You've kind of carved out a stance that anyone who doesn't like "I'm sorry you feel that way" is an ill-intentioned, malign, cultist with a political axe to grind.
I'm in my 60s and have heard people say this phrase going back to my childhood, from parents, siblings, teachers, to loads of other people of all persuasions.
Is there room for people having a different take on this phrase than you and being also upstanding, moral, well-intentioned, sincere people?
People have been trying to coerce apologies from people for a really long time. In marriages, friendships, between political rivals. This is part of human behavior as I witness it and doesn't belong to one political faction.
I'm aware I can feel however I like, you don't need to give me permission for that. I don't think I was mainly expressing feelings here. I was saying that your argument looks inaccurate from where I sit based on the evidence I have.
Rather than engage with the content of what I said, you labeled it "feelings" and then moved the goalposts to ask me to present arguments about something different. Not about your initial statement that the people who dislike the "I'm sorry you feel that way" are woke-ists with a political axe to grind, but now about why the phrase itself "isn't a perfectly common and legitimate English expression ..."
If you search for my handle on this page, you'll see that I've added my two cents on that topic all through here, including voicing support for lots of other people who make their own arguments.
"It's what we say in English in that circumstance" is non-responsive. People also say, "You're a shithead and I'm not going to talk to you." People also say, "You're hysterical" or "I don't want to talk about this now" or a thousand other things. The conversation in these comments isn't about whether it's a thing people say or not. It's about whether it's a helpful or skillful thing people say. And on this topic, it's clear that intelligent people disagree.
I respect Scott and his arguments, and I'm grateful for his willingness to try out ideas on here that people are likely to disagree about. It allows us to come in here and have these fun lively conversations while also disagreeing, and to do that mostly civilly. I've been reading and commenting in here for over a decade and I continue to feel grateful for Scott's clarity and courage and modeling how to have intelligent conversations across different viewpoints and kinds of people.
Your stance seems to be that intelligent people can't disagree on this, they can only take your side of it. And not only that, but that the people who disagree with you are of necessity from a narrow subculture of political debate. My response to that is that my evidence across years and well before and outside of woke-ism is that that's not supported by the evidence.
There are lot of places in here where I and others give detailed ideas for what might be more constructive to say instead.
The content of your original post conveys the sense to me anyway that you have an axe to grind around a particular political subculture and that you're looking for opportunities to whack them even when it's a stretch in terms of relevance to the current conversation.
You are factually incorrect when you say that this phrase is hated by a specific subculture. This phrase is hated by a whole lot of people across many subcultures, many of whom hold sociopolitical views diametrically opposed to what I am pretty sure you are describing as "The Cult".
I'm sorry that you can't figure this out for yourself.
Well, people who hate hearing it but like saying it are hypocrites, and there's no shortage of those. But John above is right that this isn't a woke thing. A lot of people dislike passive-aggressive behaviour like pointed non-apologies. It's personality, not politics.
Pointed non-apologies are not "empathy". There's nothing empathic about saying "sorry you were so pathetic as to be upset by that", which is the meaning covered by these phrases. "What, you're trigged?!" and so on.
It's hypocritical to condemn the phrase as dishonest when other people use it but then to smugly use it yourself. Hypocrisy, at base, is holding other people to a standard you refuse to apply to yourself.
I don't have absolute recall for everything I've ever said, but I have some level of confidence that I've not used those exact words, and I have rarely used any similar formulation, except for ironically.
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.
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.
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." - 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.
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.
Sure, but the customer service rep usually isn't saying "I'm sorry you feel that way." (If they did, I wouldn't blame the customer for getting even more upset!)
Perhaps more importantly, conversations with customer service reps are very different in a lot of ways from the type of conversation where you're likely to hear the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way." You're strangers, so it's less personal. It's probably less emotionally charged; or if it is emotionally charged, it's typically because of the situation and not because of anything the other person did. It tends to be understood, even if it's never said in so many words, that the customer service rep is representing their company and is apologizing on behalf of the company rather than for any personal wrongdoing. (And therefore, arguably it is in fact a real apology rather than just an expression of sympathy.) It tends to be understood, even if it's never said in so many words, that the customer service rep has limited power, and therefore the apology, however it might be interpreted, is probably the best they have to offer. It tends to be understood, at least on some level, that the problem and its lack of solution isn't meaningfully the rep's fault; they're just the messenger. And so on. Context is important. They're really not comparable situations at all.
Besides, there are two facets to the "I'm sorry you feel that way" problem that I think people are sleeping on:
1) In the situations of "I'm sorry your dog died" or "I'm sorry" (as said by a customer service rep), there is a more or less unified understanding of what the phrase is supposed to mean. The first phrase is a set phrase that is almost universally understood to be The Thing You Say when you want to express your condolences about a loss. The second phrase is almost universally understood to be The Thing You Say when you can't help the customer but you wish you could. When you hear these phrases, you know what they mean. And even if you don't know what they mean, they tend to fail safely; even if the recipient doesn't pick up the intended meaning, they are unlikely to interpret the phrases in ways that are deeply insulting to them. (Even if they interpret the customer service rep's "I'm sorry" as insincere and are angered as a result, they are unlikely to feel like the rep is implying that THEY'RE the problem, or that their feelings are invalid or of no account.) Conversely, as demonstrated by the arguments in this very comments section, there is a much less unified understanding of what "I'm sorry you feel that way" is supposed to mean. It can be used in a few different ways, and some of the more obvious ones are snide and deeply insulting. "Your feelings are dumb and wrong and unimportant, and for maximum insult value I'm going to convey this in a way that sounds like an apology but isn't." Some people genuinely don't mean that when they use this phrase, but many people do, to the point that it can be difficult to imagine someone NOT meaning it that way. It doesn't fail safely; there's too much variance in usage. Even if someone tells you they don't mean it that way, and you believe them, the phrase itself triggers a bad emotional reaction because of conditioning from all the people who do mean it that way, so it would be valid to object "If you didn't mean it that way then you shouldn't have used that phrase, you should have used a different phrase that made it more clear what you meant." (Of course, at that point it can become an argument about hyperstitious slur cascades and semantic treadmills, but I think that can be a separate argument. The sort of situation where you're using the words "I'm sorry", regardless of their intended meaning, is the sort of situation where you should be more worried about communicating effectively than about reclaiming a phrase.)
2) In the situations of "I'm sorry your dog died" or "I'm sorry" (as said by a customer service rep), the recipient is getting more or less what they expected and wanted. In the first case, they wanted condolences and got condolences. In the second case, perhaps they didn't get the solution they wanted, but they know they're getting the next best thing, and it's what they expected to get if they couldn't get an actual solution, and it's probably at least not incredibly odious to them even if it's not quite what they wanted. And, as mentioned previously, they probably know that the problem and its lack of solution isn't really the customer service rep's fault; they're just the messenger. But in the case of "I'm sorry you feel that way", even if the recipient understands that this is an expression of genuine sympathy, that's of no use to them if what they wanted was an honest-to-God apology. And since the speaker probably isn't a customer service rep, they can't even argue that they're just the messenger. In the recipient's mind, there is a perception (whether accurate or not) that the present situation is the speaker's fault, and that the speaker's lack of contrition is also the speaker's fault. (At the very least, it certainly isn't some nebulous third party's fault, the way it would be if the speaker were a customer service rep.) So, the recipient isn't getting what they wanted; and while they might be getting the next best thing, that fact is a lot less meaningful in this situation, because it feels like the speaker *could* give them what they want but is choosing not to. So the "next best thing" isn't just not what they wanted, it's something actively odious to them, a callous refusal to (in their mind) do the right thing. In summary, the recipient is expecting and wanting an apology, and they not only aren't getting that, they are getting something odious instead. And then, on top of that, the odious thing is being framed in a similar way as the thing they actually wanted, which just adds insult to injury.
"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.
> 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.
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.
I think what Wesley is getting at is that it doesn't matter to the recipient whether the phrase is sincere. What matters is that they are expecting and wanting an apology, and they not only aren't getting that, they are getting something odious instead. And then, on top of that, the odious thing is being framed in a similar way as the thing they actually wanted, which just adds insult to injury.
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.
Sure, but if that is in fact what you mean, the recipient might very well be justified in getting upset with you about it! Scott's argument seems to be that people shouldn't be hostile to this phrase, but all he's actually done is explain what he thinks the phrase means. Even if he's right, why shouldn't people be hostile to it? Reaching an agreement on what "I'm sorry you feel that way" means doesn't dissolve the ill will that naturally arises when someone expects "I'm sorry I was a jerk" and instead gets "I'm sorry you feel that way."
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.
Yes, but the fact that no apology is intended is exactly the problem. The recipient WANTS an apology, feels owed an apology. And maybe they really are owed an apology! But whether they are or aren't owed one, they believe they are owed one, and so naturally they're going to be very upset when you say something that not only isn't an apology, but seems to almost be an anti-apology (actively disclaiming responsibility), and even worse is worded like an apology even though it isn't one (which just makes it sound snide).
Hard for me to put myself back into this thread because I didn't even remember it. It was nine months ago. Anyway.
My response to that is kind of a shrug.
It's not worded like an apology—not everything that begins "I'm sorry" is supposed to be regret. For example, "I'm sorry your dad died" is not a murder confession. It's just sorrow.
This is an impasse. If person A wants confession and repentance from person B and will accept nothing less, and person B feels bad for person A's distress but does not accept any responsibility for causing it, then the sincere thing to do is say "I feel sorrow for how you feel."
Is that probably going to make person A angrier if they can't settle for that? Sure. Is it also completely true and quite compassionate? Sure.
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.
Okay, but the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" isn't only used by people who have in fact done nothing wrong.
And regardless of whether you've done anything wrong, the person to whom you're saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" does indeed believe you've done something wrong, and therefore it is only natural that they'll be upset when you deny this. Denying it in a way that sounds like an apology but isn't just makes it worse, because that dissonance makes it sound snide.
You can express that you are sympathetic but don't feel you've done anything wrong, but you should find a better way to say it. And then, even once you've found a better way to say it, you shouldn't be surprised if the other person still gets upset with you.
Yes, people can be wrong, that's a fully general counterargument against any sort of rhetoric.
The person demanding an apology is already upset with you, and they're unlikely to stop being upset with you, unless you admit fault, which you don't want to do if you think you're haven't done anything wrong. In that case, you need a way to firmly reject to accusation. If the accusation is based on your interlocutors feeling rather than any arguments you could address, that necessarily means dismissing their feelings, of course it's going to sound snide. But the alternative is succumbing to emotional blackmail.
> 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.
Whether you've done anything wrong and whether you've offended the other person are two different questions. If you said or did something, and someone was offended by what you said or did, then you have offended them as a simple matter of fact. Whether you've done anything wrong is another question entirely. "Sorry I offended you" acknowledges that you offended them; it doesn't necessarily accept responsibility or admit wrongdoing. (Although I admit that it seems fairly likely the other person will assume that you are accepting responsibility or admitting wrongdoing, which is a fair reason to not want to use it.)
> “I’m sorry you feel that way” is deliberately a (polite) non-apology.
It is certainly a non-apology, but calling it "polite" is at best questionable and at worst disingenuous. For one thing, the phrase implies that the problem rests squarely on the other person's shoulders; which may not even be true, but even if it *is* true that doesn't make it *polite* to imply it. For another, it's phrased like an apology (which you know is what the person really wants), but isn't one. It's like dangling the thing they want in front of them, tantalizingly, and then ripping it away, and pissing on it for good measure. Therefore, no matter how pure your intentions, it will always sound snide. Better to say it in a way that doesn't sound at all like an apology.
(Indeed, I think I would argue that a pointed non-apology is always impolite. Sometimes it's okay to be impolite, but we shouldn't therefore pretend we're *not* being impolite.)
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.”
The problem isn't that they don't know it's sympathy rather than contrition, it's that they don't want sympathy, they want contrition. People don't get mad about "I'm sorry your car broke down" because they wanted sympathy and they got sympathy, so everybody's happy. When someone says "I'm sorry you feel that way", the recipient wanted contrition, and they not only didn't get contrition, they got a very pointed statement that they won't get any contrition, aren't owed contrition, shouldn't expect any contrition, and that's that, no more to be said about it, too bad for you, goodbye.
Even if the person did want sympathy, this doesn't even sound like sympathy. It sounds snide and callous no matter how pure your intentions are; no amount of explaining what you really mean by it will make it sound less snide. So, yes, of course a different phrase is needed, one that at the very least expresses the sympathy part.
(Of course, this doesn't resolve the problem that what the person really wants is contrition. You'll have to either come to an agreement on whether you should be contrite or not, or make peace with them being mad at you.)
Yes, of course. People who feel wronged don't want sympathy, they want contrition.
There has to be a way to express the idea that, "While I don't believe I've done anything wrong, I do sympathize with your distress." Because there are indeed many situations between adults in which this is the appropriate response. One party's hurt feelings is not prima facie evidence of the other's wrongdoing.
It will not help to come up with a new expression. Someone who hurt another person and refuses to take responsibility cannot be forced to do so by changing the etiquette of "sorry."
A really determined responsibility-dodger will come up with all kinds of other phrases. They may even gesture at something like contrition! My personal favorite from my own experience was, "Yes, I acknowledge that I was acting out [when I committed a felony financial crime against you], but we were both behaving badly."
This statement was later described indignantly as, "I apologized!"
The phrase isn't the problem. Assholes are the problem.
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.
This. People seem to not be understanding that just because THEY have only the purest intentions when they use this phrase, doesn't mean everybody else does. I dare say most people don't. To the point that I'm pretty sure most people do in fact hear it as "I'm annoyed that you're being an idiot." It's disingenuous to use it anyway and then expect the other person not to be upset.
(Of course, this is only part of the issue. The other part is that the recipient probably doesn't just want sympathy or compassion, they want contrition; and "I'm sorry you feel that way" not only doesn't express contrition, it's a pretty pointed way of saying that they're not going to get any contrition. If they think they're owed contrition, this is inherently a hostile statement. Which makes it doubly useless to expect them not to get mad, even if they believe you that you intend it as an expression of sympathy. They don't want sympathy, they want you to apologize! Obviously people are allowed to disagree about whether someone did something wrong, but you should expect at least one of the people involved in that disagreement to be angry with the other one.)
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.
> 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.
Sure, but if you're in a position of saying "I'm sorry you feel that way", it's a safe bet that the other person believes you did something wrong. And believing that someone did something wrong is internally indistinguishable from them actually having done something wrong. So obviously they're not going to agree that it's appropriate for you to deny wrongdoing, and therefore they're obviously going to get upset when you do. It's unreasonable to expect them not to. If you really believe you did nothing wrong, and you value your integrity, obviously you shouldn't back down; but you'll have to make your peace with the person being mad at you.
> 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.
Obviously it's infuriating either way, but it's far more infuriating when it's expressed with the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way." Because then they're not just failing to express admission or contrition, they're very pointedly telling you that they know you want that but you're definitely not getting it, so there, too bad for you. And, as many others have pointed out elsewhere, it also implies that the problem rests squarely on your shoulders and your dumb, unimportant feelings; which is infuriating to hear regardless of whether it's true.
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.
1) The thing about "I'm sorry your dog died" is that it is in fact obvious to many people what it's conveying; but even more crucially, even when it isn't obvious, the recipient doesn't thereby feel insulted, because there's no implication that their feelings are wrong or bad or invalid or not cared about. The same cannot be said for "I'm sorry you feel that way". Many people do not find it obvious what that's meant to convey (partly because people don't all use it the same way, see point #2); and people who do not find the intended meaning obvious do thereby feel insulted, because the most obvious interpretation implies that the problem is located in their feelings, an implication which they would probably strenuously object to.
2) For many people, the very fact that it isn't expressing contrition is exactly the problem. They *want* contrition, and they aren't getting it. And even worse, they're getting something that *sounds* like contrition even though it isn't, which just makes it sound snide. (And besides, a lot of the time it *is* snide! People use this phrase snidely all the time!)
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.
That's a fully humpty-dumptyesque argument. If a speaker refuses to adjust their statements to how a listener will predictably perceive them, because the speaker isn't responsible for that perception, then they're not attempting communication at all and might as well just say "I am groot".
There is nothing endemic to "I'm sorry you feel that way" that could justify an interpretation like “I am sorry for you, the poor emotionally unstable retard, that you get offended by truth.” There is no difficulty in perceiving what's given at face value.
Notwithstanding non-verbal communication and context, most often "I'm sorry you feel that way" means what it means: regret that the other party feels the way they do but not conceding wrongdoing. Clarifying as much would **not** be any more satisfactory to the listener, as you seem to imply. They're angry that the speaker isn't yielding. That's it.
All of this other "interpreted" garbage is projection driven out of insecurity, like those types who react to advice as though they've just been called stupid. You don't need to tip toe around that because they'll do it anyway, unless you shower words of validation and sympathy around the actual core message, but then they'll just come away with what they were looking for.
As this discussion shows, there is a good chance that people wouldn't perceive such response as polite, which means that it failed in its intended purpose.
Intended purpose is not necessarily contingent on it being polite. And I disagree, I don't think the objection is over politeness somehow endemic to that selection of words, I think people don't like the actual message. The message is "I sympathize that you feel the way you do, but do not concede any wrongdoing". That infuriates the types who will only get emotional satisfaction from the other party yielding.
The problem is that we come come up with language to distinguish assholes from non-assholes, and then the assholes will catch on and start using the non-asshole language themselves but in their asshole-y way.
We’re seeing this a lot now with therapy-speak. It used to be that if someone wants to set a boundary they were doing it because someone was being an asshole to them, but now people will set “boundaries” that are really just them telling you what to do.
I think the phenomenon seems to come from therapy culture because of how common therapy is now, but I think it’s more related to word-use drift (like how some words used to be not offensive but now are).
The most important skill is to learn to see the intentions behind people’s words.
Dividing the world into assholes and non-assholes is not a great first step. Reducing a person to the speech/opinion you disagree with is the problem here, right? If we acknowledge that disagreement is not disrespect then the content of 'I'm sorry you feel that way' becomes 'It seems we disagree on this.' And the latter is a normal and non-threatening situation to find yourself in. I agree that the language of therapy has been co-opted to catastrophise these types of differing views though.
but i think the point is that people get offended by things and you (the supposed offender) don't really think you did anything to hurt them.
another, maybe more easily understood example: one of my kids wants something that they're not permitted to have. a really expensive toy, let's say, and i say no, and they start to cry, and i really feel sad that they feel sad, because i understand disappointment, i really feel their pain from having to accept that you will not always get what you want in life. so i hug them and kids them and say I'm so sorry you're sad about this, i understand. i love you to pieces but the answer is still no.
I think your example is completely understandable and makes a lot of sense. Of course you feel that way when your child has a meltdown over something they can't have. It is sad they are feeling distraught, but that doesn't change they don't get it (in fact, probably means they really shouldn't have it now, so as to not teach them feeling bad loudly gets them what they want).
But in my opinion that just makes it even clearer that treating an adult in that way is in fact patronizing.
But if you have a belief a loved one feels hurt by -- say a spouse is upset to find out you think it's a sign of bad character to have some belief -- you surely still need to communicate that you care and feel bad this is really hurting them even if it obviously can't change your belief.
