. - but I guess those are too many syllables or something and people are stuck with apologizing when someone they never saw dies from cancer.
Phrases that make the difference more clear, like "in a sorry state", have become less common since a while back. This might be the fallout catching up to us, as younger people who never heard those genuinely don't realize it ever had that meaning.
I'm sorry, but sorry and sorrow are not related words and do not mean the same thing. Sorrow has to do with sadness, while sorry is an expression of regret. An expression of regret does not imply that I feel any guilt or shame or even that I wished I had done differently.
So, "I'm so sorry your dog died" is an incorrect usage according to you, and not something people say regularly in that situation?
It is fine. It means that I think it is not good that your dog died. It does not mean that I am admitting guilt for killing your dog, or that I personally am particularly sad that your dog died.
Okay, fine, I can accept that it points to this generalized sort of regret rather than just "anything I feel sad about." But that is sort of tangential to the point that it doesn’t imply contrition, which it seems like you agree with.
How do you think sorrow differs from regret? The definition necessarily involves something one has done or failed to do. You may use it differently, but that is not the common understanding. One cannot regret something they have no part in: "I feel regret for all those deaths" is very silly if you did not have a hand in them, while "I feel sorrow for" is not.
Regret means that you wish things had been different. Not necessarily that you had done differently or that you are particularly sad.
"I regret that the universe was such that you and your problems even existed, because now I have to deal with them?"
If you're making an etymological point, you're wrong. EDIT: My bad. They ARE unrelated.
Practically, yes, when someone says he's sorry for or about something, he probably isn't feeling particularly sad, but I'd say what the word still means, and it's just become the template for a standard polite lie.
What etymological dictionary connects sorry with sorrow? My Chambers's Twentieth Century says "not connected in origin."
My mistake. I saw Google's etymology diagram, but it's accompanied by a detailed text annotation explaining how the diagram is misleading.
>while sorry is an expression of regret
How does that line up with "it's in a sorry state"?
Presumably it means a regrettable state.
I agree that there's a semantic confusion here. I'd say not even sorrow, but some level of regret.
"I'm sorry you're feeling this way" means "it's unfortunate and makes me sad(ish)", it doesn't mean "my bad".
*Sometimes* it means "it's unfortunate and makes me sad". Sometimes it means "I briefly considered offering an apology here but decided against it because you don't deserve an apology", and sometimes that last has an appended "...and I want you to know that, and everyone else listening too".
It sucks that literally the exact same words are used for all of these, and often in about the same context. But there's no way for the recipient to know what you meant, and if you meant the "I feel sad" version then you should perhaps find different and less ambiguous words.
Yes I agree. I think this specific phrase is burned into unusable and finding more specific wording, especially one that doesn't imply the offended party SHOULDN'T feel bad, is better.
https://xkcd.com/945/
The ol' Grice-ian one-upmanship.
Even when we do mean it as an apology: I kind of wish there were a phrase that meant “I’m sorry, it was an accident”, as opposed to “I’m sorry, I did something wrong; I realize that now and I’ll do better.”
But, of course, if this existed, it would be used in bad faith and then the distinction would collapse anyway.
Exactly. This should be obvious if you speak almost any other language, because you'd translate "I'm sorry that you feel that way" into something closer to 'it saddens me that you feel that way' than to 'I apologize that you feel that way'.
Well it's very confusing because "I'm sorry" means both things - sorrow and regret - depending on context. Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" in a context where an apology is expect understandably upsets people. If I wanted you to say "I'm sorry I was a jerk" and you say "I'm sorry you feel that way" I'm correctly interpreting that you're dismissing my concerns and don't regret what you did to me. That's the context in which I see people get upset over it most often, and it seems totally reasonable
If you want me to say "I'm sorry I was a jerk" and I say "I'm sorry you feel that way", I think you're correctly interpreting that I don't think I acted badly, but I don't think you're correctly interpreting that I'm dismissing your concerns. I might genuinely feel bad for your feeling bad, and wish that were not the case. I can simultaneously feel sorrow that what I did made you feel bad while not thinking that I did anything wrong.