Okay, I guess I'm confused about the scenario, but let's go with: You think Sauron is evil, your spouse is pro-Sauron. You say "that's okay honey, I still love you, I just think this guy is bad" they say "I'm hurt you're calling me a bad person for what I believe" you say "I'm not calling you a bad person, I'm sorry you feel that way, I just think you should stop giving money to Sauron"
I still think it's patronizing, even if the person being patronized clearly deserves it and is in the wrong. But yes, sometimes you do need to say those things -- sometimes people are out of line, won't be talked with, and you have to delicately straddle the line between maintaining honesty and imploding a relationship. Nonetheless, it's not a phrase I would appreciate hearing in an earnest conversation where both parties are being genuine -- it seems like a fallback to just mollify them. I'm not disagreeing that at times those tactics are necessary, but if I'm NOT being so unreasonable that I need my feathers to be unruffled, then I would be offended. And if I AM being that unreasonable, it seems unlikely it would make me go "oh, I'm being unreasonable here." In short, I don't really see when it would possibly work to do what the user wants it to do, outside the above example of a child. (Of course, sometimes we're all unreasonable).
For instance, if at this juncture you said to me "I'm sorry you feel that way", you can obviously see why that would be taken poorly :)
I was thinking more that you say “it’s a sign of bad character if you support Sauron” and then it turns out their parents are Sauron supporters and they’re upset you have that belief (even after you say that you like their parents you just think a bit less of them for that). That minimizes the object level conflict and it’s just about you having a certain belief.
But yes, I ultimately agree that the particular phrase has come to have a meaning which is a bit more patronizing and is more like “sounds like a you problem” but I don’t think it’s patronizing to convey what I think the original/intended meaning of the phrase was - I care about your feelings and don’t like making you feel upset even if I still believe that I’m correct.
The core problem with your argument here is that “I’m sorry that you feel that way” doesn’t actually communicate the message you describe in the third bullet point very well, in part because actual usage is usually passive-aggressive and pragmatically communicates the meta-message “You’re being unreasonable to an extent that I don’t think it’s worth engaging with your concerns.”
The problem is not the phrase itself but what follows after it.
Often it's a form of "I already said sorry, so stop talking about it" which is meant to stop short any discussion.
With the "I'm sorry how you feel about it" you implicitly state "I don't think it makes sense to discuss the topic with you"
Instead of standing firm to your view and supporting it with arguments, you are sorry about the feelings of the other person and thus move all their arguments on the issue into the "feelings" category.
That might be okay in the drug addiction example but in the case of disagreements about a genocidal war, an honest and compassionate discussion about the topic would sometimes make more sense.
The problem with the phrase is that it shuts down your ability to see if the other person has a point. Sure, sometimes the other person's an addict trying to score money for drugs and dismissing them is reasonable, but in both your other examples you could conceivably concede the object level point or explain why you think it's wrong or not analogous (like "yes that crime is terrible, but I think this is different from your case because...). Or at least demonstrate you understand the downsides of your position ("yes, if the crime actually did happen then I'm unfairly maligning and hurting a real victim, so I should be careful about my skepticism").
Or if you don't have the energy for an actual argument, "I'm sorry, I can't handle getting into this right now" makes more sense than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
So I think there's a general thing where saying something to someone else also moves you into that mindset. Emgm if you tell someone "I agree with you" that probably kicks off an internal thought process listing ways in which he's right, and if you say "you make some good points, but..." You'll start mentally listing flaws with his argument. So as part of this thing, if you say something to indicate there's no use in trying to understand, it goes with putting yourself in that mindset.
It seems pretty simple: “I’m sorry you feel that way” is 100% fine from someone who’s right in the underlying dispute, and callous from someone who’s wrong in the underlying dispute! But as in countless other cases, when the underlying dispute is too hard, people feel compelled to retreat to arguments about language.
Surely that's part of it but don't you also think that this specific phrase has started to actually change meaning to something more like "that sounds like a you problem" not a genuine expression that you regret having caused them pain.
I think it's more a matter of whether it's a reaction to a feeling or not. "The sky is blue" "But that's hurtful" "I'm sorry you feel that way" is fine, "The sky is blue" "No it's not" "Sorry you feel that way" is not fine. Something being hurtful has nothing to do with whether that thing is right or not, and using "I'm sorry you feel that way" being ok does not directly relate to someone being right or not.
I think you're getting to the same nut I see. I think in terms of three parties; call them Sorry, Upset, and Other.
Sorry: ISYFTW; nevertheless, I'm right.
Upset: I do feel that way; maybe you're right; but that's not immediately clear to me.
Other: Sorry says he(or she or they)'s sorry; Upset says he isn't satisfied. If Sorry is right, then it's Upset's problem, but that's not immediately clear to me. And it's entirely possible, then, that what I'm seeing isn't Sorry, but one of two evil twins:
-- NotSorry, who *says* he's sorry, but only to get Upset to cede the conflict
-- SorryButWrong, who is truly sorry, but is *wrong* *and* believes he's right
...and I think Upset is smart enough to know he might be seeing one of those twins, doesn't have enough information to disambiguate, which means:
-- if it's NotSorry, Upset is now more upset because he's talking to a bad-faith actor
-- if it's SorryButWrong, Upset is now more upset because he has to persuade SBW when SBW is entrenched in a logical fallacy
-- if it's Sorry, Upset is now more upset because he knows Sorry is also smart enough to realize this
-- this Aaronson fellow surprises me; I would have expected him to have fallen afoul of this trap enough times in the past to notice it
...all of which leads me to infer that, more likely than I thought, people aren't good at thinking outside themselves.
There may not be a right or wrong that can be discovered ever. Suppose I say that I think abortion is murder, and my friend quietly confides in me later that she had an abortion when she was in high school, and is upset to be called a murderer. We actually have conflicting beliefs there, and there's never going to be an experiment we can run or an oracle we can consult to determine who's right.
I can tell her I am sorry for upsetting her, and be truthful. But that doesn't imply my changing my belief, nor her changing hers.
Tangential to the discussion, but if that's a belief that (the hypothetical) you genuinely hold, why are you sorry about upsetting a murderer? And why are you staying friends with her?
You can care about people you think have done terrible things in the past, or even people who are doing terrible things right now. You can care about people with whom you disagree about whether the things they have done are terrible.
Understandable. You can care about them overall. But do you not believe they should feel terrible and remorseful about the truly terrible things they've done? Otherwise you're kinda advocating for zero accountability for terrible things?
But wouldn't you want those people to feel bad specifically about the terrible things being done? Would you feel the same way about actual, non-abortion murder: e.g., you mention that you're strongly against murder, your friend says “Hey, I'm a murderer, so it really hurts when you say that”. Are you gonna be like “Sorry, man, didn't mean to make you feel that way?”
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is 100% callous and offensive if there is a dispute for you to be right or wrong about, because the other party believes they are right and you are wrong so they will predictably hear the callous version whether that's what you meant or not.
It's only appropriate in cases where there is no underlying dispute.
You don't get to apologise for *my* feelings. It's incredibly rude in the same way that "I'm sorry you're wrong" or "I'm sorry you're incompetent" would be. If you think I'm being so unreasonable that you're not willing to apologise for upsetting me (even if you're not going to change your object level position) then better to not apologise at all.
"I'm sorry you dropped that brick on your foot." Not an apology, an expression of regret that you are suffering. "I'm sorry you feel that way." Not an apology, an expression of regret that my disagreement with you caused suffering.
"I'm sorry you dropped that brick on your foot" is still making it very clear it has nothing to do with you. As if you are just a passerby noticing the other person is having a bad time. In the context of, in fact, noticing someone is just having a bad time, that's fine! In context of an argument where the other person feels that you are *causing* the bad time, that's only more fuel to the fire.
Not quite. There is a difference between being causally responsible and being morally responsible. If I serve a friend a meal with cumin and neither one of us previously knew they were allergic to cumin, then I am causally responsible for their hives. But I am not morally responsible for the hives. "I'm sorry you're allergic to cumin" expresses my regret at their suffering, but is not an apology since I did nothing morally wrong.
I think this is getting a little out of the realm of the emotional reactions in the post; of course for a situation when one's physical actions directly or indirectly cause unanticipated harm that you can't do anything about, you're right. But also, you can't just "take back" the allergen, so there's no point being sorry (e.g. about spilled milk). In the arguments the post describes, the speaker changing their mind or actions is implied to be able to "fix" the problem which is purely an emotional reaction predicated on the speaker's opinion or choices.
If you had an epipen on you but refused to use it in that situation and just express your sympathies, I think that friend would then have the right to be angry. Not to torture a metaphor. From the other person's perspective, you have an epipen and are offering feeble sympathies instead of it; they want you to "make it right" by giving up your views. Obviously, whether it's actually correct to do so or not is completely dependent on the context, the point is that offering one's sympathy is the wishy-washy middle road people hate.
"I'm sorry you're allergic to cumin" expresses my regret at their suffering, but is not an apology since I did nothing morally wrong."
But that sounds even more unreasonable. Why are you sorry that they're allergic? You didn't know, you're not responsible, and there is no expectation that every single person in the world will never have an allergy.
"I'm sorry your dog died" is the model here, so it would be better stated "I'm sorry that happened" (the cumin in the dish triggering the allergy). Expression of sympathy.
"I'm sorry, I had no idea you were allergic!" is the apology for the causal responsibility. As you say, you are not morally responsible because this was not done with full knowledge and on purpose to do harm. Expression of contrition, the idea is that now you know, you won't do it again.
"I'm sorry you're allergic" - what the heck is that? It may be an expression of sympathy, along the lines of "I'm sorry you can't enjoy delicious cumin due to your allergy", but more conventional usage in English would be "It's a pity" or "Such a shame" that you are allergic to cumin, since it is an impersonal fact and not the fault in any way of the speaker that this person has an allergy to cumin.
I have a friend who is allergic to cumin. Like, anaphylaxis will definitely die without an epipen level allergy. I have told him that I am sorry he is allergic to cumin--he's missing out on delicious Indian and Mexican food unless he carefully prepares it himself at home. Seems like a reasonable thing to say. Anyway, more broadly people can have reasonable or unreasonable emotions. Emotions aren't sacrosanct. I may be angry that the road is out and I have to take a detour. But that's an unreasonable emotion to maintain when I discover the detour is actually a shortcut. I could express regret that someone has an unpleasant emotion without having to concede that it is a reasonable emotion to have. Or I could express sorrow that someone has a reasonable but unpleasant emotion ("sorry your dog died").
That's more "I wish you could share this good experience", though. Although it could also come across as "ha ha, I have this enjoyable sensation which you can never know, sucks to be you" (but I am confident you do not mean to convey that to your friend).
You remind me of a pet peeve I have with a fairly unrelated phrase:
"I'm sorry to hear that."
My reaction is invariably not that. If you're a friend of mine and you give me bad news, I'm not sorry to hear it. I'm *glad* I heard about it, since I know now to cut you a little more general slack and understanding. I'm sorry it *happened*.
(That being said, if you give me bad news and I reply with "I'm glad to hear that!", I'd expect you to be, uh, sorry to hear that. And possibly hit me with a halibut.)
Agreed. "I'm sorry to hear that." also carries the worry about what the person saying it plans to do in the future. It _could_ be interpreted as suggesting that they will start actively avoiding such news.
You should read "I'm sorry to hear that" as "hearing that made me sad". It's not about whether the transmission of information was good or bad. It's about what the effect on you was.
A real apology acknowledges specific harm and ideally addresses how that harm will be avoided in the future.
If the second half is not achievable, then a regret for the circumstances kind of 'sorry' can still be issued, but the more specific the better - the injured party wants to feel heard and understood, so no generic wording is going to work for actually making them feel better, rather than just being vaguely polite.
That may be true but trying to be specific is often a big risk. First, it's very difficult when there are disputes about how to characterize something -- sometimes any way of describing the situation one party is comfortable with will offend the other. Also it can sometimes just remind people about why they are angry.
I married someone who likes to talk and argue as much as I do and that's a trap we tend to fall into. If we try to specifically summarize why they are upset the temptation is to fight about that summary (bc we both not only feel we are correct but that we are justified so that any fully accurate summary should entail the correctness of our case).
It's hard because you are totally correct we all want the other party to show they understand why we are upset but for some of us it's very hard to resist either correcting that summary or saying "so obviously you see now why I'm correct since...."
My wife and I often suffer from this. She can't stop summerizing things in the most rediculously negative light, and it triggers me to go another round in the argument. My gosh...You didn't check on me enough when I was sick, becomes you never checked on me at all, Actually I checked on you 5 times each time your were still asleep.
This is the difference I think between reflecting back what someone said through our own filters and trying to get in their shoes to say, "oh now I can see how you'd feel that way about this. That makes sense." And if we can't yet see how it's understandable how they'd feel that way from their point of view, then we have more questions to ask and listening to do.
All our various stances may not be objectively "right" or "true" or "rational" but they are understandable, meaning, possible to understand with enough curious listening.
You've not said this here, but when I hear "I'm sorry you feel that way," I hear, "I'm not interested in understanding you any better." As a statement, it's a wall rather than a door, but is masquerading as a door.
Problem is sometimes we are offended by someone correctly understanding why we feel a certain way.
I know this is true of me sometimes. The real reason I might find something upsetting that someone else says might be because I'm afraid what they believe might be correct and I find it threatening. Or because I'm insecure about my ability at something and they tried to give me some helpful tips but I felt threatened and started insisting they were being disrespectful or whatever.
Ok, so what can the person I'm fighting with say? They can have a more accurate conception of where I'm coming from emotionally than I do but they obviously can't tell me they understand how threatened I feel because that would be even more threatening and upsetting. Best they can do is make it clear feel bad I'm so upset.
--
And this isn't uncommon. I think many of our fights in a relationship are really about insecurity in many ways and that's not something you can really deal with while you are in a fight.
I agree the phrase isn't great but sometimes it really is true that the best thing for a relationship is to acknowledge you care for each other but it's not beneficial to keep fighting about it now. It's something it took my wife and I far too long to learn.
We throw up all kinds of defenses in a fight, for sure.
Our upset feelings are the trailing edge of our vulnerability and then our defenses try to tuck that back under the curtain and when we can't, the lack of control is even more upsetting. And the ways someone else attends to all that can feel like it's shining a light on what already feels inadequate or too vulnerable.
Ultimately we totally can deal with insecurity in the midst of a fight, it's hard, but unbelievably helpful.
If we start from the principle that we can't control how another person feels (which we can't), then the framework isn't "making people feel" but rather as you quoted, understanding that most people want to feel heard and understood when they're trying to communicate something to us. "Making them feel" isn't in our power to force, but we can make honest attempts to understand and then check with them to see if we're getting close or not.
It sounds like what you're calling out is manipulation -- maybe the kind where a person poses as trying to understand you but they're just waiting for their next moment to reassert their rightness or even to throw our words back at us in a demeaning way. But in calling out manipulation, it seems you're including in it sincere efforts to understand each other.
People can be manipulative mostly unconsciously but sometimes intentionally. And we have agency to not be manipulated. If we trust our agency in that, then we can expose our thoughts and feelings to them without diminishing our integrity in the hopes of a satisfying meeting of the minds or hearts. There's no doing that without some risk, always. But the more we're confident that we have our own back, the more that this kind of normal risk-taking in human interactions feels perfectly safe. No one can take us where we don't want to go.
If it looks like someone's effort to understand us is turning into an ego-driven compulsion to prove their own righteousness, then we can stop the conversation. "You're not really listening to me. You're looking for an opportunity to prove I'm wrong and defend your rightness. You can do that, but don't do it while acting as if you're actually trying to understand where I'm coming from."
If the person is worth talking to, they'll say, "I'm sorry, you're right. Can we try again and this time I'll really try to listen to what you're saying." And then we risk sharing something real with them again. We might even say, "What are you hearing me say this time?" And if all they can do is twist our words in service of their argument and there's no place where we feel, "Okay, this time they heard me better," then we get to say "This isn't working. You're still doing the thing that's not about listening but about continuing to litigate your point of view. I'm done now."
>It sounds like what you're calling out is manipulation -- maybe the kind where a person poses as trying to understand you but they're just waiting for their next moment to reassert their rightness or even to throw our words back at us in a demeaning way. But in calling out manipulation, it seems you're including in it sincere efforts to understand each other.
Almost, but I don't think you've quite got it.
My point is this: there is a difference between the goal-states of "I understand John" and "John feels that I have understood him". I'm claiming that deliberately targetting the latter state is inherently manipulative (or, in LW slang, Dark Arts). I am, furthermore, claiming that the great prevalence of such and similar targetting in current society (every corporate PR/complaints department, just for starters) is part of the reason why phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way" are so loathed; people resent attempts to manipulate them.
I can't see it yet. Will you hang in there with me? (totally fine if you don't care to)
Your mention of PR/complaints departments makes me think you're talking about all the bulls*it institutional language that gets used insincerely. I'm sorry you're displeased with us. I'm sorry you feel that way. You need to understand there's nothing more we can do. I don't have access to that information. The actions we took are consistent with current standard practices. And so on. Let's call these CYA bureaucratic lies. I mean, sometimes they may actually be true, but certainly they also get used to pawn people off while avoiding liability. That part I think I get in what you're saying.
I'm not getting the difference you're pointing to between "I understand John" and "John feels I've understood him." Anytime we say we understand someone, we're either venturing our unproven opinion that we do or we're saying that because John just told us, "you understand me now."
Are you saying that there's a way for me to *make John feels as if* I've understood him but the truth is I don't?
This one is hard to wrap my head around because it seems to me that we always need to test for understanding in a conversation, we can't just assert it. "Wait, so if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that you think we're responsible for your bad experience with X" or "Am I getting it that you feel shut out when I don't want to talk about my weekend with my friends?" To know if we've understood John, we have to say what we hear him saying and then John needs to either say, "No, that's not what I'm saying" or "Yep, that's right."
What does the actual manipulation you're speaking of look like?
I think we can speak customer service sentences or bureaucratic lies in the hopes of getting rid of John, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. Maybe I'm wrong about that? Are the Dark Arts just PR, marketing, and propaganda or are you talking about something else?
>Are the Dark Arts just PR, marketing, and propaganda or are you talking about something else?
Dark Arts is LW jargon for techniques to persuade X of Y that don't rely on valid reasoning for Y being more probable than X currently thinks. PR, marketing* and propaganda are indeed central examples of Dark Arts; cult indoctrination is another one. This page (https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/permission-structure) stinks of Dark Arts, too.
Dark Arts are called that for a variety of interrelated reasons: a) they are combative, in the sense that one would generally prefer, from a God's-eye view, to *not* be convinced by Dark Arts arguments (whereas one wants to be convinced by valid arguments), b) they're disrespectful of the target's rationality and agency, c) they are highly useful to frauds and other exploiters (who want people to believe false things). This is not to say that it's never justified to use them, but it's definitely a "do the ends justify the means?" question.
*Old-school advertising, from like 1930s or earlier, had a much lesser degree of Dark Arts use - it was just "hey, X exists, it does Y, Z is how to get it". That's a pure positive for society (well, unless X doesn't actually do Y). But that only reaches people who already want a thing that accomplishes Y; Dark Arts techniques are used to trick people into buying goods that they'd (on reflection) rather *not* buy, which is zero-sum or negative-sum (but more lucrative for the advertiser, hence the increasing use of it over time).
>I think we can speak customer service sentences or bureaucratic lies in the hopes of getting rid of John, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. Maybe I'm wrong about that?
That basically is what I'm talking about, yes. I'm saying that the general loathing for phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way" is basically societal antibodies against rampant, systematic Dark Arts abuse.
I think I understand now. I was thinking mainly of social interactions -- friendships, acquaintances, etc. And I think you were thinking mainly of institutional or professional persuaders who try to manipulate public opinion.
To the extent a person in a social interaction is working as an agent of persuasion for a political or public policy or profit agenda, then that would include them as well.
You've changed my mind on the phrase as a whole, though as you point out it is a phrase that has been tainted by abusers and there are other ways to communicate "i respect [your] feelings, didn’t mean it personally, and hope we can stay on good terms" which wouldn't have this problem.
"respect their feelings" is kind of a nebulous concept, because if you actually believe that the other person is not justified on their demands, you don't really respect that particular feeling, do you? Maybe something like "I generally like and respect you, but that position is unreasonable, and your demand is not justified, and here's why" would be more appropriate.
Of course, there have been victims of completely unjustified internet shitstorms whose apology of "I'm sorry you feel that way" triggered a new shitsquall (because, as you imply, the audience expected a groveling mea culpa to be followed by a chorus of "see? Told ya he's guilty!"). In such cases, being a jerk is probably the correct reaction, but it requires thick skin to pull off.
Why do you think seeing a negative feeling as justified is a prerequisite for respecting it? How does “respect” cash out for you here? For me it is just acknowledging that the feeling is real and unpleasant and powerful and it is unfortunate that the person is in the position of experiencing it. That is entirely different from respecting a demand or a moral claim. "I hurt" is not something I have to justify.
I think the trust and intimacy of the existing relationship makes a big difference here.
In an extremely close and intimate relationships, as with my best friend or husband, "I hurt" isn't something either of us has to justify. We get to share even irrational feelings. We can afford to extend extra patience and charity, because a) we are deeply invested in each other and b) we have built up trust that this charity won't be abused.
In less intimate relationships, the extra patience and charity make less sense. For starters, I cannot necessarily trust that their feelings are not exaggerated to manipulate me. Hell, I've had someone outright lie about my supposed wrongdoings in order to justify and cover for their own felony financial crime.
How does "acknowledging that the feeling is real and unpleasant and powerful" cash out for you here? Maybe I am an autistic lizard person in skin-suit who doesn't understand people and language, but all I see is an arms race of emotional word salad.
Maybe I shouldn't have even replied because this entire discussion thread seems nebulous: we went from talking about justifying claims and positions to talking about experiences and feelings. I suspect all 3 of us are going to be talking past each other
""I hurt" is not something I have to justify." - well, if you try to make it my problem by accusing me of causing your hurt and demanding an apology or other fix, then yes, you have to justify it (unless it's obviously justified).
To me, 'respecting' a feeling includes, as you write, acknowledging it as real, but also acknowledging it as justified. When a toddler throws a tantrum because he wants his favorite dessert instead of what's on the menu, yeah, it's real, it's powerful, it's unpleasant, but I don't 'respect' it.
"I hurt" or "I am mad" or "what you said makes me feel bad" are all statements about your emotional state, and while they could be lies, it's going to be pretty hard to tell from the outside. But none imply an obligation to change your behavior or beliefs or words.
If I say the US committed genuine war crimes in the war on terror, that will make some people very angry and offended. But their offense doesn't mean the claim is false, nor that it's wrong to say it out loud. It's good to be sensitive to the feelings of others, especially people with whom you have a personal relationship, but that doesn't extend to an obligation never to say or believe things that upset anyone.
"But none imply an obligation to change your behavior or beliefs or words."
I would disagree here - in the mind of the one making the statement, they usually do. At least toward strangers or casual acquaintances, I don't usually announce my negative emotional state, especially not implying they caused it, unless I want something to change. When someone comes up to you and says "what you just said was deeply hurtful to me, and I feel traumatized by it", do you autocomplete that to "...and I want an apology, and I want you to stop", or "...but I know I'm irrationally sensitive on that issue, so please, do carry on"?
"that doesn't extend to an obligation never to say or believe things that upset anyone" - that, I agree with. Especially since some of statements that upset me the most were among the most useful to me, once I'd had time to get over my cognitive dissonance and digest them properly.
I don't think that's why people object to the phrase? I don't think the idea isn't that you should always apologise for upsetting people. But that the social role of an apology is to admit fault you regret and would change your behavior. So it annoys people by having the structure of an apology and not being one. And if you believe you did the right thing, and would do the same in a comparable situation l, you should simply not apologize at all.
If something I've said upset someone and I care about that person, I can say, "I think I've upset you, is that right?" And then listen to what they say and try to show I'm listening and try to understand it from their point of view without first defending myself. If I care about them, I let their upset in, I can try to let in their view about it without getting my ego too in the way. If I can learn something from their view or say "Oh I can see that", then so much the better. That doesn't have to be taking all the blame or saying they're right or I agree, I don't have to say "Oh I'm so sorry." I can just listen and try to understand and try to show understanding of their perspective.
If something I've said has upset someone and I don't have an investment in that relationship and I don't feel I have anything to apologize for, then I can be as curious as I want and listen as much or as little as I want. I can also just say, "I hear you" and move on without any further need to engage.
To me, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a condescending, passive aggressive thing to say. It's pretending to be emotionally present with someone when you're actually conveying disengagement. If what I want to do is disengage from their emotional upset, then I can do that sincerely without posturing.
My problem with "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that some people try to pass that off as an actual apology. It's not. It's usually a way of saying "I still completely disagree and I'm not actually sorry but I want to end this conversation".
Yes I see that too. It seems to me "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a manifestation of a confused boundary. It's pretending to convey emotional presence while also shutting a door and moving on. Either engage and try to understand their view or disengage and move on, but don't try to show engagement while disengaging.
"I'm sorry" is a heartfelt kind of a thing. Either you're genuinely sorry because you stepped on their toe or you're genuinely sorry because they're going through something hard and you care about them. Genuine caring is a key ingredient to both kinds of sorry.
But "I'm sorry you feel that way" in the midst of a disagreement carries no such heartfelt care to it and so is a kind of lie, because one is neither sorry for toe-stepping nor sorry for the hard thing the other person is experiencing. It's too pro forma for that.
To convey heartfelt care about another's hurt feelings, we've got to come up with some of our own words that sound more genuine than the twitter post, "Thoughts and prayers." "Oh man, I can see what I said didn't sit well with you. Do you want to say more?" or if we don't want to hear more, "It feels like you're blaming me for something that's not my responsibility and I don't care to engage with that right now."
It's one or the other, you're letting someone in to understand better or you're moving on. If the aim is to move on, then "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a dishonest way to convey that we're moving on. To move on, we can just say, "I hear you," and show through our actions that we're moving on. This is obviously not for intimates. For intimates, we can say, "I don't have capacity to listen properly right now, but I'd like to come back to this." And then it's on us to come back to it.
I think the objection is when the phrase is used and the speaker of the phrase is in the wrong or they conceded to a request for an apology, but instead say “I’m sorry I made you feel that way” rather than “I’m sorry for my actions”
It's not even "I'm sorry I made you feel that way", though. It's "you feel like that, your problem, it's 'cos you're dumb and stupid and over-sensitive and on the wrong side of history, sorry you're such a loser".
It's a phrase that's supposed to show empathy, but if that's not how folks hear it, then it's not doing it's job.
So you get a new phrase. There's a lot of room between, "Haha! Triggered!" and "You are correct and I am wrong."
Since you aren't apologizing for your position, framing your response as an apology is incorrect. Instead, better to react directly to the feelings they're expressing and then separately reaffirm your belief. This highlights the compartmentalization of these things (their feelings vs. the object-level disagreement), which hopefully helps the interlocuter do the same. Just saying, "I'm sorry you feel that way" fails to separate them sufficiently.
What does it mean to "apologize for ones position?" Does that just mean "changing positions?"
You also speak as if compartmentalizing is desirable. But I am discussing positions with my friend, and it leads to him making emotional outbursts, it seems to me I should ignore them. If he presses me to acknowledge his emotions, then isn't he failing to compartmentalize (and is obviously using a rhetorical technique to influence the discussion of positions)?
Matt's saying as I hear it, in the situation where you're not intending to apologize for what you've said (your position) then there are lots of choices between mocking their emotional reactions and saying that you screwed up.
I hear him as saying too, there are two things going on in that kind of conversation. One is the position that you hold that led you to say the thing that upset the other person. And then there is the other person's evident upset. They are separate things and are better talked about separately.
What people often do because we're argumentative and defensive, is that we'll say something like, "You may not like to hear it, but here's more about how I'm right..."
But the point at which someone in the conversation becomes upset, they are no longer in a place to hear more about why we think we're right. We're not going to be heard. So we have the choice to listen and try to understand why what we said upset them first and then see if later they are game to listen and try to understand our viewpoint. But it's not going to work to try to do both of those things at the same time because neither person will end up feeling heard and then there's no conversation really happening at that point.
You can try to ignore your friend's emotional outbursts, but it's unlikely they're really listening to you at that point and so if you care to be heard, you'll likely need to wait until your friend is no longer upset, whether he calms down on his own or though your listening to him.
In about 2004 Labour introduced 24 hour drinking, and were also going to allow supercasinos before backing down due to negative publicity. Tessa Jowel (RIP) was interviewed by a select committee some time later and said "well obviously this proposal stirred up strong emotions..." This is a kick under the table and implies the opponents of the idea were driven solely by passion. If strong emotions make for bad judgement, that seems like a good reason to regulate drinking and gambling! This is just one example, there are many instances where framing the other side as being motivated by feelings is an escalation.
Lots of great comments here but I would suggest another option:
“I’m sorry, I did not expect your reaction to my statement. Would you like to elaborate?”
Then “I understand your perspective - I still believe that the war was bad, but I also respect the sacrifice that your soldier made and the impact it had to your family.”
I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to acknowledge other people’s feelings.
I agree, but I think that was the original meaning of "I'm sorry you feel that way" it's just that over time it's started to mean more "sounds like a you problem not a me problem". So if you went back in time it would be fine but now we should switch to something like what you suggested.
I'd add that in some contexts the you probably do want to avoid elaborations. I went and married someone who likes to talk and argue as much as I do so sometimes the chance to elaborate just leads to an hour of verbal gymnastics rather than a better understanding of the underlying emotional dynamics.
One of the main ways your proposal avoids the original problem is that it commits you to more engagement. Which is very likely what the upset party wants (assuming, of course, that *they* are interacting in good faith).
One of my informal principles for good interaction is "wherever possible, end your argument with a (non-rhetorical) question". One should be trying to get the right answer alongside one's interlocutors, not bean them over the head with whatever yours is.
In that case, you'd be better off just changing the subject. A sample phrase could be, "Oh, I didn't realize you were personally invested in this issue - I'll keep my thoughts to myself."
The point here is recognizing that the conversation you were trying to have is not possible, because the other party is too impassioned. You don't have to change your opinions to recognize that some opinions are better off not aired in front of particular people.
I suspect you won't find one, and if you try, you'd be wasting your time. Sure, you'll find another way to say it, but the problem is that any phrase you could use over and over can be used by a bad-faith agent. Your other party will practically always know this.
Counterproposal: resign yourself to tailoring a response to the individual case, every time. This exchange is ultimately about building trust, and you can't do that with stock phrases.
For those who want stock phrases at hand, and I get that, I think we first have to get clear what our intention is in the situation.
If we care about the person and are invested in the friendship, then a stock phrase might be, "I see I said something that upset you, do you want to say more?" But then the task is to listen to their viewpoint and to validate it (validate doesn't mean agree; it means stretching enough to see how their view is understandable, even if you don't share it.)
If we don't particularly care about the relationship with that person, then a stock phrase can be anything from, "I hear you" to "I'm moving on because I don't think we're hearing each other" to "What I said seemed to upset you and I don't have the capacity to go further with it right now so I'm moving on" to "I can tell we're not really understanding each other, but I wish you well." Online of course, just not responding works as well.
If it's a social situation with a acquaintance and you don't care that much but you don't want to burn bridges or create ill will, you can say something like, "I can see what I said doesn't sit well with you. I'd hope with more time and conversation that we could see each other's viewpoint better, but I don't think this is the moment for that. Would it be okay with you if we leave it there?" Of course how upset or blaming or insistent they are will determine whether we have to say anything more. "I want you to apologize for what you said!" "Okay, I hear that. I don't feel I said anything wrong, but maybe on further reflection I'll see it differently." Or, "I don't feel I said anything I need to apologize for. I think it's possible for us to get upset without another person having done anything wrong, and this seems like one of those situations to me." Or, if you can swing more generosity than that, you can say, "It's true, I've been told before that I can be insensitive. I can see you feel that I have been insensitive. I'm going to reflect on that. I feel sorry that what I said upset you."
Side note, it turns out that taking some of the blame/responsibility is easier than we imagine, doesn't diminish us, and can be done honestly in the frame that we really don't know what we don't know about the impact of our behavior on other people.
We often think "But I didn't mean to" covers all manner of sins. But it's not a very big step between "I'm sorry you feel that way" and "I'm sorry my words were hurtful to you" and even better "I'm sorry I upset you." And the latter is going to be so much better received. In the universe where we're not always right and we can't always see where we've been wrong, it can be a whole lot better just to own some part of it even if in that moment we can't see that we may have some responsibility there.
As I write that, I think to myself that humility is the difference between an insincere "I'm sorry you feel that way" and a sincere "I'm sorry I hurt you."
I think also a lot of the time when people are annoyed by a phrase it's because it has been overused in a specific context so reached semantic saturation, not because of its literal meaning.
EG for an in-group example. People used to get annoyed by people prefacing things with "as a rationalist" or "a rationalist approach to...". Not because that would be bad in its literal meaning
I just got "I'm sorry you feel that way"'d just 10 minutes ago and it deeply annoyed me. Then I saw this in my inbox and was disappointed to see that Scott is sorry I feel that way.
I'm sorry that you feel sorry that I feel sorry that Jon feels sorry that Scott feels "sorry you feel that way".
Are we all now sufficiently respected, heard, and validated in our okayness? 😁 Hmmm - I think you should feel sorry that I feel sorry that you feel sorry that I feel sorry and so forth!
Without disagreeing with you, I'd like to suggest there's an opportunity in the kind of situation you've described that you might otherwise miss. When these situations come along, instead of defense/dismissal/acquiesce, consider this as an opportunity to explore a deeper understanding. "Wow, that sounds like a terrible thing that happened to you." You could then talk about what it means to them, then come back to reaffirming your position that you think the accused in this case is innocent.
Why go to the extra trouble? I'm not saying you have to. It's just that in my experience the other person is not likely to get past their hangup if you don't address their feelings-based objection. If you first discuss and acknowledge their feelings in a genuine way, you can help them understand that a reasonable person can empathize with their emotions while disagreeing with their conclusion.
This method takes more work, and is not always successful. I agree that for a troll you probably want to stick with the dismissal, "I'm sorry you feel that way", and not waste your time. But it's worth it for a friend.
I think there is a bit more to it about that specific phrase. I think it's a bit of the same euphemism treadmill that keeps causing us to change the word we use for people with intellectual disabilities.
Over time the fact that "I'm sorry you feel that way" gets associated with not really being that sorry means that it starts to actually take on the meaning of "haha, triggered". So in addition to being object level upset there is the feeling that the person saying it is choosing to be delibrately harsh by using that phrase.
I mean it won't make it all better if you instead say, "I understand this must be upsetting to you and I'm sorry I've upset you" but I think it does come off as more genuine now. Of course, give it 10 years and we'll need to switch yet again. Luckily changing the phrases we use isn't that costly.
The phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" offers genuine sentiment while also indicating that the target of said phrase is the one whose emotions are not as in control as the purveyor of said phrase.
I once witnessed two co-workers who disliked each other stuck on the same project. They were nominally co-equal leaders of a team. One co-leader started making unilateral decisions and promises to their supervisees. She also provided a sympathetic ear to the supervisees' complaints about the other leader, and possibly even joined in denigrating him. She believed this was justified by her "better rapport" with the supervisees. When her co-leader found all this out, he told her he felt undermined.
"I can't cater to your insecurities," she replied.
To me, this was even worse than, "I'm sorry you feel that way." It was, "You're a loser for being upset about my behavior." It's extra infuriating for the target, because it's so difficult to defend against it. It sounds so lame to say, "I'm not insecure!"
Saying "I'm sad for contradicting you" or "I don't enjoy disagreeing with you" owns the emotion without commenting on the other person's interior state, which often feels intrusive even if the intention is good (and oftentimes it isn't).
Honestly, I don't like the idea of other people commenting on my interior states unless they are really doing the work to describe it accurately. Perhaps that's high maintenance but if the endgame is de-escalation then it really won't work.
I agree, it's a good one. It evinces that you are not simply trying to make that person feel bad on purpose, that you want to stay on their side and appreciate them as a human, but you simply cannot agree with them although you would like to. It's on them if that's enough. Taking a copy for myself.
In English, “I’m sorry” has at least two meanings: one is apologetic (“I’m sorry I lied”) and the other is sympathetic (“I’m sorry your mom died”).
People don’t like “I’m sorry you feel that way” in the context in which an apology is being sought because it sounds like an apology but is really a show of sympathy.
And I think this phrase really gets under people’s skin when the *ambiguity* of the phrase is being used by the speaker as a way to merely mollify the person seeking an apology without either directly defending their behavior nor offering an actual apology.
I think it’s fine not to apologize to someone that is hurt or offended by your words/ behaviors if you don’t think that an apology is warranted. But, in this moment, offering a show of sympathy with words that sound very close to but are not actually an apology probably just isn’t a good idea, no matter how the show of sympathy is intended.
I have a feeling that people wouldn’t mind the phrase “I’m sorry you feel that way” if it was offered in a context in which it was clearly offering sympathy as *not* acting ambiguously as a mollifying half-sympathy, half-apology, as in: “I’m sorry you’re angry with me, but I don’t think that I owe you an apology, and here’s why … “
I also think there are some other good phrases to show sympathy in this moment as well:
- “I’d never want to hurt you, but I don’t think that I did anything wrong.”
- “I hate to see you hurting/ angry, but I don’t think I did anything wrong.”
- “I care about your feelings and would never want to dismiss them, but I don’t think that I owe you an apology, and here’s why …”
You can apologize for the offense and hurt, without admitting that the other person is factually correct or that you agree with them. "I am sorry for offending you." "I apologize for making you feel hurt." If needed and appropriate, you can follow that with "...but I don't agree with you". Use your social judgement.
It's perfectly natural to feel bad and want to apologize about making another person feel bad, even if that person's bad feelings are irrational. Managing those feelings and your relationship with that person comes first. Rational discussion will happen better when tempers have cooled, and an apology for the part that is always worth apologizing about helps that along.
The problem with "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that it denigrates the other person's feelings as unfortunate and wrong. Feelings need not be wrong even if the reasoning that leads to them is wrong. It certainly doesn't help bring the discussion to a calmer tone to express such a position anyway.
I'm coming to terms with the fact that, no matter what you say, it will probably be misunderstood sometimes. And mostly it will be misunderstood by well-meaning persons, but sometimes it will be weaponized by bad persons. If one allows the words-as-weapon-users to push you back, and try to change your wordings, next they will weaponize either the new form (persistence in attack, which can only be met by defense in depth, but they usually have unlimited self-righteous stamina, so this is only a stopgap measure), or way worse, they'll attack another completely different thing you weren't expecting.
So, my current position on the matter is a lot of "in defense of" traditional forms of communication to be used as a shorthand. Most of the time they are well understood. And when a misalignment / miscommunication happens, switch immediately and profusely to... long form debating. If the person is sincere, they will go long form, and you both will hash it out, and sometimes you reach an agreement or sometimes a crux, but things are clear(er). It they are not willing to go long form, I immediately suspect bad intentions and either cut communications or put up a gigantic semantic stopsign saying "agree to disagree". It's not worth the time.