Sure, but speaking personally, I often don't care that you feel bad. What I want is to know that you agree with me that you shouldn't behave that way, and to know that if we're faced with a similar situation in the future, you'll behave differently. If, instead, you say "I'm sorry you feel that way," you're telling me that this is the kind of behavior I can expect for the foreseeable future despite how it affects me
Yeah, I have this suspicion that a lot of people who think "I'm sorry you feel that way" is insincere just don't know what it's like to feel bad about someone's feelings when they don't think they did anything wrong.
Maybe. Or maybe it's insincere! Lots of people are insincere all the time!
But in that case, "I'm sorry you feel that way" was a very well chosen phrase, as it got the intended message across correctly and clearly - asserting that you don't consider that changing the behavior is appropriate and are refusing to do so is a key part of that response, and any alternative phrasing has to have that intent or it's not a suitable replacement.
i think a "i'm sorry you feel that way" or any other variant of the phrase only comes across as arrogant when it's written. i feel like saying it face to face seems different.
because the former gives you the option to immediately shut it down and then remove yourself from the conversation, while doing that in person isn't that easy and may help the other person elaborate their phrase into something more coherent and empathetic.
Depends on your emotional/communicative abilities.
We should ebrace the adagio: "you will suffer and you will make other suffer".
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it. Or feel sorry when we do. Or try to communicate to others that while we stand by our decisions, we have tried to minimize everyone's suffering.
Otherwise we are just an hypocrite PoS - but no one knows.
You meant to say "adage". "Adagio" is a tempo in musical notation, and also sometimes used as a name for a slow piece, e.g., "Adagio in G minor".
Right, sorry... the origin of the english "adage" and the italian "adagio" is the same. As a polyglot I have often a linguistic mess in my head... :D
Oh, I didn't know that! Learned something new. "Linguistic mess" sounds like a cool problem to have...
Not as cool as it was before the automatic translators but still funny and satisfying... until you make some silly mistake at least... :D
I was confused by this for a moment, so it's maybe worth clarifying:
"Adagio" in Italian means (1) "slowly" (derived from ad + agio, at + ease) and (2) "adage" (derived from Latin "adagium", which is possibly ad + a word meaning to say yes).
The first of those -- the Italian word "adagio" with which English-speakers are familiar if they're into classical music -- does not have the same etymology as English "adage". The second one does.
So: yes, English "adage" and _an_ Italian "adagio" share an etymology, but it's not _the_ Italian "adagio" that 1123581321 was talking about.
I rather liked the mental image it called up, though! :-)
The downside of “I’m sorry you feel that way” is that it doesn’t take responsibility for causing the feelings of the other person: it sounds like you’re expressing your sympathies for some unrelated problem they’re facing. But in fact regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them. So unless you consciously thought hurting people emotionally was worthwhile in this context, you’ve made some sort of mistake, and a more appropriate apology would be “I’m sorry for [offending/triggering/upsetting/etc] you”
“But in fact regardless of what views you have, it's possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them.”
Hard disagree. I think this is just obviously false, some people will feel hurt by the view itself regardless of the manner in which it is expressed. Sometimes it is only possible to choose between staying silent or hurting someone’s feelings, and sometimes on reflection the latter is the right choice. I can’t give a true apology for something I think was the right choice even if I wish there had been another one available.
Also, if you adopt the standard of "people should go to great lengths to express their opinions in a way that avoids hurting other people's feelings" then you provide an incentive for people to claim that their feelings are hurt whenever they encounter an opinion they disagree with.
"you provide an incentive for people to claim that their feelings are hurt whenever they encounter an opinion they disagree with."
And that's where the entire "I feel unsafe in this space (if that person is permitted to stay here/if those views can be expressed/if you don't agree with me 100%)" kind of manipulation comes from.
I do think people carry *some* responsibility for the way they express their views and the effect that has on people's feelings. And when you do screw up in that way, you should say something like "I'm sorry I said that in a needlessly upsetting way", rather than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
But yeah, I agree that this responsibility has clear limits.
Yeah, it's good to try to avoid putting on your extra-heavy boots and stomping on peoples' toes, and there are certainly plenty of people, in real-life and online, who take a positive pleasure in that sort of thing. But also, there are many topics where expressing your views, perhaps very defensible ones, will upset and offend and hurt some listeners. I'd say that is common in discussions of religion and politics, for example.