And I now give up 70% of the way into the hyperstitious cascade for traditional forms... but I certainly fight tooth and nail if I suspect the percentage is lower. We can't give up our words, or "they" will take everything
I learned in psychology class that the keys to successfully responding to someone’s feelings are
validate: show that you think the other person is reasonable,
understanding: show that you understand the other person. Make them feel seen.
Caring: show that you value the other person and care about their problems.
“I’m sorry you feel that way.” Is all “caring” and no validation or understanding.
What should you do if the other person isn’t being reasonable, so you don’t want to validate them? You should at least do a better job of showing understanding. You could also validate something else about them.
“I’m sorry, I know withdrawal can be a torturous experience, and I hate that I am putting you through it by refusing to give you drug money. I’m still not willing to subsidize your addiction, but I really do love you. I’d pay for rehab if you would go.”
“I’m sorry you feel that way” actually fails on “caring” because it is a cliche. If you really cared, you could put some effort and creativity into your response. At a minimum you can rephrase and repeat the other person Eliza-style, which shows understanding.
There cannot be a go-to sentence response to dealing with someone’s emotions because they came to *you* to talk about it rather than going to a fortune cookie.
I think this hits on something other commenters have missed too; it's cookie cutter. You're slapping them with the text of an [insert name here]. Scott bemoans that you can't "figure out a bespoke phrasing", but of course you can -- you've presumably been holding the entire discussion with "bespoke phrasing" up to then, why does he retreat to form letters now?
I had this thought too - why is less effort being put into validating the other person's feelings in the face of a disagreement than is put into stating the disagreement?
Yeah. To stereotype horribly, it feels like a somewhat autistic desire for a button that makes the uncomfortable conversation go away. "Say this magic word, and you don't have to deal with the person's feelings any more."
Carl Rogers was the man. I know that stuff sounds cheesy, but it's practically a Jedi mind trick. When I was really trying to embody it, I found random people suddenly pouring their guts out to me. It takes constant deliberate effort though. The "trick" is *actually* trying to understand the other person's feelings/perspective from their own point of view, and actively asking them to help you clarify and understand.
"I'm Sorry You Feel That Way" puts the blame squarely on the other person whereas "I'm sorry if I've offended you" doesn't, but equally doesn't require you to back down. You're apologizing for the offence caused not for the original opinion.
FWIW they usually come back with "well you have offended me" but that then sounds a bit weak and pathetic - so we're talking about how to manage people now which is only one step off manipulation.
>And if you disagree, I’m sorry you feel that way.
Tangentially related: I disagree to agree that it's possible to agree to disagree. Call it whatever you want, but that's not agreement, it's *something else*.
To me, it's in the same class as "sorry you feel that way" in that it is trying to communicate "I do not want to discuss this" but without actually saying those words.
I like your phrasing but I still disagree. “Agree to disagree” is a mellifluous shorthand for “neither of us is going to convince the other on this point, but our relationship is important enough that it can withstand this disagreement.”
I would consider it way better communication to say the latter sentence in full!
Even when used between people who already have an established relationship* , "agree to disagree" still has a sub-current of "lets treat this disagreement as resolved even though we did not resolve it", which feels wrong to me.
It's ok to give up on trying to convince someone, but this is reaching further and asking them to also give up on convincing you. It's saying, "you're not just wrong, you're so wrong that I don't even know what to say anymore, so please stop talking about it, and agree not to bring this up ever again".
Taking this situation where you are asking something out of the other person, and framing it as a mutual "agreement" when it does not cost you anything to agree (you already gave up!), is kind of manipulative.
*: which, by the way, is not where I encounter that phrase the most - I usually see it used online by people who have ran out of counter-arguments and wish to exit a discussion without acknowledging defeat.
Whatever its origin "agree to disagree" is generally taken as a Whitefield and Wesley reference. George Whitefield and John Wesley had a really intense disagreement about the manner in which our choices are compatible with God's sovereignty, but were in every other respect were very much on the same side. The phrase was an important element in Whitefield's successful attempt to restore their relationship without either man changing his mind about the issue that had divided them.
I personally think it's totally right to understand this as a fake apology, it is, 100% of the time. But I guess people do not like it because they think the alternative is (1), so sure they prefer a real apology to a fake one, especially if it comes with a change of mind. But the alternative to a fake apology is never (1), it's (2), active hostility with consequences beyond the current disagreement. A fake apology do not means you are sorry or sad, it means you will stand your position but do not consider the disagreement a problem big enough it jeopardize future relations or other issues unrelated to the current one. So be happy about a fake apology if you think the same, or be ready to at best loose a relation, at worse gain an enemy.
If the alternative could be (1), you will not have a fake apology, you will get a lot of (possibly heated) discussion about details or alternatives or proposition to discuss again later.
Exactly the same with passive aggression, which feels bad if you think the alternative is cordial relation. It's not, it's active aggression.
The misunderstanding is not what is currently happening, the misunderstanding is what kind of alternative the fake apologizer/ passive aggresser was actually contemplating before deciding to still be somewhat nice because what pisses him off is not (yet) a dealbreaker.
In practical terms, saying "I'm sorry you feel that way. Here's a link to a Scott Alexander blog post explaining why what I just said wasn't me being a dick at all," isn't going to make me any more friends than just pissing people off with the original line.
Well if we're sharing links, here's a great one: https://acko.net/blog/the-bouquet-residence/ I bring it up to gently raise the idea that apologising is for big sissy girls in the first place.
I think the aversion to "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that there are loads of situations where it would be an easy way out.
Suppose you get caught cheating at an exam. Or littering. Or whatever. It's a generic human-violates-social-norm situation.
You can either.
1) Admit culpability, and lose social status + take whatever punishment.
2) Deny that you did the bad thing. And take a bigger punishment for lying if the evidence is obvious.
3) Deny that the thing is bad.
4) Give a generic "sorry you feel that way" or similar.
If there was no social penalty for doing 4, everyone would do it all the time.
As it is, 4 has the association of "I'm guilty, but trying not to openly admit culpability while also not telling any bare faced lies". It's used by people in situations where they have to comment on their alleged misdeeds, but they want to convey as little info as possible.
My wife has called me out for using this phrase with my daughter before.
While I agree that it's actually a good phrase that communicates what I want to communicate, thinking that it might not be a bad idea to come up with some alternative phrasing that communicate the same thing but don't trigger an objection that clouds the communication.
Thinking - "I'm not trying to upset you, but (restatement of original position)" or "It was not my intention to make you upset" (if you just want to end the conversation), might be workable alternatives.
Kids need non-judgmental curiosity and validating from us so that later they can listen to and validate their own internal experience for themselves.
Talking about our intentions makes it about us and not them. Almost no one outside of psychopaths go about the world intending to hurt their loved ones, so it's not really responsive to the other person's concerns to say "I didn't mean to."
When there's been a rupture in the interaction, in the relationship, what the child needs to see is how repair happens between two people where there's been a rupture. Repair starts with nonjudgmental curiosity about the other person's experience (which a child usually can't give back for a long time). "I see I said something that hurt you. I'm sorry i did that. Can you help me understand how it was hurtful?"
There is a big gender component to this. Woman are offended by this phrase. As man who feels offended is not offered sympathy, nor should they be.
In our private lives we tolerate lots of neuroticism among the people we love. Okay you don't like when I (do something reasonable), fine I can try to avoid that, not because you are right but because I love you. We should never tolerate it in public. You are offended by a middle of the road view, well that reflects poorly on you.
Digging into it more, "I'm sorry you feel that way" does seem to invite "So how should I feel?" as a response.
If the other person is being unreasonable, you may be able to explain - tactfully! - why they should not be reacting like that.
But too often it does carry the implication of "you are trying to tell me how to feel" and nobody, particularly when they are angry or offended, or sad, wants to be told that. It does feel like an attempt to control or at least manipulate them.
I don't think aggression is helpful, but it does make sense to me to be clear and sincere.
No, I'm not giving you money, you spend it on drugs. Can I help get you into rehab?
Helping you kill yourself with drugs isn't love.
You're a grown person, no one owes you money. If you want help getting clean I'd be up for talking about how I can help you do that but I will never hand you money directly because it makes me complicit in the thing that's harming you.
"I'm sorry to offend you" > "I'm sorry if you're offended"
Removes stated uncertainty about whether there's been an offense and states the apology in terms of actions of the offense giver rather than offense taker.
I agree, the closer we can get to a simple "I" plus verb statement, in general, the better.
I'm sorry I offended you.
I'm sorry what I said hurt you.
I'm sorry I hurt you.
We don't have to agree with their assessment in order to make a very simple direct apology. We can't know all the impacts of all our actions. We can't know that we're always right in how we've acted. We screw up just like everyone else, and when we do, we won't always see it. It's a simple statement of fact that our actions led to their hurt in that moment. We don't need to parse responsibility too finely -- maybe it all goes back to their mother or their depression or they're having a bad day, okay. But it doesn't diminish us to just say it plainly that what we did had a part to play in their current bad feelings.
In my experience, "I'm sorry you're offended" and "I'm sorry you feel that way" are twists on the standard apology- or regret-usage of "I'm sorry" that, as other commenters have said, put the onus on the recipient of the statement and absolve the speaker of responsibility. My experience is that this is often quite conscious, and indeed hostile. At the least it says, "I feel no regret for what I did" and at worst, as an ironic twist in usage, covertly insults the recipient's feelings. It's particularly effective as a put-down because it dares the recipient to express offense over a small thing and thus put themselves (even more, in the speaker's view) in the wrong. The subculture in which I was raised, the middle-class-and-above white south, is full of such put-downs ("Bless your heart" is the classic). The white south at that time (I was born in 1962) was not steeped in therapy and the effects of therapy. (FWIW, when I was in about the 8th grade, I was part of a group of boys who misbehaved in chapel and had to write apology letters for it. One of the boys included the line "I'm sorry you are offended," and recounted this to me as an absolutely hilarious joke at the faculty's expense. Let me stress his underlying hostility, which was part of his way of being.)
"It seems to me that we [disagree/feel differently] about this" is my general version of that -- less implicitly belittling and likely to spawn social discord while conveying the same information and laying the groundwork for later clarification.
Where people dismiss an argument by simply declaring that it's old and busted and anybody using that argument is clearly behind the times and has automatically lost the discussion -- *without ever actually disproving it* or making any effort to show that the argument isn't valid in this specific case. (And the most annoying way to do that is by sarcastically shouting "BINGO!", hence the phrase.)
I am embracing this. I wonder if another phrase deserves rehabilitation along this same line? You're not supposed to say, "to tell you the truth..." because it supposedly implies that you are lying the rest of the time. But I really like the phrase as a shorthand for "I'm about to be forthright instead of circumspect. Prepare yourself." Anybody with me on that?
Mine is, “BUT.” As in “The Nazis were bad, BUT…” or “Babies are cute, BUT…” People on Twitter chortle because why can’t you just stop with “the Nazis are bad and babies are cute”? But the answer is that people use Nazis and babies (and other maximally bad and good things) to shut down debate otherwise! If I’m arguing for better animal treatment and someone says “the Nazis believed in animal welfare,” if I’m going to respond I have to acknowledge the Nazis were bad dudes BUT maintain that doesn’t mean animal welfare is bad!
The Nazis were bad, but we should contemplate why Hitler is the antichrist of our civic religion despite history including plenty of other other mass murders, totalitarian movements, etc. I just saw a show that opened with the scene from the Cultural Revolution, with a physics professor getting beaten to death by a mob of Red Guard kids, who asserted that relativity was a Western imperialist lie because Einstein helped the Americans build the bomb. It was incredible. Imagine if there was even one such pop culture reference or documentary depiction for every 10 about Nazis. (If anyone has any great documentaries about Communism to recommend, let me know!)
There is a Chinese movie 活着, English title "To Live". It's not a documentary, but it depicts the course of a man's life before and during the Communist period, and for a time it was banned since Communist policies don't come off so well in the movie.
It's worth noting that the movie is a tragedy; nothing ever works out well. If you don't want to see a tragedy, look elsewhere.
As has been covered by other comments, the problem is not with the general concept, but the extra implications of the phrases (theoretical framing, blame assignment). Better alternatives:
If you upset someone by saying something, and actually regret it/wish it hadn't happened (while continuing to hold your position):
* "I'm sorry for upsetting/offending you"
* "I'm sorry to have brought up such a sensitive topic/disagreement."
* "I apologize, I didn't intend to offend."
If you accept no blame, but want to express sympathy for the part of the end result where the listener is upset... well, I don't know any way to do it nicely, but certainly there are better ways than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
* "I'm sorry that this upsets you." (Acknowledges the specific issue rather than the handwavey "you feel that way", doesn't attribute/imply blame or re-emphasize whether the listener is the source of the problem.)
* "We disagree with each other, and that's okay. I know than neither of us means to imply anything hurtful."
I think people dislike the phrase because it is so often used in the context of "I said/did something, I still think I'm right, I don't care about you idiots who felt offended, but I'm being forced to 'apologise' so here. Have an apology for your hurt fee-fees. But I don't mean it and I'm going to do the same thing again".
It's the fakeness that is offensive. Better not to apologise at all than that "you are so stupid you got offended over something that is perfectly fine" or even worse, "yeah I *meant* to offend you because your opinions on this are so dumb and backwards".
"I'm sorry you feel that way" in that instance is "I'm sorry I have to deal with the kind of morons who think I'm in the wrong", "I'm sorry for myself, not for any offence I caused". It's not "I'm sorry you are hurt but I'm doing this in good faith".
People don't like it because there's an implied invalidation of their position and no given opportunity for them to save face while continuing to hold it. More palatable alternatives would be variations on, "I understand how/why you would feel that way. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it's just that (justification)." Or, "I respect your feelings on this. I can't get past my ambivalence about tacitly supporting a genocide, though."
There's a finality to "I'm sorry you feel that way" that implies that discussions on the matter are ending with no opportunity for aufheben. Validating their sentiment isn't agreeing with it, it's acknowledging the validity of it, even if you don't entirely agree, and resolution of the dialectic that leaves both parties validated is still on the table.
I think the reason that people don't like "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that it carries an implicit "and I'm not going to change my behavior". Of the three examples you gave, only the first is really obviously one where it's correct to not change your behavior even if you know it upsets the other person. If you know someone had a family member who died in the war, then it's reasonable to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your family member, I won't do so in the future".
Basically, the key to a good apology is not admitting fault - it's committing to not do the thing again which upset your interlocutor. That's why people hate "I'm sorry you feel that way" so much.
I think this hits on it. Context really matters with this phrase. If something I do or say makes my wife feel upset then it wouldn't work well for me to respond this way. But for a person who I don't really know to let me know how upsetting something I did or said was because they were "triggered" or see things differently is another matter entirely.
I agree with your interpretation. I do think it’s reasonable to NOT stop protesting the war, too, in which case one can only say “I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry my protest is triggering, but I feel compelled to speak up”—ie, sorry you feel that way. Then others would have to decide if my decision not to change my behavior is reasonable.
Yeah, for sure. I think that "I'm sorry you feel that way" *can* be appropriate in the latter two examples Scott gave, just that it isn't obviously so. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not to keep protesting the war your friend's loved one died in, or whether one should keep defending criminal innocence in front of crime victims.
Exactly. The phrase became notorious because people would use it in situations where lots of people believed (rightly or wrongly) that the behavior should obviously be changed, hence a full apology was called for.
"If you know someone had a family member who died in the war, then it's reasonable to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your family member, I won't do so in the future"."
I don't know about that. My grandfather died in WWII (as a member of the SS). I would feel weird if someone tried to avoid saying that the Nazis were bad, and the Allies were entirely justified to kill as many people as needed to stop them, just to spare my feelings about my grandfather (which I don't actually have).
I am not sure how a conversation about Nazis would come around to anyone's grandfather and sorrow about their deaths more than 3 quarters of a century ago, any more than a similar discussion about the Pacific theater - but to me there's a "just how stunted are you" meter of sorts that would come into play if I heard someone speaking of say, a 15 or 16yo German kid wandering around Normandy as evil, his death required.
I do think there's an element of "it's WRONG you're feeling that way" in this specific phrase, it's not just expressing regret about the impact of one's behaviour without acknowledging its wrongness -- it has an element of judgment in it.
Exactly. "If I'm sorry you feel that way" actually meant "It grieves me that you are sad; I want to express empathy with your sadness" then it would be appropriate to respond to "My mom died last week; I keep thinking about her, and feel really sad right now." with "I'm sorry you feel that way."
But obviously it would be an insane response in that context! It really means "You feel that way, but I think you shouldn't, and I'm upset that you do feel that way."
"They say it’s a fake apology that only gets used to dismiss others’ concerns. ... People sometimes get sad or offended by appropriate/correct/reasonable actions"
In which case it's still a fake apology used to dismiss others' concerns, but you think that a fake apology used to dismiss others' concerns is appropriate.
I actually want to go further than this specific phrase (which was used on me *today* and I'm still annoyed by it!):
When I share any kind of bad news with people, the younger generations (Millennial and GenZ) tend to tell me how sorry they are for me.
I hate this.
Perhaps it's because I'm a GenX'er, or perhaps it's because I'm a White Male, or perhaps it's because I'm more of an objective rationalist, I'm not looking for anyone's pity, and that's exactly what younger people seem to want to give me. The sense of giving me your pity actually makes me feel even worse.
What I'm looking for is *understanding* and a sense of comradery and perhaps empathy as well.
So, instead of telling me how sorry you are about whatever I'm sharing, please simply say "man, that sucks."
Honestly, that feels 1000% better to me than "I'm so sorry!"
This reaction is understandable! But let’s note that this use of the word ‘sorry’ is correct, and not an apology. ‘“I’m so sorry to hear that [bad thing]” means they’re in a sorry state. They aren’t making an apology, that would make no sense, grammatically or contextually. This is easy to miss when the “to hear” clause is elided, but it is an elision. “I’m sorry I [did bad thing]” is idiomatically an apology, but the word sorry plays the same role: it means they feel diminished/lesser/bad.
Definitely sympathy works for some people and not for others. I don't know if the age difference in the interaction is part of the story because it seems to me it takes some confidence to empathize like a peer with someone who is a lot older than you. "That sucks man" or "Ugh, how awful" convey a peer relationship while "I'm sorry for your loss" works across all kinds of social gaps. I'm with you though that I always prefer empathy to sympathy. Though if someone combines them, "Ugh, how awful, I'm sorry you're having to deal with that," I like that too.
While ISYFTW does effectively deflect blame onto the offended party, many if not most inner workings which lead one to get offended would be deemed a problem by professional therapists (depending of course on which ideological bent of said therapist we're looking at) for the offended to work through so as to stop being offended, e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy.
If the feeling of offense arises from a trauma that the median therapist would deem sufficiently problematic for the offended/patient to reverse via treatment, is it unreasonable for the offender to refuse responsibility? Assuming of course that it was unintentional, as these most often are, barring deliberate weaponization of a trauma as emotional abuse from someone the offended confided in.
It isn't possible to control other's feelings, after all. Trying to do so is almost always worse than merely causing offense, no less. This is why I've remained puzzled by the recent conflation of ISYFTW with emotional abuse.
I'm confused about why you think that 'many if not most inner workings which lead one to get offended would be deemed a problem by professional therapists'
It's likely the extreme majority of humans are able to be offended by some things, which isn't pathological. A given individual could be more sensitive than the rest, and their reactions might be clinically significant, but that's on a case by case basis and Scott's post doesn't seem to be about those specific individuals, but rather emotion-provoking arguments as a whole. Your implication that any heightened emotions due to an argument are pathological is kind of silly imo (no offense intended!); it's completely natural for interpersonal conflict to lead to heightened emotions.
In general I think we do better to stay out of each other's heads and to interact with people based on what they're presenting us without adding our guesses and interpretations. Of course we can't know what a person deals with.
If someone took offense we can say "I'm sorry I offended you." Or we can even just say, "I see what I said doesn't sit well with you." We don't have to say a single other thing. If they choose to elaborate on their upset, we can listen or not. We can listen nonjudgmentally or not. We can listen a little and then choose to stop listening when we're done.
And we can listen from the perspective that other people's feelings are their job to take care of. If they are overtly blaming us for the feelings they're having without conveying any sense that they are the caretakers of their own feelings, then we can wisely put some distance between us and them.
I'm reminded of the line in the film Donnie Darko where a school principal, firing a teacher, says the line "I am sorry... that you have failed". The mid-sentence pause gives you a moment to expect he might be apologizing for the action he is compelled to take, but instead he finishes the sentence by making it a sure-is-a-shame-you-suck statement of blame.
People likely recognize "I'm sorry you feel that way" as a similar expression of "sure is a shame your opinions suck".
I agree, and I don't with this note. I agree because, indeed, there must be a way to express the recognition of others' emotions without lying as if this is something we somehow feel too. I do not because of semantics. Basically, because the meaning of language is socially constructed, when words have been overused to express something besides their real (read dictionary) meaning, this real meaning actually changes (search for the recent change in the use of rawdogging for example). This applies to full phrases too. "Sorry you feel that way" has been so used to invalidate the expression of emotions that it is very difficult to conciliate it as coming from a good place if pronounced. Therefore, instead of fighting an uphill battle against culture and trying to force the rational meaning to the phrase, my take would be to replace it with something like "That must be difficult for you".
My sense is that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be used genuinely, in the way that Scott notes here, and that this is and should be an acceptable usage to express that you're sympathetic but explicitly not apologizing. I think a lot of people use it as a technique to avoid apologizing when they probably should, so that they can always come back with a "I said I'm sorry!" if anyone points out that they didn't apologize.
We live in a culture where people feel hurt at all time for stupid reasons. But there is no correct way 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" with someone who believes you've seriously harmed them.
You either have to change your opinion, change their mind, or bite the bullet and come to terms with the fact that your relationship will suffer. Adding in an "I'm sorry you feel that way" does no work towards any of those goals:
- You're admitting you're not going to change your opinion (and you shouldn't).
- You're inflaming them against hearing what you say by offering a bait-and-switch that sounds like an apology but isn't.
- You're not being accepting of their feelings of hurt and anger, in fact you're explicitly saying you wish they were different.
The best solution to this problem if the other person is unreasonable and unreachable is simply to stop talking about the thing in this context with this person. This will cause less damage to your relationship than an "I'm sorry you feel this way" and will give them the time and space they need to deal with the deep wounding hurt of everyone not thinking they're right about everything all the time. Of course if advocating for the thing is more important or morally correct than your relationship...well that sucks but there's no magic words that lets you get everything you want in that situation.
Frankly, this argument feels a little sophist but I still 100% believe it: words are for communicating. If a series of words is universally decried as being disrespectful of people's feeling, you cannot use those words to mean you respect someone's feelings. There are things you should say even if they'll hurt people, but only if your goal is something other than "making people feel better."
I think one thing you're trying to express here is something like "I recognize that you are upset and I care." That doesn't imply the requirement to fix the thing making them upset. If I tell you your paper is rejected from the journal, you'll probably be upset, and I'm sorry you're upset, your pain is real to me and matters, but that doesn't change the fact that your paper had major errors in it and we're not publishing it. Similarly, if I tell you that I'm not interested in a romantic relationship with you, I can recognize that this will feel bad for you, and care about your pain, but still not plan to start dating you to prevent it. Or if I tell you that I think your polyamorous relationship is immoral, bad for your kids, and unlikely to end well for you, that's probably going to upset you. I can acknowledge that, not be seeking to upset you, and yet still not change my beliefs or my expression of them.
Yeah, I agree that's a valid thing to communicate, I just don't think "I'm sorry you feel that way" communicates it. It culturally is read as "it sucks that your childish emotions get in the way of you realizing I'm right."
There's an argument to be made that a cultural reading is a bad idea because cultural forces often ban every expression of an idea as a way of disappearing the idea. So it might be valid to retreat back to literal definitions. But I don't think that helps the "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologist (heh) at all. It literally means (Depending on the definition of sorry we're working with here) either "I am taking responsibility for causing this problem of you feeling bad," or "It's unfortunate that you have these feelings." The latter is annoying and dismissive. The former is more defensible, but still has the structure of an apology without actually being an apology for any of your object-level actions. I can see why people find this insulting even absent any cultural context. I also don't really believe you - why should you feel guilt that you stood by your convictions in a difficult circumstance? If anything you should feel pride.
Scott makes a dismissive statement about some perfect set of bespoke words that fix everything, but are too hard for the average person to come up with. But this is...just communicating in a difficult circumstance? This is something everyone deals with on a daily basis and has to navigate to the best of their limited ability. Why is it taken for granted that the speaker can make an eloquent logical argument for their position but must resort to stock phrasing when trying to empathize with and manage the emotions of others?
Oh right, cuz of the target audience of this blog. Okay, carry on.
Even in the legitimate use cases you mentioned, it's no mystery why the other party would be irritated. You're saying it means "I did nothing wrong, but I'm sad it upset you." But usually they feel like you _did_ do something wrong. They're upset that you deny it.
You're right that the phrase is overhated. It's the right thing to express in the cases you mentioned. But I'm just saying the irritation isn't all due to misunderstanding. It should more often than not be expected to irritate the other party. They likely think you did something wrong, and you're denying it. You're denying it in the nicest way possible, but you're still denying it.
This post has the potential to go viral well beyond the usual SSC/ACT fanclubs. It succinctly and straightforwardly puts a case that is widely intuitively felt already (but also *just* controversial enough), and which (to my knowledge) has not yet been expressed in a forum with a high-enough already-existing profile -- & certainly not expressed with this optimum combination of brevity & detail, sympathy & punchiness.
There's definitely a place for expressing this, but if you are looking to de-escalate a situation, "we need truth (me) not lies (you)" is pretty much the worst thing you could say.
"That sucks" is good for abstract informal sympathy, but doesn't capture this situation well, where your actions are causing the pain and yet you don't believe your actions were wrong or plan to change them. I'm sorry I've hurt you but I'm still not going out with you. I'm sorry this upsets you so much, but I still think your religion is false.
At times, this type of phrasing can be a pseudo-apology.
“You’re a D-bag”
“That’s rude and uncalled for”
“I’m sorry you feel that way”
I mean, that’s not a great time for that phrase.
But in the examples you used, no problem. You can acknowledge respect for someone else’s opinion, without conceding any part of your own. Kinda like “we’re gonna have to agree to disagree”.
It probably advisable to say something more simple, like "I see this is really important to you," or "I hear your feelings." Acknowledge their tender feelings without mentioning your position again, but yeah, you haven't changed what you are going to do. If they ask for money again, repeat that you won't be giving them anything. Try to separate their feeling from the ask by refusing to respond to them in the same sentence.
Look, I'm not saying this is reasonable, its a way to deal with emotionally entitled people.
I get a different impression of "sorry you feel that way". It doesn't seem firm, it seems dismissive. There are ways to communicate firmness while also addressing the other person. I agree with everything you wrote about the third response (addres the other person's feelings, remain firm, remain amicable) but I don't think "I'm sorry you feel that way" does that in practice. I worked in customer service for a little bit, and whenever you heard those words, things weren't going well, and the agent was trying to shut down a discussion that had already gone off the rails. Fair enough if that's the point the discussion is at, but I think there are ways you can execute the sentiments better just by expanding the point.
I.e. "I love you, and I value your wellbeing. I do not want to see you addicted to drugs, and I will not provide any money to help you in that pursuit. [Offer the help you are willing to give]."
If they disagree that you love them, that's on them. But I think it's much better for you to state that outright than let the accusation sit unaddressed, and to offer some kind of olive branch they can come back to when things are less heated. Maybe if they disagree that's when you pull out, "I'm sorry you feel that way"? If so, I guess it's less of a problem. But my experience is that people usually skip the important step of actually addressing the feelings they are sorry the other person has.
This appears to be an example of Scott being way more charitable in assuming trustworthiness than is actually justified. The literal meaning of "I'm sorry you feel that way" is only interesting because (in practice) most people who say it are flat out lying. They are not sorry you feel that way. They don't care one way or another whether you feel that way. Additionally, they aren't even slightly reticent to let you know that. Most of the time this phrase is said, it is an intentional slam. Once you realize that, everything about this controversy becomes clear.
Certainly there are better ways to convey sincerity than an overused cliche, no?
"Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction... I feel like you don't love me!"
—"I do love you! I want the best for you and will help you get treatment. I couldn't live with myself if I contributed to your self-destruction."
"My son died in that war."
—"I feel awful for you. I can't imagine the grief you're going through. Can I help in any way? This insane war has to end so other families don't experience this hell."
"I can't believe you're on the perpetrator's side! People like you didn't take my crime seriously, and this is just making me re-live that horror."
—"Sorry, I didn't know you had that experience and certainly didn't intend for you to re-live the trauma. I hate that you had to go through that and live with the bad memories from it. Had I known it was a sensitive topic for you, I wouldn't have brought it up.
"I'm not skeptical of all victims, and especially not you. But as a practicing psychiatrist, I've met far too many people who invent or manipulate victimhood for personal gain. Those are the situations I'm skeptical of."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think one should look for more than just "respecting their feelings" and letting them know you "didn't mean it personally". To me, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a conversation-stopper. It's a tactic to leave the discussion (and not-so-subtly let them know you didn't change your mind).
Instead, I see your examples as opportunities to convey love. (Love—"willing the best for them"... not "gratifying their indulgences".) The other person is sharing a part of the tough stuff in their life with you, and that gives you the chance to bond, become closer to them, make a new friend, and (if needed) potentially help them out.
I bet a lot of us have seen situations where some passive-aggressive asshole uses a seemingly-reasonable position to covertly convey extremely negative sentiments.
Or maybe we've just seen some kids get in a fight because one was looking at another the wrong way, or had a bit of a smile when "apologizing", or something like that.
Words aren't everything, not even to e of voice and facial expression covers it completely. The closest I can get is to say that it's about arbitrarily subtle signals that indicate that the other person is deliberately insincere. And of course it's also infuriating when the other person is obviously sincere, and sincerely thinks you're wrong and overreacting.
Maybe the glorious AI future will find some way to solve this that doesn't involve Kill All Humans.
[Phone auto-swipe chose "gutter" in place of "future".]
I think the problem is that, as you noted, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is NOT an object level apology, and is disingenuous when the speaker pretends that it is.
However, I found it tough to find examples! Most instances I found included an object level apology and are fine. I did find one: https://www.mediaite.com/news/harvard-professor-forced-to-awkwardly-backtrack-after-denigrating-harvard-grads-in-attempted-own-on-conservative-writer/. But overall, I'm not sure how relevant this is. I suspect that public figures are more often taken out of context, with "I'm sorry you feel that way" quoted but the object level apology not. I'll have to pay more attention in the future. Part of the problem is that articles about apologies are easy to find but the full remarks are not. Google provides too many second hand accounts and not enough sources.
"Therapy culture" and politics / social / culture war stuff overlap to a tremendous degree. I think Scott's examples are about mostly the apolitical cases, in which it is generally allowed to have disagreements of blame or fault. When I look up the links I see things like using slurs, which are generally judged to be always wrong.
Interpersonal relationships got politicised by feminism, with the idea that if a man ever violates a woman's feelings, it is automatically wrong because it is an exercise in power. However, later on this got de-gendered, and one often sees women talking with women the same way: if you violated my feelings, you are objectively wrong.
The idea of gaslighting really ties it together. Originally it was a psychological concept, then it was politicised in the way that it is something men do to women as an exercise of power and broadened into any hint at questioning the validity or accuracy of someone's feelings, and then it got de-gendered to a large extent.
I wish more people would show interest in Non-Violent Communication (though it is a little unfortunately named, and that turns people off, it should be non-accusatory communication). The central idea IMHO is severing the concept of validity and accuracy of feelings
1) "A" does something objectively not necessarily wrong, the act stays unjudged
2) "B" feels bad about it anyway
3) these feelings are valid, even when they are not accurate, because it is not the job of feelings to be accurate (we use thoughts for accuracy)
4) "B" should communicate it in the way of "what you did was not necessarily bad but I feel bad about it, the problem might be me, I might just be oversensitive to this, still, please stop doing this"
5) "A" should accept this or stop interacting, and if they don't then they really objectively wrong
This is roughly the same concept as how one deals with disability, illness etc. I talk about spiders and the other person tells me they are phobic to spiders. I was not in the wrong for talking about spiders because I really did not know it, still at that point I should stop.
I end up saying a variant of “I can see how what I said/did would seem to you/affect you. I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to/want to make you feel that way”.
No one has tried to get me to admit I was actually wrong afterwards. Taking responsibility for their feelings seems enough. Feels silly though because I really am only sorry for the effect it had on them but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it again. Sometimes the right choice is painful and not always to just yourself.
The set of people I trust to be an adult is small.
Hypothesis: it is seen as an attempt to take credit without delivering. Like, collecting Good Person Points for apologizing but not really apologizing. This is why people in this thread said they would prefer an "I disagree", at least you are not trying to take credit.
Another interpretation: "I'm sorry you feel that way" as prelude to murder. (Subtext: because our worldviews are apparently so irreconcilable that we cannot continue to exist in the same world. Cue up a moment of stillness, and then both people drawing weapons and attacking.)
I now want a montage of martial arts film duels where every tentpole fight is preceded by one of the actors' final lines being overdubbed with "I'm sorry you feel that way".
In these situations saying I'm sorry you feel that way is honest. I really do feel bad you got hurt. But I had my reasons for the choices I made and I stand by them. That doesn't mean I don't care about your emotional well being. But its the only thing I care about!
Part of the problem is that we use "I'm sorry" for both apology and sympathy. Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way." _looks like_ an apology, so it gets interpreted as a twisted sort of apology that's trying to deflect blame. Also, sometimes people really do use it in a dismissive way, like "sucks to suck.".
When "I'm sorry" is not an apology, but just empathizing, it can be replaced by "it sucks":
"I'm sorry your house burned down." -> "It sucks that your house burned down."
This has the benefit that it can't be mistaken for an apology or acceptance of responsibility . This clarifies the original sentence from Scott as well as those in the comments:
"It sucks that you feel that way."
"It sucks that what I said left you feeling this way."
"It sucks that my position on this issue offends you."
"It sucks that our disagreement made you feel I don't care about you."
"It sucks that our conversation about our pets brought up such painful memories for you."
This is good and can be replaced by lots of adjacent ones like "It's awful that" or "I hate that" or "How terrible that..." My mom used to say, "It rots my socks that..." Maybe we need some more colorful ones like that.
All those kinds of phrases convey genuine emotion and the genuineness of the emotion conveys caring. "I'm sorry that you...." ends up sounding more like blame or an assessment of the other person, while these phrases express our own feelings, which is really much more our job.
If you think "I'm sorry you feel that way" is insufficiently sincere or groveling or whatever - and can I just make a plea for less talking overall? Least said, soonest mended? - I give you the greatest non-apology I ever witnessed:
I was a clueless substitute teacher in, I believe, a 4th grade class. There was a simmering dispute between two boys, to which I was alerted by another teacher as I came in at midday. It seemed to me the school - [since discipline wasn't allowed, something called ARDs being how they sublimated that sort of thing] - didn't handle stuff like that well, indeed usually involving the counselor and taking just the sort of "therapy" approach to disciplinary matters (or matters that should have been left to DIY-adjudicate themselves, rather than having attention drawn to them and their parties). Thus elevating bad behavior and narcissism in a way, to something that adults are interested in ... Not that this case didn't have justice on one side or the other, but I couldn't have known about that.
If you think I should have known better what to do in such a situation - I'm sorry you feel that way.
Anyway, I didn't actually have anything to do with it; I never took any initiative about such things when I subbed. This one boy, in that not atypical way that Hollywood will never grasp despite its love of the "bullying" scene in kids' movies, was not physically intimidating at all, quite the reverse - but he used his sharper wits to wound this other boy, who must have been very sensitive. I didn't really know them. Anyway, their bickering interaction soon came to a head. I sought that other teacher in the "pod" (they were all about teams then), and she instructed each boy to write the other a note of apology.
I don't recall what the boy who had been driven to tears wrote. But the other boy's offering was a master class in the devastating non-apology:
"I'm sorry for making you wish you were never born."
I think it has more to do with insincere apologies. Which I encounter a fair bit. I'm guilty of them too. I'm Canadian; there's the "Always saying sorry" stereotype.
But the internal attitude of a Canadian who says that is often like the Japanese. They apologize, but it's in Japanese. It's often translated to English as "I'm sorry", though it's apparently more accurate to translate it as "You shouldn't have to have gone to that trouble for me."
Taking offense to my saying or doing something is a thing that occurs in your head, not mine. You can explain why you take offense to it; it's possible that I don't have all the facts.
An actual apology is a sincere action that you take when you realize and agree that you are in the wrong. It's usually due to ignorance. If you're not actually sorry for your action, then it's just words, and we already have far too many "just words" in the world.
A forced apology is an exercise in power. I have the ability to punish you for your action; you say some words in the hope that you accept my humiliation instead of otherwise punishing you. It certainly doesn't change your attitude towards me for the better. It causes resentment, and circumscribes your future actions when I am aware of them.
Until I get the power. Then most likely you should look out for my revenge.
“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, ie ‘I’m sorry you feel that way.’”
It seems like if that is what you mean, then saying, “I respect your feelings, I don’t mean this personally, and I hope we can stay on good terms,” is much clearer than “I’m sorry you feel that way.” I don’t think the phrase necessarily communicates that at all.
To channel Scott's explanations of the offensiveness of blackface, or of "Japs", the phrase was used too many times by politicians and corporate PR people as a way of sounding like you're apologising when you're really not, it then got coded as "that thing said by politicians and corporate PR people as a way of sounding like they're apologising when they're really not", and now we're stuck with needing a new phrase. Because that's how our crazy society works.
There's a distinction to make. I doubt people get hung up on this term in interpersonal interactions. It's less the case that they hate it, and more-so that they want to shame a public figure. This is usually for alleged verbal infraction.
If the figure denies wrongdoing (assuming they reasonably can) and invokes this phrase, the mob will say they should grovel and be punished, though public opinion may be unchanged and supporters won't necessarily take flight. If the figure apologizes, the mob will not then say "thanks, don't worry about it". They'll tell you it sounds like you don't really mean it. You should have groveled harder. They'll scrutinize each word and suggest you only say such and such thing to get out of punishment (but no one gets out of punishment, so it's a ridiculous assertion). And occasionally of course you get the cases where said public figure gets a gold star sticker from the mob because they groveled for something inconsequential and were already well-liked anyway.
The mob wants to circle you, spit and throw stones, and "non-apology" is just a pretext. Whether apology is worth it depends.
I think a large part of the problem is just that "I'm sorry" is a terrible phrase that is unfortunately stuck in a central position in the English language. It's terrible because not only does it have two very common, definitely distinct meanings, but they're all close enough to each other that context often won't serve to tell them apart. I'm sorry can mean:
1. I apologize (taking responsibility): "I'm sorry I punched you in the face."
2. I sympathize (no responsibility): "I'm sorry to hear you got punched in the face."
As described in the essay, "I'm sorry that you feel that way" is definitely an expression of sympathy, not an apology. The problem isn't that expressing sympathy here is bad or unreasonable, the problem is the phrasing makes it sound like an apology, just an especially poor or insincere one. It's often delivered in a situation where the affected party is wanting or expecting an apology, so the effect on the recipient is as if the speaker were sort of teasing or hinting towards an apology, then snatching away the offer to take responsibility at the last second. Of course, one may think the recipient is unreasonable for hearing it that way, but I think a large part of the effect is subconscious: their brain's anticipation-prediction machinery is primed to hear an apology, and here's the words coming sooo close (strengthening the anticipation-prediction) before being snatched away at the last second.