There's a related thing where your proposed policies would hurt someone. And that happens, and sometimes those are still the best policies, and you can say you're sorry for the impact that will have on some of the listeners without ceasing to support the policy. If you propose a policy that will double the income taxes I pay in order to support some huge new federal program, you are proposing to make me quite a bit worse off, to screw up my budget and make my life harder. That doesn't mean you must stop supporting the policy or apologize for supporting it, but it also doesn't preclude trying to be polite enough to acknowledge that this will actually impose hardships on people whose unhappiness matters.
I agree with this. People will also be upset by something that’s not a view or an argument at all, see this comment thread on a Captain Awkward post: https://captainawkward.com/2018/01/05/1066-about-that-awkward-thing-i-said-earlier/#comment-188721
tl;dr: some people at a party were telling stories about their pets past and present; an acquaintance who the commenter didn’t know well had recently lost their pet, and was very upset by the conversation.
As the commenter themself put it: “How do I apologize? I am not sorry that I was making conversation about old pets with a group of apparently interested people. I really do think that the topic was fair game for polite conversation.”
A lot of the responses to the thread, IMO, miss the point: i.e., that an apology for doing something unknowingly (essentially, causing an accident) is necessarily different from an apology for doing something that was unethical.
>Sometimes it is only possible to choose between staying silent or hurting someone’s feelings, and sometimes on reflection the latter is the right choice.
You don't even go far enough. Sometimes staying silent will still hurt someone's feelings, so it's only possible to choose between *lying*/*being a doormat* and hurting someone's feelings.
This is true, but also, we're always predisposed to think well of ourselves. Whenever Alice says something that hurts Bob, it's always tempting for Bob to feel like Alice should have stayed silent or phrased things better, and it's always tempting for Alice to feel like Bob is oversensitive or maybe even exaggerating.
The thing that it's tempting for you to feel is what seems like reality to you at the time. So the only effective rule to follow to avoid the temptation is to be kinder than necessary, even if the other person does not deserve it; to apologize for expressing your views badly, even if you did not express them badly; to forgive something that was said bluntly and hurt your feelings, even if it was obviously a bad idea to say.
It's not always the most important thing to follow this rule, of course. Kindness is only one of several considerations. But in order to be kind, this is the sort of rule we must follow.
> regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them.
Most apologies (or other discussions in which this phrase comes up) aren't about views, they're about actions or interpersonal relations.
This is clearly false and I know it because I've done it to people. There are times I've pressed someone close to me for their view on an issue -- making it clear I would be hurt if they didn't tell me -- and was then hurt because they did tell me.
This can happen when someone has an emotional need to feel like they aren't alone in believing or thinking something but they actually kinda are. Like when someone has been an asshole and is desperate for someone to be on their side and say they were right and brushes away your attempts to stay out of it.
And some of us really do value having the ability to ask for an honest opinion from a friend and -- if it matters enough to us to press past attempts to demure -- actually get it. So it really is impossible to avoid hurting someone like me in that situation. I'd be even more hurt if they refused to share an opinion after I really insisted.
That is it. "I'm sorry you feel that way" leaves out the important part of what makes it a genuine apology: "I'm sorry FOR WHAT I DID THAT MADE you feel that way".
The first is just "for some unknown reason you feel bad or offended or sad or angry, sorry for you!" and denying responsibility or blame. That is what makes it a fake apology. Who knows *why* "you feel that way", it could be that you are hysterical and over-react like that all the time, or that a cat jumped out of a tree onto your head, or the coffee machine was broken, or you lost your winning lottery ticket. Me? I did/said something that was hurtful and offensive? Oh no, that's not the reason at all!
I mean, but isn’t the point of “I’m sorry you feel that way” that it is explicitly phrased as NOT to constitute an apology? When I say that, I say it because I want the person hearing it to be clear that I am sorry but I refuse responsibility and I am not apologizing.
It’s not a fake apology because no apology is intended.
Pain is the price of engaging in social interaction while having gaping unhealed emotional wounds. That's on me. I shouldn't expect the rest of the world to accommodate me.
I think pain is the price of engaging in social interaction where there are any stakes higher than "I'd like a soy latte with an extra shot." If you can benefit from the interaction, you can probably be hurt by it.
> "But in fact regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them."
This framing forces you to take responsibility for everybody else's emotions, and implies that everybody else should take responsibility for yours.