My best solution--since I can't wave my hand and reform the English language to remove this issue--is to try to phrase the same sentiment in a way that doesn't sound like an apology at all. "I sympathize, but I can't help you" comes to mind, though there are probably better ways, and it can be tailored to the situation.
Huh. I mean, I agree that there are times that you might want to express "I'm going to keep doing this, but I genuinely think it's regretful that you are upset by it." But as you say:
>Or at least it would have, if Internet randos hadn’t installed a knee-jerk “Oh, you literally said the words, that proves you’re a bad person and I win this discussion!” reaction into anyone who hears it.
But the internet randos have done that, so we need to walk around the next turn of the euphemism treadmill.
Actually, to be fair, I don't think this was the fault of the internet randos, more the fault of the people who started using "I'm sorry you feel that way" in the Jimmy Carr sense that a commenter put up top: the fake apology. But either way, it doesn't really matter why it happened, we just need a new phrase for this situation. (Which will no doubt be abused and need to be replaced again in a few years.)
You might analogize interpersonal conflicts with an actual war. In this case, an apology is like the flying of a white flag in the name of negotiating terms. You are willing to concede some of the other side's points in the name of reconciliation and the throwing down of arms. In this analogy, "I'm sorry you feel that way" comes across as perfidy, the flying of a white flag without actually throwing down arms or being willing to concede anything to the other side.
Apologies play an important and borderline sacred role in interpersonal communication. Especially rancorous conflicts often end with mutual apologies if they end positively at all. The reason that "I'm sorry you feel that way" is so poorly received is because of the ambiguous nature of the phrase "I'm sorry", which is not really an apology in this case. When it is used in this context it can easily be seen as an attempt to hoodwink the other person into believing that they received an apology.
My dad told me that using the word "Sorry" meant that you were apologizing for something you did wrong/were to blame and not to use it when you thought your actions were fine/correct/just/etc. So I don't like to use that phrase but I haven't found an alternative that I like. "That's unfortunate" is a bit trite but I use it sometimes. If it's someone I want to have a long relationship with, I'll try and have a conversation about the situation.
I don't think this is therapy culture I think it's just basic politeness.
In general, an expression of regret about someone's feeling implies that those feelings are unreasonable or inappropriate.
The polite thing to do is to express regret at the cause of those feelings.
Consider:
"I'm sorry your father died"
Vs
"I'm sorry that you feel sad that your father died"
I don't think this changes if the person's feelings are the result of an action you consider reasonable:
"I'm so sorry about your father, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children."
Vs.
"I'm so sorry that you feel that way about your father dying, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children."
So I think there is something inherently dismissive about "I'm sorry you feel that way".
But maybe this is a subtle difference between British and US English?
Let's face it, if we (I) are/am in a situtation where a family member is trying to beg drug money off me, our interactions are going to be way deeper (and more heated and aggressive) than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Depending on how close they are, how pathetic their situation is, and how manipulative they are being, my reaction to "I feel like you don't love me" when I refuse to pay their drug money will be:
(1) "Effin' right I don't, not any more, not after all the lies and deceit and manipulation you've used, not after you've effed up your own life, the lives of those around you, and now you're trying to eff up *my* life by bleeding me dry of my hard-earned money to go right into the pocket of your drug dealer. Maybe this time will be the overdose that kills you, and right now I'm nearly at the point of being willing to pay for that in order to get you out of our lives once and for all"
(2) "It's precisely because I *do* love you that I'm not going to hand over money to you, just for you to continue to destroy your life and maybe even end up killing yourself. I don't want that on my conscience, and I want you to have a better life than reducing yourself to this, to doing anything for the next fix"
What is the equivalent to "I'm so sorry about your father, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children" in a case where the only bad thing that has happened is that the person is offended?
Just say "I'm sorry, can we talk about something else?" You don't need to be truthful about the fact that you feel bad that they're stupid and angry. And frankly, why are you feeling sorry for them in the first place?
I think "I'm sorry you feel that way" is fine in that case, because a dismissive response seems appropriate.
It seemed a reasonable response in the drug addict example, for instance. (I find it difficult to imagine anyone objecting to it's use there, allowing for a few assumptions about the context.)
But in the other 2 examples a bad thing had definitely happened (someone had died and someone else had been the victim of a traumatic crime). It seemed pretty reasonable for the individuals in question to be upset (albeit those feelings are being somewhat misdirected). A dismissive response feels unkind/rude.
Optional additional steps would be to ask questions about why and express interest in their reasons and their feelings, while not feeling that you have to apologize further OR defend.
Just be curious. "Oh I think I get it now. When I said X, that meant to you that... Do I have that right?" "I think I get what you're saying now."
If they're like "And you owe me an apology!" You can repeat "I'm sorry I offended you."
And if they're like, "No not for offending me, for holding that offensive position!" Then you can say any number of things. "I think this is an issue that smart/principled people can disagree about. It sounds like we're having that kind of disagreement."
"I'm sorry I offended you" is not "I was unkind/wrong/offensive in what I said and that's why you are offended." It's "You and I are having a sincere conversation about things that matter to us and in that process I said something that caused you pain. Your pain is not my responsibility to take care of, but I also feel bad that my words caused you pain."
It seems to me our integrity is not diminished by this at all. And of course there's always the possibility that we were not so skillful or thoughtful about how we spoke and that there is a piece of the offense which truly belongs to our actions but we can't see it in that moment. And so apologizing there allows for our humility in that situation.
Meh. People (me-ple) are annoyed by such phrases as a 3rd person observer when they seem to be insincere responses or come from people who seem insincere. It's the same as hearing someone talk with an overt "empathy voice" that seems insincere. Also, when it comes to a response to someone close to you, as in the examples give, you can spend an extra few breaths being more specific in order to avoid using a canned expression that could be aggravating...
I think there's a lot of good analysis of the phrase both in the post and in some of the comments, but I think it might be overanalyzing. It may not be any more complicated than the fact that some folks use the phrase in a glib manner (like the end of the post); therefore, it's got the reputation of insincerity, which can code anyone who uses it a lot as a bad faith actor. Kinda of reminds me of companies that say things like "Waxo Haxo corp cares about your health/the environment/diversity/whatever" Those kind of statements tend to come across as disingenuous due to the many times they've been said hypocritically, so I automatically start to gain a mistrustful perception of Waxo Haxo if they use that kind of language frequently
If you know that most people think “I’m sorry you feel that way” is insulting, and your intent in communicating with a random person isn’t to insult but to sympathize, why on earth would you say it? You’re just undermining your own intent.
Vernacular phrases carry meaning that often has little to do with what the individual words within them mean. For better or worse, it appears this is true of “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
The only way you can say this phrase and expect a random person to understand it as honest sympathy is if you preamble it with your own uncommon definition (which would be ridiculous).
"Lets just agree to disagree" is much better than "I'm sorry you feel that way" since in latter case, the person knows that you are not really genuinely sorry.
I think its telling that your examples are all cherry picked situations where the other person is obviously 100% in the wrong. I find those situations are fairly rare in real interactions, how does this strategy work out when its not so clear cut?
I find that people who use the phrase in the way that you endorse are generally just unwilling to reflect on their responsibility in the conflict and deploy that phrase to give themselves cover for their lack of concern. It isnt polite or compassionate, Its an attempt to dodge the consequences of disregarding the concerns of the other party, both the interpersonal consequences and any feelings of guilt that your own callousness might otherwise produce.
I think if you choose situations where its clearly 100% the other person's issue, you're missing the reason the phrase is so odious, and the reason it is used at all. The purpose of the phrase is to reframe a situation where the responsibility for the dispute is unclear as being the sole responsibility of only one of the people involved.
The phrase "I'm sorry" seems to have lost its meaning as "I feel bad that" or "It's unfortunate" in our modern apologist culture. So just say "It's too bad you feel that way" so as not to sound like you are falsely expressing remorse.
It can feel like an evasion based on the context that it is used. If we are talking about my mother being sick and you say "I'm sorry your mother is sick," I will rightly interpret that as you are expressing sorrow about my mother's circumstances.
On the other hand, if we are talking about how it was disgusting that you pooped in my oven and you say "I'm sorry you feel that way," then you are expressing sorrow, but about the wrong thing! The problem isn't my disgust, the problem is your pooping habits!
If you had expressed sorrow about the right thing, it would have been an apology. Instead, you are not only saying that pooping in my oven was objectively a good call but also that my feelings about it are wrong and that you wish I felt differently.
So, you can say "I'm sorry that you feel that way," and it isn't the meanest thing you could do when you reach a fundamental impasse. It's just crazy to expect it to go over well with the recipient.
"I understand how you feel, and I can see why you would feel that way, but I disagree." Or, "I respect your opinion, but I disagree." Or, more gently, "I happen to feel differently."
I had no idea this was a thing among "internet randos". My only context for opposition to the phrase is parents opposing kids using it as a way of "saying sorry" without admitting that they're in the wrong (when they actually are).
The criticism of the phrase made sense originally because saying, "I'm sorry if I offended you," displaces responsibility when someone needs to genuinely apologize.
Example: I say something that 95% of people agree is wildly offense. I apologize by saying, "To anyone I've offended." That implies a narrower slice and ignores that anyone functional should be offended by that statement.
But in the examples you give, the issue is contestible, or if anything, the person doing the apologizing is saying sorry for something 95% of people would not have to apologize for.
It may just relate that if someone is so deeply offended by something that shouldn't offend a regular person, it's better to either just go fully in on the lie apology, "I'm sorry for what I've done, it was wrong for these reasons," or they should not apologize, explain their perspective, and if it's rejected, accept that.
The half-way, "I'm sorry you feel offended," satisfies nobody in the drug example or the war example you've given. While you may be correct on the merits--a rational person should accept a difference of agreement, or even understand you may be right--the very act of having to apologize for a true or at least contestable statement shows you're probably not dealing with the most rational actor in that situation, so the attempt to use rationality for a framework for apologies is going to fail.
eh. people often use "im sorry you feel that way" to mean "well, i dont care.". so if you say that, and people feel like you're saying you don't care, that makes sense.
If you just add ", I don't want you to feel that way, because I care about you" or something, people don't hate that. so i suggest doing that.
you can even add "I can see how x would make you feel that way". maybe a small number of weird people online would talk about how this is still gaslighting but... mostly i dont think anyone would make this claim...
I guess I'm not very good at accepting the idea that respecting someone's feelings is valuable in many cases. Especially one like the example used. I can respect your arguments or your analysis or your need. But not your feelings.
As I used to say to my kids when they were moppy and unhappy about some trivial thing, "I'd feel sorry for you but you are so busy doing that yourself that there is no room for me in there. Let me know when you are done and we'll talk."
I do think it would be nice to have a better socially accepted phrase for "I disagree. I think you are wrong, but I value you as a person and wish you pleasant outcomes in your life. I'm not interested in continuing to debate this with you."
The problem is, when you cut it off on the note of “I disagree = will continue to oppose you on this point of conflict”, if they identify with that topic, “Value you as a person” falls flat, and if they believe their life outcomes hinge on it, “wish you pleasant outcomes” falls flat.
It seems bizarre to me that people think that someone cannot simultaneously disagree with them and value them/wish them well. Do they feel compelled to agree with everyone they meet in order to not devalue/dehumanize them?
Of course you can wish them well, in your head. But if the disagreement is serious, over things that are too important to them, you can’t expect them to trust your or take your word for it.
If the disagreement is over a matter of fact, and you believe that they are factually incorrect, it may also make sense to say something along the lines of, "I look forward to gathering the further evidence which we both agree would resolve this dispute one way or the other. We have different predictions about the result, but I acknowledge the logical coherence of your premises. If the evidence does turn out the way you expect it to, instead of how I expect it to, then I will acknowledge you are correct."
If the disagreement comes down to differences in fundamental values rather than factual states of the universe, then it makes more sense to say that explicitly. For example, "You believe in X, where X is a specific unverifiable notion about metaphysical attributes of supernatural phenomena. Since we have established that there is no observable factual evidence which could resolve the difference between our hypotheses, we must agree to disagree on this point."
Or perhaps:
"You value X, Y, and Z. For you these are fundamental values which your conditional values build upon. My fundamental value set is W, Y, and Z. Thus, we differ on our personal valuations of X and W. This means that certain preference orderings over states of the universe will not be equal for us, and downstream effects of that mean we cannot agree on political policy Q. Having established that we cannot resolve this with further factual evidence, we should instead seek to find a political compromise which is as fairly balanced and win-win as possible under the circumstances, given each of our respective power bases."
"Maybe one of your family members makes an unreasonable demand (“Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction”), you say no, and they say they feel like you don’t love them."
Me: Well I don't love this behaviour, seems kind of manipulative. Part of how I show love for my family is to do things that help them have better lives, and drug money will not do that for you. I accept that you may be pissed off at me about this.
"Maybe you speak out against a genocidal aggressive war. Someone complains that their family member died fighting in that war. They accuse you of implicitly dismissing their relative’s sacrifice and calling them a bad person."
That was not my intention. I don't know your relative, but I do know their death was bad too. If I could snap my fingers and make the war not have happened, their sacrifice be unnecessary, and have your relative be alive, I definitely would.
"Maybe you argue that a suspect is innocent of a crime, and some unrelated crime victim says it triggers them when people question victims or advocate for the accused. They say that now they are re-traumatized."
I'm sorry, I didn't know your history and I didn't mean to re-traumatize you. I do think it's important we not put innocent people in jail, but it's also important to recognize that crime has really bad effects, such as what's happening to you right now.
"Is there some incredibly eloquent and original answer that manages to convey joint firmness and compassion without using the dreaded “I’m sorry you feel that way” phrase? Maybe, but it’s not realistic to expect the average person to figure out a bespoke phrasing in the heat of the moment."
You might classify the above as "coming up with bespoke phrasing in the heat of the moment", and unrealistic to do. I'm not great at thinking on my feet, yet in these situations I seem able to manage something better than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
A taken-aback expression, and a long pause to think of how to say what you want to say without giving further unintended offense, seems acceptable in these cases, and likely to de-escalate things. If the pause lasts long enough, "I didn't mean to cause offense/your negative emotional response, and wish I hadn't" will be communicated indirectly.
I don't think I'm guilty of therapy culture, but I react badly to that phrase and I think it's just because it's a fake apology. "Sorry you feel that way" sounds like "How you feel about my actions is your problem, not mine". Imagine your neighbour responding like that after you asked them to stop playing loud music late at night because it's preventing you from sleeping.
Related is the sneaky use of passive voice in statements like "Mistakes were made and lessons were learned". Yeah, but what and by whom?
I only recall seeing this phrase in the context of another party demanding apologies (albeit sometimes implicitly).
Something I picked up from (I think) HPMOR is the distinction between apology-as-regret and apology-as-submission. "Sorry" can mean any one of "I regret my actions", "I sympathize with your pain", or "I submit to you." Someone demanding an apology is almost invariably after that last one -- it's the only one you can actually get by demand. Any alternative phrasing for "I'm sorry you feel that way" that did not include implied submission would still be unacceptable to them.
It probably *should* mean something like "I stand by my actions, but wish you weren't hurt by them."...but the sort of person who can accept that, is not the sort of person likely to angle for apologies in the first place, so I wouldn't expect to see it used that way often.
I grew up in Toronto, and at the age of eleven was allowed to go downtown on the subway by myself. Being an eleven year old boy I made a game of seeing if I could keep steady on my feet as the train started and stopped without hanging on to any of the handholds which were provided for the purpose. I managed this around ninety percent of the time, but sometimes I lost my footing and on a few occasions I bumped into some innocent seated adult. Every time I remember this happening, the adult said "sorry." I was a little perplexed about this at the time. I knew it was my fault, and I felt for certain that the person I bumped into must have also known it was my fault - and yet he said "sorry."
The result of this is that I have developed the habit of saying "sorry" whenever someone bumps into me, even if I am fairly certain that it was the other person who was at fault - and I think this is a good habit. The other person probably knows he was at fault, and if he doesn't know or if he wasn't really at fault then the politeness of the sorry can't really go wrong. I think that this possibly also works when I have been the occasion of someone having hurt feelings when I do not think I have wronged him. Sometimes a "sorry" without qualifications is fitting even when I am still convinced that I acted or spoke properly.
having observed young children (esp. my own), they will *very often* fail to notice when they are 100% at fault, and genuinely believe that the other person is responsible for the bad outcomes, so *both* people saying "sorry" in this case helps smooth ruffled feathers, especially if both participants think the other one is at fault.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" - I fail to acknowledge the validity of your feelings, and instead offer a non-apology along the lines of kindergarten "I'm sorry that you're a poopy-head" when the teacher demands that you apologize.
"I'm sorry that I made you upset" acknowledges your part in making them upset, and it validates their feelings (which they are ACTUALLY feeling), and apologizes for YOUR part in it (an apology) rather for THEIR part in it (an insult).
Yes, but sometimes it is important to tell the truth even when you know it will offend someone. There has to be a way of telling people that voting for Sauron is bad without worrying overmuch about how offensive this is to Sauron voters.
Are you really sorry that you made them upset by telling them that Sauron voting was bad, or is it still true that you are really sorry that they were offended by your saying that Sauron voting is bad?
I think it's pretty much always good to tell the truth, though one doesn't always have to express one's opinions about everything. Do you think the Sauron voter will be persuaded because you say their candidate is bad? It seems to me in addition to being truthful we also need to be clear about our intentions in speaking up.
I think it would be good in general if people worried less about offending other people but then were more generous with apologies when they do.
We've become precious in our perfectionism -- mad when we've offended someone because dammit we've been working so hard to be beyond reproach.
Let's just accept that people get offended and not be surprised when they do. It doesn't mean be callous or in people's faces with our opinions. But if we've been asked our opinion and expressed it plainly without ill will, and the person who asked is offended, let them be so without ourselves getting offended. Let other people have their uncomfotable feelings without it needing to implicate us in any way.
You're stacking the deck by only including examples where the person saying "I'm sorry you feel that way is 100% right". If you feel like it's a fine phrase when said by someone who thinks you're an asshole for donating to AI safety or a protestor who just blocked a road for a cause you disagree with I think you would expect them to justify their position instead of cutting off the conversation.
- I understand that your addiction forces you to look for every possible way to look for more drugs. It sucks, and I wish there was an easy solution. And maybe there is, but giving you all my money is not one of them.
- Wars are terrible, aren't they? I am so sorry your relative died in one, defending the ideas she believed in. This is a tragedy, one that unfolds in wars so many times, and keeps happening in this war again and again. Maybe we can work together to have less of that in the future.
- This is a terrible crime, so sorry you are a victim of one. I think we are both for making sure that real perpetrators do not get away with it.
> A subtler variation of this trope is for Alice to apologise by saying something like "I'm sorry you feel that way, Bob." This is a relative of False Reassurance and an even closer relative of the Stealth Insult, since Bob has to pay attention to the wording to notice that she's putting the blame on him for being offended rather than on herself for causing offense.
I'm pretty autistic and I feel like this is one of the times when the high levels of autism in our community makes us unable to understand normal interactions. Because:
>Is there some incredibly eloquent and original answer that manages to convey joint firmness and compassion without using the dreaded “I’m sorry you feel that way” phrase?
No, there is not *A* answer that would work best in all of those situations. Because human interactions can't *actually* be systematized into a simple flowchart where each situation has 2-5 standardized options with predictable formats and outcomes.
The answer is that you have to *actually have a conversation* in each of those cases, which will be highly contingent on the context of teh situation and your relationship to the person, and you'll need to think hard about where everyone's emotions are coming from, what you actually believe, and what you actually want to convey.
-'I understand why you feel like no one loves you when you desperately need drugs and no one will help you buy them. I just want to make it clear that I do love you very much and I'm so desperately afraid of losing you, and I think helping you get more drugs is a step down that path. I'm happy to help you in all kinds of ways that lead somewhere better, like getting treatment or staying with me while you detox or etc. I understand if you can't accept that kind of help right now and I just want you to know it is always available no matter what and you can always come to me.'
-'I'm very sorry for your loss, I can't imagine losing someone like that. I do think the war was bad, but of course that doesn't mean all the people fighting in it were bad or had bad intentions, these things sweep up and mangle lives on every side of the conflict and individual soldiers have little say about it. My feelings about the high-level character of the conflict doesn't take anything away from your family member's bravery and sacrifice.'
-'I'm sorry that what I said was triggering for you, I didn't know you'd had that experienced and I would have spoken more carefully if I had. I do think that what I have to say on this matter is important and correct, but I know that a lot of people say similar things when their real intentions are bad, and how those attitudes can really hurt victims very badly, and I understand why you'd have a strong reaction because of that. I will try to be more sensitive in how I phrase things when we talk about this topic.'
In every case, if you care about the other person's pain enough to want to ease it and not cause more, you have to actually have the nuanced conversation about that specific issue. There's no system or rule or magic phrase that works in every case.
Now, you might respond with 'but what about the least convenient world where that person doesn't accept your careful nuanced conversation and still says you're bad anyway.'
The answer to that is, yes, the world *is* often inconvenient, that could totally happen and it will be annoying. But you and anyone else watching will at least know that you made your best effort, and you'll have contributed to a world with a norm of having real nuanced contingent conversations about important things instead of just repeating short stock phrases.
Or, you might respond 'but I actually don't care about this person's feelings enough to do all that hard work every time they get offended, especially if there's no guarantee it will make them accept me and call me a good person at the end. I do want a short stock phrase I can use in these situations so I can move on quickly.'
In which case... yeah, that's what everyone already *thought* you were thinking and doing when you say 'sorry you feel that way', and they think you're an asshole for it.
You can accept their entirely correct judgement, or you can do something else instead.
I think that progress on this topic requires a sense of intention and subtext.
Speech is an action intended - consciously or not - to cause an effect. And that intention - more than the words - is often instrumental.
The phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a phrase that can be used with wildly differing intentions and underlying meanings.
Sometimes, it means "We do not share opinions, but I see that you are experiencing real suffering as a result of mine. I am unable to change my opinion here and stay honest to my principles and boundaries, but I have real remorse that you are experiencing the suffering, and wish that it were not so."
Often, it means "oh god there you go again with your fEeLiNgS. You're wrong, I'm right, not my problem and fuck you for trying to make it so."
Other times, it means something in between.
I think Scott is defending the first meaning, while critics attack the second. I think that both the defense and the critique are completely understandable and compatible, as long as we're sussing out the meaning beneath the words.
This is - interestingly enough - one of the main problems across the board with overfit therapy culture and language. Telling someone you didn't say what they think you said is "Gaslighting" if Option 1: it's something designed to them feel crazy and question their entire sense of reality. But it's innocuous if Option 2: you have an honest difference of opinions on what was said. This is complicated by the fact that A) someone who is genuinely Option 1 gaslighting is going to take refuge in the appearance of Option 2, and B) depending on your opinions of Freud and his ilk, it is possible for your unconscious to conspire to Option 1 while you genuinely believe you are Option 2ing.
This is not easy, as it requires us to read underneath the words, which is at best deductive and at worst guesswork, but it is also necessary to disentangle the overfit.
A good drop in replacement: "I didn't mean to upset you"
This shows you are aware they are upset, and that wasn't your intention. "I'm sorry you feel that way" could be interpreted in the same way, but also could mean, "I wish you didn't feel that way" or "It's regrettable that you feel that way."
Yes, that's an improvement. The problem with "I'm sorry that you feel that way" is that it's intended to be dismissive. It's passive-aggressive. "I didn't mean to upset you" communicates regret, without you backing down. I think the article's being a bit all-or-nothing about this.
"I didn't mean to upset you" carries an implication that you didn't realise that you would upset them. It's probably not appropriate in situations where you're making a decision which is obviously going to upset them.
"This must be very upsetting, and I'm sorry for that" acknowledges that the person's feelings are entirely reasonable, unlike "I'm sorry you feel that way" which carries an implication that their emotional reaction is their own fault. It also apologises directly for the emotional component, without apologising for the underlying decision. You might immediately follow it up by reiterating the entirely reasonable and non-vindictive reasons why you made your decision.
"I didn't mean to upset you" is a good improvement as long as the person who's upset is someone you don't know that well. And that is how I read the 2nd and 3rd of Scott's 3 scenarios - the way I imagined them in my mind are informal social gatherings where at least some of the people there are people you don't know well. So probably a good reply in those two cases.
"I didn't mean to upset you" doesn't work if the person who's upset is someone who could reasonably expect you to know that what you said would upset them. In Scott's 3 scenarios, this would definitely include the drug-addicted family member. It would also likely include the trauma-victim if she's any closer than an acquaintance to you.
I hate the phrase too, and Scott has not changed my mind. Here are some alternative answers that I think are better.
I would hate it too in your place. Here’s why I’m standing firm.
I feel lousy about turning you down. If you want me to explain more about my reasons for doing it anyway, I can do that.
I of course still love you. But frankly, I think you sort of deserve to feel bad. What you’re asking for is something you probably knew I was unwilling to give. You pushed things to a painful point.
I can see how you’d hate it for me to turn it down, but how do you get from that to me not loving you? It’s not like either of us has never disappointed the other before.
I like your answers, but they seem hard to generate spontaneously. I tend to have lots of emotions sloshing around, and they're not always the ones I'd prefer, or that society thinks I should have. I'd like to be able to only feel the emotions that would be expressed in your answers, but it's hard to do. And it seems to positively attract people who exploit that sort of self-control.
Well, I have had a lot of practice, because I spend a lot of time talking to angry, unhappy people who expect me to help them and have answers. I can't possibly say shit like "I'm sorry you feel that way," without getting verbally clobbered. But the general principles at work are to be real, and to step forward into the disagreement rather than look for a way to paper it over. If your actual reaction to what that said is to want to smack them, or cry, are flee, it wouldn't make sense to say something like what I said. It wouldn't be real. You would probably need to say something about how what they said wasn't awful, but you're having a powerful emotional reaction that's out of proportion to their remark. And then if you know them well you can ask if they'd be OK with you just telling them your reaction, and if you don't you'd might need to excuse yourself for a while, or just ask to drop the subject til you've had time to get past your intense reaction.
Nobody's like that all the time. I don't know if you saw my post about the worst tweet I ever wrote (replying to a zero-covid nut) : " Listen to me you fucking one-word-sentence moron, there is nothing that nobody dies of. Somebody probably died of asparagus this year." I didn't post it, but almost did.
Slim pickings, but I did learn that there is a psychic who uses asparagus to foretell the deaths of celebrities (such as the queen), a comedian/actor with the surname of Asparagus (as a stage name, I presume) who died in California, and first allegations, and then retractions, that asparagus could give you breast cancer (so that might fit under "somebody died of asparagus").
"Breast cancer patients could be encouraged to cut asparagus and other foods from their diets in the future to reduce the risk of the disease spreading, scientists say.
Researchers are investigating whether a change in diet could help patients with breast tumours after studies in mice showed that asparagine, a compound first identified in asparagus but present in many other foods, drives the spread of the disease to other organs."
"But scientists are biting back, insisting (and pay close attention here) eating asparagus will not give you cancer. The link was an unfortunate misunderstanding - a classic example of journalism gone astray.
“Our bodies make asparagine, as well as many of the other amino acids that form proteins, and [asparagine synthetase] is one of the enzymes that helps make it,” explained Dr. Alex Berezow, senior fellow of biomedical science for the American Council on Science and Health. “Apparently, the more active this enzyme, the better breast cancer (in this mouse model) is able to spread. That’s interesting.”
He explained that the scientists attempted to stop the production of asparagine in the mice and stop feeding them foods that contained the protein. In these cases, breast cancer was less likely to spread.
Asparagine is found in asparagus, but also in nearly every other healthy food: Animal products, potatoes, legumes, nuts, and whole grains are all culprits of spreading this “cancerous” protein."
I love Eremolalos' sentences. I think the trick isn't to feel like you have to memorize the right sentences that stem from the right feelings. That's a recipe for some kind of performance anxiety I would think. We get to have our contradictory feelings and not know what to say. And I'd say that's a whole lot more lovely and genuine than reaching for a stock phrase.
"OH my god I feel so many things about you asking me for money right now. I feel afraid for your life. I feel utterly exasperated that you're not in rehab/getting help. I feel at a loss how to help you without adding to the problem. And frankly I feel overwhelmed."
If you're not someone who can access and name your feelings like that, which is very common, you can say, "God, I don't know what to say about that right now." And buy yourself some time to respond later and in a different format. "Agh, this thing you're dealing with is so big, I think it's way over my head."
"Wow, your anger at me about this is appalling to me. I don't think I'm going to be able to hear what you have to say right now."
Often when we feel stumped about what to say, it's because we have contradictory feelings, as you note. I feel bad I can't help you more. I feel furious that you expect me to.
It can help to get in the habit of feeling permission to give voice to these different opinions in you. "Part of me wishes I could buy you a year in the nicest rehab there is. And another part of me can't believe how much you expect us to help you when you've taken so few steps to help yourself so far."
I think I said somewhere above that I think a lot of us who maybe lean perfectionist -- or the culture pushes us there -- have become so scrupulous about what we say that we're afraid to just speak genuinely. The idea that we need to have the perfect words before we speak only encourages a culture of fragility around feelings and words. I keep hoping if we move through the world acting as if we are all responsible for taking care of our own feelings, that eventually we'll get there.
Now I think the other side of speaking up more naturally about our various contradictory feelings is that we also feel more free to say "I'm sorry, let me try that a different way" or "Oops, that didn't come out right. I want a do-over." Of course internet culture where everything is stored for the public forever and mobs are built around SOMEONE SAID A WORD makes this really hard at times.
I like your sentences too. In general, I think "when in doubt, tell the truth about what you're experiencing" is a good rule of thumb in close relationships. If what you're feeling is confused and overwhelmed by conflicting emotions, say that. It's the only honest way to buy yourself some time.
Yeah, I try to be genuine with responses when I can, but it takes time and effort. :-) And sometimes I even forget that examples like you give are possible. :/
> The idea that we need to have the perfect words before we speak only encourages a culture of fragility around feelings and words
Or worse, that attitude gets weaponized as a tool of abuse. :-(
If your flowchart starts with "they didn't choose option 1" and then outputs "be upset" without requiring you to make any additional observations, then it seems like an accurate description of cause-and-effect to say "you are upset because they didn't choose option 1", regardless of whether there were some other steps in the middle.
Also, come on. If you consistently got upset with people over evidence THAT weak, you'd be upset with basically everyone basically all the time. "The fact that you aren't currently nursing sick kittens back to health AT THIS MOMENT is (weak) evidence that you hate kittens!"
My first reaction: Is it so hard to give a sincere "I'm sorry for upsetting you" or similar that doesn't imply guilt or wrongness? It may be similar in spirit to "I'm sorry you feel that way" but at this point it's just that specific phrase that one may want to avoid. Assuming it's hit the 70% mark on the hyperstition cascade -- https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way . Which is to say, at some point "I'm sorry you feel that way" really will be equivalent to "fuck you". I guess Scott's point is to resist that, which I'm tentatively persuaded by.
I think better expressions could be engineered depending on context:
I'm hearing what you're saying, but I disagree.
I don't like to cause upset, but this is the way it has to be.
This situation is unfortunate, but it doesn't change my position.
Some of the examples above shouldn't even be sympathized with though: "I'm triggered you think someone might be innocent" I would genuinely respond with "well we aren't going to imprison innocent people so you can feel better, so I'd recommend you stop participating in this conversation for your own health"
"I'm sorry that I've made you feel this way" would be another phrasing that sounds a little more sincere, because it puts the emphasis back on your actions rather than theirs.
But if you go for "I'm sorry that what I did caused such a big emotional reaction for you" then that's putting the emphasis back on them, and implying that their emotional reaction is unreasonable.
There's a lot of ways to tune the wording to make it sound more or less sincere. I think it's a mistake in human communication to say "Well, this combination of words defensibly aligns with my actual meaning so it must be appropriate" without considering all the connotations that it might have.
I think this is just the flaws of text communication. There's nothing wrong with the literal meaning of the words, but that's not all there is to language, and text strips out the cues we normally use.
(I'm going to try to illustrate the failings of text communication, in text communication, so this probably won't go well.)
I think when you write "I'm sorry you feel that way" people read it as whatever the most common way they hear that is. My guess is that this more closely matches something like "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way", spoken in a tone that carries meaning like (I'm exaggerating for illustrative purposes) "I'm sorry you don't realize you're wrong".
It seems you might mean it in a tone more like "Oh, I'm sorry you feel that way".
So, that example sucked, but I'm hoping that prefacing one of those with "Well" and one with "Oh" made them sound different in your head, even tho those are both just filler words.
If it did, then that's most of the issue, that written words carry tone you don't intend when they get to someone else's ears. It's a general difficulty of communication, that it has to go through 3 translation layers to go from my brain to yours.
"I'm sorry" is associated with apologies, which isn't quite what's being offered. It might be better to say "I wish you didn't feel that way," which, unless you like that they feel that way, is truthful without conceding the underlying reason for their feelings.
"I wish you didn't feel that way" could be construed as you blaming them for their emotions. Maybe something like "it's unfortunate that you feel that way"
"you’ve got to try to make them feel better with a polite compassionate response"
Without taking anything away from your argument, I'd say an equally valid use of the phrase is to try to get the other person to reconsider their position - to see the problem not as whatever I said or did, or didn't say or didn't do, but rather their reaction - their "feelings" on the subject. I don't consider this to be particularly compassionate, except in the broad sense that maybe, perhaps, reconsidering one's reaction from a perspective that is not completely self-centered, would be better for everyone involved.
People are talking about the conflation of sympathy and apology in the English word "sorry", but I wonder how much of that is inevitable? What value is an apology with no sympathy for the person you're apologizing to? ("You deserved everything that happened to you, but for reasons of my own, I regret that I'm the one that did it."?) What value is sympathy if the person doesn't apologize at all ? (The Princess Bride - "Beautiful isn't it? It took me half a lifetime to invent it. I'm sure you've discovered my deep and abiding interest in pain. Presently I'm writing the definitive work on the subject, so I want you to be totally honest with me on how the machine makes you feel. This being our first try, I'll use the lowest setting.")
Why not just "I'm sorry I hurt you, but I stand by what I said."?
Even if they are being fragile about it, if you care about someone (a fragile someone) then you'd rather not hurt them, but you do need to say the things you need to say.
I'm sorry you feel that way feels wrong because you're eliding the actual result (someone is hurt) and substituting something vague (the other person feels some general way).
IANAB but it strikes me that buddhism is the religion of "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Part of what probably feels offensive about the phrase is the implication that the feelings of the person being addressed should change rather than the opinions/behaviors of the person saying it.
Buddhism basically says (correct me if I'm wrong, not an expert) "Yes, if you're suffering, your feelings *should* change, for your own good and for the good of all those you interact with."
(BTW, if this is a basically correct interpretation I think I agree totally with it)
Buddhism at least offers "I am sorry, due to compassion, that you are suffering but suffering is the truth of human life and this is the way out of it".
"I'm sorry you feel that way" doesn't offer anything to ameliorate the bad feelings. Maybe if people use it in the way Scott recommends, but I think the general consensus is that it is not so used, rather it dodges apologising and puts the onus on the offended party to stop being such a delicate little flower and toughen up.
In my limited experience, there's an emphasis on both sides: not only making oneself less likely to suffer, but also taking care not to cause suffering in the world. The second part is where a lot of the asceticism, vegetarianism, non-violence, etc. come from. And the emphasis on universal loving-kindness also ties into that.
I think you’re straw-versioning the position under debate. That’s unusual for you!
The steel version is this: if Alice has wronged Bob, and Bob validly complains, and Alice responds with “I’m sorry you feel that way,” then Alice is churlishly refusing to take Bob seriously as a moral subject, *and* Alice is holding the optics of a “reasonable, polite, emotionally regulated” person, which is shitty and manipulative. Alice is offloading the entire burden of Alice’s bad behavior onto Bob, refusing to change, self-reflect, cooperate prosocially, or care about Bob as a person, or even allow a transparent awareness that Alice is screwing Bob over. That’s worthy of the hate.
Maybe a better replacement for your straw scenario—where Carol is right and Dan is a drug addict—is for Carol to name Dan’s emotion without endorsing it. “I hear your anger.” Honestly, I don’t see many better options for Carol besides simply withdrawing from Dan.
How is any of this any different from traditional old fashioned "spinning words to make oneself look better?" People have been misusing language to manipulate others since forever. The specific form it takes may change with ever evolving popular culture, but the underlying dynamics are nothing new.
"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, ie “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
This is a great description of the target statement, and I agree that expressing it well can be very difficult. Fortunately, there is a class of people (probably many classes!) who have to solve this problem professionally. The group to which I belonged for many years was "technical support for *extremely* high-end B2B SaaS where the monthly cost per user was at least £5,000, and where, a few times a year, a user will make embarrassing and costly mistakes" (eg. typing the price and volume the wrong way round on an order entry screen and inserting an order to sell the GDP of Denmark, refusing to admit that's what they did, and insisting that the software malfunctioned).
The best phrase we ever found for dealing with those kinds of problems and expressing the sentiment you described, was:
"I'm sorry."
That's it. No fluff, no qualifications, no caveats. Let it land. Let it be awkward if it is. And then, you can move on to the explanation. In an email, you could massage it a little ("I'm very sorry, but from the logs available to us we can see that [you did something really really stupid]"). When something really bad has happened you can't always make it better in a single shot, but a short, simple apology normally left things in the best-achievable state without having to compromise our position.
I'm aware that this may not work so well in a more litigious framework where an expression of sympathy could be misinterpreted as an admission of guilt. I was working in the UK, and even there the legal team tried very hard to stop us (support) ever saying "I'm sorry", whether a problem was our fault or not. But we did it anyway, it worked, and the company hasn't ever been sued over it.
From what I remember of customer service training, that was the approach you should take. Never say anything that admits liability, but at the same time don't piss off the complaining customer.
So something like "I'm sorry to hear you are having a bad experience with our [product/service/goods], can you tell me more" was the way to go and absolutely never, ever say "I'm sorry we did the bad thing" because now you have just put the business or company on the hook for paying out to fix the problem you just admitted was your (corporate) fault.
Now this post is really asking for someone to reply, “C’m’ere tell me you’re sorry I feel this way to my face”, implying they’ll help you be genuinely sorry.
Does this only apply to this particular phrase in the English language? Does the problem exist in languages where it’s customary to say the equivalent of “I apologize for . . .” when admitting one’s fault but to use an entirely different expression like “It pains me that . . .” to express sympathy?