As others have pointed out, this structurally favors the aggreived, with all the problems that entails. And that's not to mention the external emotional locus of control it assumes and the problems that lie therein.
> is that it doesn’t take responsibility for causing the feelings of the other person
Who exactly is responsible for feelings?
And to what extent can you really be said to "cause" someone to feel something?
Are their emotional responses really under my control?
My theory of adulthood is personal ownership of feelings and personal accountability for actions.
That's not the downside, it's the whole point of the expression.
Because sometimes people are offended by something you said without having done anything wrong. I could give many examples of factual claims being considered offensive.
And then you need a way to deflect the implicit accusation of having done something wrong without looking mean.
Its not a binary thing though. "Im sorry you feel that way" explicitly denies responsibility. You can usually avoid that without explicitly accepting responsibility - just leave it open, if you dont want to fight that fight right now.
>And then you need a way to deflect the implicit accusation of having done something wrong without looking mean.
No, you don't *need*. "Not looking mean" is not a need.
That's pure pedantry.
No, I'm just apparently barking up the wrong tree; I have a giant hateboner for what Zvi calls "immoral mazes" and those sufficiently steeped in such mazes sometimes actually do mean "need" in such sentences due to the shame-society-like attributes of mazes.
If you think I'm just being pedantic, then you presumably didn't intend that connotation, hence: I apologise for the unnecessary moral rebuke.
Fair enough, I accept your apology, and in return apologize for accusing you of pedantry.
> But in fact regardless of what views you have, it’s possible to avoid hurting people in your expression of them.
You seem to be saying that there are no people who care about the substance of your views.
I tend to think the opposite is the case; mostly, if your views are going to hurt someone else, they'll be hurt regardless of the wording you use, because they'd have to be really, really stupid to be fooled by that.
In place of “I’m sorry if you’re offended,” I prefer some form of “Apologies for offending you” or “Sorry I offended you, it wasn’t my intention.” I think the “if” can come off as disingenuous if the person is clearly offended. If you really need to express uncertainty, a few extra words can help, like “it seems like I’ve offended you. If so, sorry about that.”
I know some people will still object to my preferred versions, but in practice I’ve had better luck with them. Your mileage may vary.
"We disagree, no offense intended."
> I know some people will still object to my preferred versions
It probably says something about me or this topic, that my eyes initially misread "versions" as "weapons". :-(
That’s a different meaning though, because your response *is* accepting responsibility for offending the other person, which is not really what you want to say if you genuinely do not feel that you’ve done anything wrong.
“I’m sorry you feel that way” is deliberately a (polite) non-apology.
It is exactly this. I’ve scanned a few comments on here and those who hate this phrase (I’m moderately sympathetic) because they feel it is manipulative. It isn’t fun for anyone to be told to, “calm down” or “you’re overreacting” or “so/and” in so many words.
What I can’t wrap my head around AT ALL is how people can’t seem to see how much more manipulative it is to have the onus of validating everyone else’s emotion state/response foisted upon you in perpetuity. (I ’m maximally sympathetic to this position to Hitchensonian levels). And on top of this fostering an emotional manipulative cultural practice begets highly emotional manipulative people and that seems like a bad idea to turn every average Sam, Dick, and Harry into pariahs unnecessarily. It’s not healthy.
Have to agree with this. I've often thought the most prosocial way to deal with these issues is 1) try to be considerate of others' feelings, 2) try to have a thick skin, and 3) be forgiving of others because it won't be long before you're in their position.
When people do these three things, we can associate in relative safety and freedom.
I think these are good options. I think even taking a second of effort to say a version that's not the cliche version, signals that you take their feelings at least a bit seriously. It's a shame one version has become a cliche, but the fact is it has, and using it in the knowledge that it's a cliche signals lack of empathy.
An apology that doesn't require anything from you is no apology at all. "I'm sorry you feel this way" doesn't convey compassion at all, it basically reflects back blame onto the other person: "the way you feel made me sorry".
You are right that this is no apology at all. It is a statement of emotion. The speaker is “sorry” i.e. experiencing the emotion of sorrow. Not regret, not contrition. There are many things worth saying that aren’t apologies.
Certainly, but then what is the point of the expression of emotion? It's to communicate; but what? According to Scott, it's to: "Stay firm in your object-level position, but make it clear that you respect their feelings, didn’t mean it personally, and hope you can stay on good terms with them" - and I don't think that it shows those things from the perspective of the person being spoken to, which means it's a failure to communicate.
These days, when I say eg, “I’m sorry your car broke down,” I often get the reply, “It’s not your fault.”
I know it’s not my fault. I was expressing sympathy, not contrition.
If everyone has now forgotten the existence of the sympathy sorry, perhaps we should retire it. Instead of, “I’m sorry you feel that way,” it will have to be something like, “I sympathize with your distress, but I still disagree.”
Yes, it seems like the language has changed. Probably better to recognize that than to fight it, as literally inoffensive as the formulation may be.
It's not meant to be an apology. I don't think it's true that it doesn't convey compassion.
Clearly it doesn't reliably convey it. It can just as well be intended to convey "I'm annoyed that you're being an idiot" while maintaining plausible deniability.
I appreciate where you're coming from but when I've seen it used in anger its always been presaging utter denial of any wrongdoing. I know human relationships are tricky but outside of kneejerk "umm you said the words" I think a lot of wariness comes from the fact that people deploy it *as* a fake apology. I learned to dislike it after finally complaining about workplace bullying where it was the start of "I didn't do it but if I did you only read it as bullying because you're weird and autistic". I also know anecdotes aren't very good evidence but when "I'm sorry if you're offended" comes up most people who dislike it will have similar anecdotes.
But you're relying on the accounts of the people who were offended by the phrase in question, who are hardly disinterested observers and don't have privileged access into what is in the minds of the people saying things they object to.
Alas, no form or level of communication is immune to being manipulated by a bad faith actor.
(I think. Maybe MIRI came up with one while trying to solve AI safety, but I doubt it.)
I agree but by definition that is no more relevant here than in any other form or level of communication and I don't understand what point you are making about my comment. Most disagreements in interpersonal matters don't come about because one party is acting in bad faith, but simply because people see things differently and have different interests at stake.
It wasn't a point specifically about your comment, more of something that your comment insulted me to write?
The whole subtext of the conversation is roughly "here's a useful set of words that I want to use", and a lot of the pushback is because the words have been exploited by people to man other things. And the whole thing is an arms race, and there's no way to know, and even when someone spontaneously generated an entirely new expression of their feelings, they could just be a bad faith actor with more verbal skill.
"I didn't do it, and it's your fault, and you deserved it anyway."
Sometimes denying any wrongdoing is exactly appropriate, and not a sneaky trick to get away with something, because there isn't any wrongdoing to admit to. And sometimes there is wrongdoing and a stubborn refusal to admit to it, which of course can be infuriating, but it is infuriating regardless of whether that person is "sorry you feel that way" or not.
>And sometimes there is wrongdoing and a stubborn refusal to admit to it, which of course can be infuriating, but it is infuriating regardless of whether that person is "sorry you feel that way" or not.
In context, these kinds of phrases tend to be used to win points with third parties by appearing to be conciliatory, without actually being conciliatory. If such point-winning succeeds, then it is in fact more infuriating, as it is successful and hostile social manipulation.
I think if you endorse doing an action, you can't coherently apologize for it. But the phrase is structured like an apology, so it ends up looking like "I did nothing wrong, you're just mad, but also you should forgive me and not hold it against me.".
Exactly; a lot of the defenses of the phrase in these comments are saying "well, it's NOT an apology, so it shouldn't be treated as a bad one, because it's not one at all" - but it is certainly disguised as one, purposefully or no, and people interpreting it as a faux apology is sensible based on that.
If what is intended can be phrased accurately as "this isn't meant as an apology even though it sounds like one: I'm sorry you feel that way" then that's not very good communication.
I think this is the key point. I mostly hear this kind of thing (and the objections to it) when a public official screws the pooch and people demand an apology and this is what they get.
It’s similar to when a public official says, “I take full responsibility,” but, having “taken full responsibility,” they suffer no other retribution for falling down at their job.
In both cases they are words designed to get the official off the hook by convincing people there is contrition and an acknowledgment, but without accepting any other consequences for the failure.
But in a situation where someone is hurt in some surprising way by something that seemed to be innocuous…what else can you do?
I gave an example earlier of someone who told a story about their pet at a party, while unbeknownst to them, an acquaintance was dealing with the death of their own pet. Acquaintance got very upset.
If it were me, I’d probably send them a text along the lines of “hey, I just wanted to say that I’m sorry about the other night; if I’d known about your dog, I wouldn’t have gone on about mine” or something like that.
But to be a real apology, one must acknowledge that what they did was wrong and that they will do better in the future! Whereas in this case…there’s not really any “better” to do. Unless “trigger warning, I’m going to tell a story about my dog” is to become the protocol for casual social events evermore.
In that case, "I'm sorry about that, in the future I will refrain from telling those anecdotes to you" would be fine, no? That seems like perfectly adequate "better" to do. You weren't immoral-unethical-wrong, but you were hurting-someone-by-reminding-them-of-dead-pet-wrong, which isn't very wrong but is also easy to not do (edit: once informed).
Of course, in a situation where they're triggered by something that is truly burdensome to not talk about, like words with the letter 'e' or something absurd, you would obviously be reasonable for refusing to change. This doesn't sound like that, though.
edit: I think in some cases people (not saying you) in that position feel defensive because they are thinking "what *could* I have done? Nothing! So why should I be feeling negatively about it? I refuse" and double down on refusing to feel bad about it. When really, of course they couldn't have done anything differently, but the negative feeling is meant to be useful as a touchstone in the future, as it will be rather easy to associate that acquaintance with their dead pet. That's really all guilt/regret is about, our brains going "oop, don't make that happen again".
As others have said elsewhere in the comments, this seems to be a difference in what people think the phrase "I'm sorry" means. To many people it can easily convey sympathy without conveying contrition or even hinting at it (e.g. "I'm sorry your dog died"). But clearly to some people, it always carries some connotation of contrition, so "I'm sorry you feel that way" sounds like it's a non-apology disguised as an apology.
I think it's important to understand that, to many people, it really, truly does not sound like it's trying to be an apology at all. I honestly hadn't realized until reading all these comments that "I'm sorry" carries strong connotations of contrition for so many people. It just seems obvious to me that people use it all the time for things that are obviously not apologies and obviously not pretending to be apologies. But I guess I must be insulated from most of the people who only use it as an apology or I'm too oblivious to notice.
I think Scott is spot-on about why the phrase is good when used properly, but is wrong about why people hate it, which is how often it is used improperly.
I think the problem with the phrase is when people pretend it's an apology. As Scott shows, it's not; it's saying you stand by what you said/did, but have no malice towards the other person and are sorry they are upset (but *not* for what you did). And used that way, it's just fine.
But sometimes people say the phrase and then say "I apologized", or treat it as if it were an apology. And since it's not, that's really obnoxious. It's a way to pretend apologize—hey, I used the word "sorry" in the neighborhood of this issue!—without admitting wrongdoing.
To put it another way: people hate it because it's *used* as a fake apology. It's not necessarily one; used properly, it's not an apology at all. But it can be used as a fake apology, a way to pretend to say you're sorry without saying so. And used *that* way it is in fact noxious.
So we should be fine with people using the phrase, but decide, as a culture, that it *doesn't* count as an apology. Instead, it is, openly, a refusal to make one. Which is fine if that's your position! But you can't say that phrase and *then* say that you *did* apologize.
Seconding this. "I'm sorry you feel this way" expresses sympathy without expressing regret. That's good for cases where what was done was not wrong and was not regretted. But if I punch someone in the face and just express sympathy ("I'm sorry if you are in pain") without regret ("I'm sorry that I caused you pain"), then I come across as not taking responsibility for my wrong action. I am not apologizing. That's the move that bothers people, where instead of offering an apology/regret, they offer sympathy.
But sometimes (often, in fact, when disputes arise), people disagree about whether the action that has offended another is indeed regretful. Those are surely the cases in which people are likely to reach for this phrase.
Sure! There are absolutely cases where we disagree if it's regretful, and then you are looking for an apology where non is coming. It's precisely those cases which may be the worst, because "I'm sorry if I offended you" is saying "I am pointedly not expressing regret for this action". And if the receiver of the offense feels an apology is warranted, this is the other person doubling down on not offering one.
Edit: Here's a realistic example. I am having a conversation with a friend, and bring up child abuse in the conversation. My friend suffered from child abuse, but I did not know that. In spite of that, my friend tells me he is upset because I did not provide a trigger warning about a very difficult topic. I don't believe that trigger warnings are appropriate, so I don't think I did anything wrong, but I of course don't want my friend to be in pain (all things being equal), so I say "I'm sorry if you feel upset". My friend, expecting an apology, is now even more upset, because what they hear is "I wronged you, but I will not acknowledge that I did anything wrong".
To be explicit, I'm not saying who in this example is right or wrong, I'm sure reasonable people can disagree about that. It's just a realistic case where an "I'm sorry for you being hurt" causes more hurt.
Yes, this is an exactly accurate explanation. I'm kind of shocked Scott doesn't seem to understand that. I had something similar happen - someone said something racist, I vented to some close friends, one friend asked what was racist about it, I explained, he said he didn't understand and wouldn't find it offensive if it was said about him but was sorry this offended me. Obviously, that made me significantly angrier. He was coming from a genuine place, but that genuine place was thoughtless, ignorant and inconsiderate. (He later apologized and we made up, not that it's important to the story).
Point being, "I'm sorry you feel that way" implies "you are not correct to feel that way - *I* certainly wouldn't feel that way - but I wasn't trying to make you feel that way on purpose" which is, all things considered, a very weak sentiment.
> Point being, "I'm sorry you feel that way" implies "you are not correct to feel that way
But it can also express "both of our feelings are valid, and I'm sorry that this object-level disagreement risks destroying our friendship because we can't find a meta-level meeting of minds on this one issue."
As a youngster, I had a friend who would do things like kick you and then say "Just kidding". I think that's an even greater misuse of language than to punch someone and then say sorry if you're in pain.
Yeah, it's a nasty bullying technique, doing something bad to you or telling you terrible things, and when you act distraught to say, "I'm just kidding / fucking with you bro", "sorry you're such a snowflake", "what, can't you take a joke". Makes my blood boil just typing it...
It works only if the action is verbal, since that can be cancelled out by more words.
"Stop hitting yourself!"
I think you’re mostly right, but missing another factor: “I’m sorry you feel that way” is often a deliberate implication that the offended party is *wrong* to feel that way. That *they* have committed a sin by having incorrect feelings.
That is, you are not merely dismissing the idea that you are responsible, but also dismissing the validity of the aggrieved’s feelings.
I think this is the correct answer. The context determines the meaning, and the plausible deniability is what makes it so popular.
"I am sorry that out of all the possible reactions to my perfectly okay words, you chose to feel sorry for your pathetic self."
Totally agree. There are often two questions hanging in the air. Q1: is an apology called for? and Q2: was an appropriate apology given?
If you were clearly in the wrong, and an apology is owed, then "sorry you feel that way" is an infuriating thing to say.
If you're on solid ground in thinking no apology is called for, then Q2 is moot (at least for you), but "sorry you feel that way" can be a diplomatic (or passive-aggressive, depending on tone and context) attempt at moving on.
If Q1 is reasonably debatable, then "sorry you feel that way" is a way of dodging that debate, which could be wise or unwise depending on the situation.
And if both parties are at fault, but one gives a genuine apology and the other responds with "and I'm sorry if you were offended," that's maybe the worst and most relationship-damaging scenario.
I hold a number of positions that I don't feel in my gut, but have been persuaded by apparently rational arguments. If someone says "I'm sorry you feel that way" that is literally false.
"Flying is safe"
"I'm sorry you feel that way"
"I don't!!!"
Not many takers for this one but I still think it's relevant. The position I take on an issue is a complex interaction of my own feelings at the time, my likely feelings in the future, other people's feelings, the law, culture, philosophy, religion etc. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is seriously reductive and patronising.
The problem with the phrase is that it doesn’t sound genuine.
It feels like a humiliation move. When you say it, I hear:
“I am sorry for you, the poor emotionally unstable retard, that you get offended by truth.”
I think a subtle change can go a big way in improving this. Let’s try:
Let the other person acknowledge it first:
“You seem offended, have I offended you?”
very often, they will realize how silly it is to be offended and this solves a problem itself. However, if they answer yes, continue with:
“I am sorry to hear that. I truly <reiterate your position here>, but I didn’t mean to offend you.”
> "I am sorry for you, the poor emotionally unstable retard, that you get offended by truth."
I think you've found the "incredibly eloquent and original answer that manages to convey joint firmness and compassion" Scott mentioned.