Here's a time when "I'm sorry you feel that way" is clearly a terrible thing to say: When you are responding to someone who is mostly telling you what they *think.*. They are giving you their (negative) opinion about something. For instance I, like most psychotherapists, loathe insurance companies. Over the years I have had insurance companies make maybe 50 errors, and every single one has been in the insurance company's favor. Makes you think, you know? So last year there was an insurance situation that I had very good reason to think was the result of grotesque inefficiency on the part of Blue Cross Blue Shield. It involved their clawing back all the payments they had made to me over a two year period for one of my patients on the grounds that she had had other insurance at the time. She had not had other insurance, and she and her family submitted documents that proved that was true, and that BCBS acknowledged as proof. However, for nearly a year they kept dunning me to repay them, and subtracting money from ongoing payments for other patients. When I called, the person I spoke with invariably said they were almost finished "updating the info in the computer," and that within a couple weeks I would be reimbursed. So during one of my final calls I insisted on having the person I was talking to listen to the entire saga, including amounts clawed back, content of BCBS letters, number of calls I'd made, etc., and spoke at length about what a terrible job the company had done of resolving a situation that was not very complicated, and how unfair their treatment of me had been. And I got an "I'm sorry you feel that way." I can't remember what I said, except that it was civil. But a good reply in such situations would be, "Oh, did you think I wanted you to understand how I feel? Actually, what I wanted to get across is what terrible inefficiency and dishonesty I have observed. Setting aside my anger, are you in agreement regarding my opinion of how your company has handled this matter?"
I do understand your legitimate anger, I'd just like to point out (on behalf of my fellow low-level minions) that if you got through to an actual live human, they're probably an 'agent' and may be working in a call-centre and not even the insurance company office.
They're there to be the flak-catchers (in the Tom Wolfe sense) so they bear the brunt of angry customers ringing up and complaining. They have little to no power to change things or get anything done on the complaint.
Even if you do get a real employee of the insurance office, they most likely will not have many options other than "I'm noting that on our file". You have to go further up the tree to light a fire under someone with the power to do something about it, which is precisely why companies make it so hard to find out the people who can do that and hand you off to the phone-answering agents instead.
That kind of "we'll hassle you for a year in the hopes you'll just give up and go away, or give in to our demands" is, unhappily, all too common for big businesses. I've had better luck with smaller concerns where you are more likely to find someone who can do something, or at least will be permitted the discretion to get on to the person who can do something.
Going the consumer relations/ombudsman route also seems to help, as the big businesses do pay a little more attention to "I'm from the government with a statutory role to represent unhappy customers". Best of all seems to be getting the media to intervene on your behalf; all the radio phone-in shows that are "We got on to BigCorp and they sorted out the problem within a week, after our listener had been getting the run-around for three years".
See this example I plucked at random from a Google search:
"I emailed six times but received no response other than automated ones, and also made several callback requests. Instead, the bill was passed to a debt collection agency with the balance in my vulnerable mother’s name. She is extremely stressed and worried about this, as am I.
Our bill needs to be paid and the debt cancelled but while it was £180 before, the debt collectors want £500, which is about three years’ worth of water use. I don’t know what to do."
After the newspaper consumer affairs department took up the case - lo and behold:
"Water Plus says: “We’re really sorry about any delay in our response, and have apologised to HS and agreed payment for the water supplied. We’ve cancelled additional charges for this account. We encourage all customers and sites to note meter readings regularly during the year, if the meter is safe to access, and provide these online to reduce estimated bills, along with helping to spot any issues like water leaks early.”
EDIT:
"And I got an "I'm sorry you feel that way." I can't remember what I said, except that it was civil."
That's because it's the first rule of customer service training: NEVER ADMIT FAULT OR BLAME, THAT LEAVES US OPEN TO LIABILITY
If the minion taking your call said or even hinted at "Yeah, I apologise, we screwed up" then bam! you now have cause to resort to legal recourse to get your money back! Granted, trying to prove that they did say the likes of that on a phone call is tricky, but maybe you were recording them, you naughty customer you. That's why you get the "this call is being recorded for training purposes" spiel at the start of every such interaction; the business wants to protect itself in case you claim "but Susie who took my call accepted that BigCorp was to blame and at fault". In case Susie did in fact make an error and responded with the natural human thing of "I'm so sorry we screwed up", then at least BigCorp can fire her for endangering their profits. You're not there to help customers, idiot, you're there to cover our asses.
Yeah, I get that. The individuals I’m talking to in these sessions almost always are polite and competent, and I tell them, look, I have no complaints about you. You are doing a good job of taking in all these details and are a pleasure to deal with. it’s your company I hate.
Yeah, that's it. And it's terrible how the companies take advantage like this, letting a layer of people who don't really have any power to actually help soak up all the complaints and anger.
I have a theory that there are lots of layers of buffering. So the people a level up from the ones who have to take complaint calls like mine are buffered from the actual calls, just get summary data of issues and outcome. And way up at the top there's somebody who is responsible for the big decisions about the company. But they are protected from guilt by layers below them. They tell somebody below then that profits are down, and that needs to be remedied, and that person passes the problem of how to increase profits to various others who actually have to talk about ugly options -- things like reducing the coverage customers get for certain illnesses, or making the process of billing for services more convoluted and frustrating for providers. So the people making the ugly decisions, in the middle of the hierarchy somewhere, are protected from hearing the voices of the tearful people with cancer and the furious shrinks in private practice. And the guy at the top gets a summary that protects him from the full details of how the profit increase was accomplished. Something like " we used a combo of benefit adjustment and some changes in the provider billing interface." Maybe our species sucks, Deiseach.
It's why I'm so sceptical about "the invisible hand of the beautiful free market adjusts everything to its right value".
Sure, in the ideal spherical cow world the market works like that. In our grubby little real world, "line go up" is the motivation, and that becomes the mainspring driving the business, not "we provide goods/services".
Insurance is one of those industries that gets criticised the most, but there's some justice to all the criticism. Years and years ago I saw a Chinese (I think) modern day ghost movie, where the main male lead worked for an insurance company and was sent out to investigate a case where a claim on a life insurance policy was made.
I always remember the scene where the boss tells him (and all this is in subtitle translation) "Remember our company motto!" and male lead replies "Whatever they say, we won't pay!"
As others have noted, I think the hatred comes more from the reverse use case: those with power gaslighting. Person A wrongs person B in a way where the vast majority would agree A is in the wrong. B objects, but A has the power in the situation. A refuses not only to right the wrong but also to acknowledge and apologize. Then uses the phrase in question to gaslight B and present the case as if B is in the wrong for being upset and A is being generous in at least acknowledging B's feelings.
The main problem is that we're trying to distinguish genuine sympathy or feeling saddened from the glib 'sorry not sorry' non-apology use of the phrase, and that's damn hard.
If we know each other and have a good idea of each other's general opinions and feelings towards one another, then "I'm sorry you feel that way" could be used without giving even more offence.
But if it's "Babulah Kylll YT the creator and Tik-Tok influencer, in response to the storm of criticism over her post 'all blue-eyed devils should be rounded up and exterminated, fr fr (brown-eyed folx you alright even if YT)', issued a statement via her PR team that 'Sorry y'all feel that way, krakkaz' this morning" then... yeah, that doesn't come across as either regret and contrition *or* any feelings of sadness.
And the most common usage is the 'Babulah's PR team' kind.
Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" conveys a respect for the other person's feelings about as much as Google's "we respect your privacy" conveys a respect for privacy. If you actually cared about their feelings, you'd make the effort to respond to whatever it is they said instead of commenting on their emotionality.
For example 1, "I do love you, that's why I refuse to help you hurt yourself". Example 2, "Good people can sacrifice themselves for bad reasons. I'm not trying to criticize your family member." Example 3, "I'm sorry for springing this sensitive topic on you without warning. Do you need a minute?"
You can agree or disagree that the responses above would have the intended effect, but it should be clear that they each engage with the substance of the complaint in a way that the one-size-fits-all "Sorry if you're offended" does not.
I thought for sure somebody would say the following, which may or may not be true, but which many people believe and is highly relevant:
Very many people don’t have object-level views. They aren’t using evidence from objective, trusted sources to create a coherent representation of reality. They’re just reacting to whatever situation they’re in, in a way that seems to make sense to them and the people around them and seems likely to get them what they want.
Babies start out like this. The world is nothing to them; relationships are everything. It’s a very advanced skill to have an opinion about the world that’s distinct from your relationships with people. Maintaining that objective stance takes effort, sacrifice and virtue. Not everybody does it, or is capable of it.
Imagine what objective truth claims feel like, to such a person. Saying “I’m sorry you feel that way” is like saying, “I’m best friends with The Universe, and The Universe doesn’t like you.”
Again, I’m not saying this perspective is true. I’m stating a strong version & I think a weak version is more likely.
This strikes me as really perceptive: "Saying “I’m sorry you feel that way” is like saying, “I’m best friends with The Universe, and The Universe doesn’t like you.”
The reason people think this is a fake apology is that it is in this context indistinguishable from a fake apology.
The literal meaning of the word "sorry" may be "I feel bad about this", but I'm pretty sure the most common usage by far is to signal an apology, usually a minor one. "I feel bad about this because I did something wrong and it hurt you", with the implied promise to try not to do it again and the implied hope for forgiveness. It would help if we had a separate word for that usage, but we kind of don't.
So if you say to someone "I'm sorry your dog died", and there's no plausible reason to believe you had anything to do with the dog's death, then it's obvious in that context that the meaning is just "I feel bad that your dog died" and an offering of sympathy. But if the dog died because you ran over it with your car, and you believe that you were driving prudently and the idiot dog ran out in front of you too fast and too late to do anything about it, sure, you feel sad that the dog died and you're offering sympathy rather than apologizing. They probably aren't as confident that you are blameless, and so they're probably expecting to hear an apology. And when you start with "I'm sorry...", the standard signal for an inbound apology, they're *really* going to be expecting an apology.
When your phrasing then turns into not just a not-apology, but an implied preemptive dismissal of the possibility of an apology, yeah, that's worse than your not saying anything. The message you intended to send was fine, but the word you used was ambiguous and the context almost guaranteed miscommunication.
The examples you cite, all fall into the "drove prudently over someone's dog" category. You believe you have done nothing you need to apologize for, but they believe you have done something wrong (e.g. failing to support a family member in need because you're a square who just doesn't get it about drugs) and they'll at least tentatively expect an apology.
It is not reasonable to expect everyone else to stop interpreting "sorry" as a default apology. So to avoid a miscommunication that predictably will cause offense, you need to either,
A: use a word other than "sorry", e.g. saying that you feel horrible that their dog died or that you sympathize with the problems they're having not being able to afford drugs, or
B: Say that you're sorry but *without elaboration*, so that they can believe you have in fact offered a minor apology. This is somewhat dishonest, but if the context isn't one where an apology would be followed by further action, it shouldn't cause any real harm or offense.
I've basically given up on using the word "sorry" altogether, outside of a few reflexive applications. Whatever the context, I'll try to find something that is unambiguous as to what I feel bad about and whether I'm apologizing, even if it does come across as a bit formal and stilted. And if someone else uses the "I'm sorry you feel that way" construction, I usually can't know whether they are just offering sympathy or trying to shut down discussion with a fake apology, which will at least be mildly annoying.
Nah, you can just provide more empathy and redirect without engaging the conflict further.
In the trauma example, “I’m so sad that happened to you. I understand how it could be hurtful given your past.” You aren’t implying that they are wrong for feeling what they feel.
In the genocide example, “I’m very sad to hear that your family was affected by this war. Could you tell me more about your family’s experience?”
In the drug example, “I’m sad that I can’t find a way to help you. I hope you know I love you too much to enable you by giving you cash.”
In none of these scenarios do you invalidate their feelings, nor do you agree with them. Most people with neuro-spicy tendencies fixate on who is right, but sometimes the point of a conversation isn’t to settle who is right or wrong. Sometimes the point is to allow someone to tell their story. I don’t think this requires above and beyond EQ- just a recognition that you don’t want to invalidate what the other person feels.
The difference between the two examples (agressor being forgiven because of mental issues vs victim with mental issues not forgiving the aggressor without a sincere apology) is the apology - you first become the underdog and then can be forgiven. If you signal regret about your action then you become aomeone who makes mistakes and feels regret, so you can be forgiven by those around you that don't (at that time) feel regret and do not (at that time) make mistakes. Forgiveness can only be given by superior to inferior. If you only signal your feelings about the feedback you got ("sorry you feel x") then you keep your superior no-regrets persona that cannot be forgiven because there is noone superior to forgive you. A third party superior to both the aggressor and the victim (parents for child conflicts, courts, celebs, media etc for adults) can resolve by forgiving both (first the aggressor for aggression and then the victim for not having been forgiving)
**Maybe one of your family members makes an unreasonable demand (“Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction”), you say no, and they say they feel like you don’t love them.**
"Sorry, but I can't afford to do that right now."
OR
"I do love you, so I want you to beat your drug addiction." might be good options here.
Admittedly, "I'm sorry you feel that way" maybe is the best response here if you're both clearly rich and want to de-escalate rather than confront the issue head-on (which will almost certainly lead to an heated argument).
**Maybe you speak out against a genocidal aggressive war. Someone complains that their family member died fighting in that war. They accuse you of implicitly dismissing their relative’s sacrifice and calling them a bad person.**
"Well, it takes courage to fight in any war. Your relative might have been a good courageous person who unfortunately got caught up in a bad war."
If they continue to be upset with you after this attempt to console, I think it's fine to get into why you consider this a genocidal aggressive war.
**Maybe you argue that a suspect is innocent of a crime, and some unrelated crime victim says it triggers them when people question victims or advocate for the accused. They say that now they are re-traumatized.**
"I'm sorry for the pain and trauma you went through, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes innocent people are accused of a crime."
If they continue to be upset, I'd probably just stay quiet at that point. You made your point, and anybody present who's thinking clearly.
I generally dislike "I'm sorry you feel that way" because it just has very dismissive vibes for most people. There's usually a better reply that's both reasonably honest and considerate of the feelings of the person you're talking to. That being said, I agree that in the heat of the moment of a live in-person discussion (or a video chat), it can be difficult to quickly think of the better reply, so I'd be pretty forgiving of this reply being used in such circumstances.
But for a text-only discussion, where people tend to be carefully craft responses, I think that's what is best here. Even then, there might be a rare case where "I'm sorry you feel that way" is the best of a bunch of not-great options, but I think with some thought it'll usually be possible to craft a better reply.
I think there's a few different possibilities for things you could mean in this sort of situation:
(1) "I don't want to make you upset, but I think you're wrong to be upset in this situation,"
(2) "I don't want to make you upset, and it's reasonable for you to be upset, but I still think that the thing I was doing is worth doing, because it has other benefits."
For instance your first example might be closer to (1) - you think that the family member is wrong to demand money to buy drugs. The second and third examples are closer to (2) - it's reasonable to be upset about hearing a family member denigrated or seeing alleged criminals get off scot-free, but it's still important to argue against war and for the rights of the accused.
So the problem here might be that you mean (2) but people think you mean (1).
It's because "I'm sorry you feel that way" is like a sleight of hand where you say the words "I'm sorry", but then make it clear that you don't actually mean it in that way, making the person feel duped.
The phrase itself also doesn't intrinsically imply any compassion.
Something like "I understand that you would feel that way" is much better.
I think the *concept* and the *phrase* are two completely different issues, as someone who strongly endorses the concept but would strongly avoid the phrase.
When your reasonable actions have caused pain to someone you care about and they tell you, usually relational steps to mend things involve something like the following:
1. Hear them out (this is *critical* for moving on to step 2)
2. Explain your motivations (which were not hate or carelessness towards the other person, because you care about them)
(Often, 3. agreeing on some conclusion as to how you will try to act differently and/or they will try to respond differently next time)
#1 avoids being a jerk and #2 avoids falsely claiming wrongdoing.
The *phrase* "I'm sorry you feel that way" sounds like shortcutting that process. Saying it implies that you are not interested in Step 1, so it comes off as being a jerk despite the presence of the words "I'm sorry."
I'm not sure what you add by bringing assumptions about the therapy model into this post. Just say "I’m sorry you feel that way" is really a refusal to apologize, and the recipient recognizes that, but in some situations it's OK to refuse to apologize.
For the record, nobody likes it better when those of us who can craft bespoke versions on the fly do so. I've been informed this feels like being told to go f*ck yourself in the nicest and most eloquent possible way.
It's 2024, fractionation is the name of the game. Because the internet connects, and specifically it connects you to the twenty other people in the world that have the exact same crazy ideas as you do, everyone went about creating the most ideologically pure community they could. Now they stand on their self-made islands and get really mad whenever they hear different opinions (read: unspeakable heresy) from the next island over. If you sympathize with the heretics' devil-words, you become an outsider too, and dealt with accordingly. You might have heard that everyone on the internet is Hitler, but that's not true - everyone is Stalin, and they're itchin' to get a-purgin'.
(This creates an interesting problem: we're still people, and think along the same lines, but now we're banned from using the devil-words. As a result, different communities convergently develop different phrases for the same concept. For example, if you said "content warning" around my people, they'd do to you what the revelers did to Orpheus, but something like ">tags: netorare" would convey the same idea and they'd thank you for the warning. You can't say something is problematic, but the exact same sentence would be fine if you use retarded in its place. Trannies are the enemy and should be shunned, but "I want to be the little girl" is a perfectly reasonable sentiment. Modern-day shibboleths.)
So, in the kind of world where US Republicans say engaging with Democrats is making compromise with sin because they're all perverts who want to graft 20000 anuses to your child and force you to worship the ever-flowing shit fountain as your new god, and US Democrats say the same about Republicans because they're all fascists who want to cut out the tongues of every poet of color and eat them to gain the power to say racial slurs, you've found a shortcut to saying "I don't belong to your clan. Please do to me what you do to your heretics". Of course they'll get mad and call you super-problematic or a giga-retard or whatever, they've been conditioned against outsiders and you've just declared that you're one. You must either make an apology video and change your mind 100% to the expected default, or be unpersoned forever.
In a better world we'd agree to disagree, or try to reconcile our positions, or just accept that we might resent each other a bit over this difference in opinion but still value each other as friends. In this world, however, what we get is "Oh, all right. So you admit you're a 94% match to my personal worldview, while all my other friends are 98% or above. You're no longer a friend. I hope you die in terrible pain".
I was confused at first reading this post: my girlfriend and I use it often in conflict to express empathetic disagreement and it works; as long as the tone is genuine. I didn’t think it was a controversial phrase. But then I realized at the same time I wouldn't just text that sentence to her cause it’s easy to interpret as dismissive. So I guess it’s mostly a problem of written vs. verbal communication.
I think this phrase potentially has hyperstitially cascaded into offensive use. There are probably twenty other less offensive phrases meaning the same thing (just ask claude for them), but with less negative connotation or baggage, that are now more optimal. I love the phrase "I love that for you" because it expresses the basic idea of compersion, but that too has become toxic. sad.
Interesting side fact, neutral words/phrases becoming negative/offensive is called pejoration. The reverse is called amelioration in linguistics.
This post feels like it points at something another interesting thing, which is "Why do the words/phrases for certain concepts become pejorized?" I always thought it simply had to do with things that are taboo, or low status, but this seems to point at the fact that it is more likely just negatively reinforced associations.
Like hearing the phrases "I'm sorry you feel that way" is directly associated with disagreement and social fracturing, so it becomes pejorized. Maybe that is the link between all the other words that become pejorized too: 'cancer' becomes tumor because usually it is associated with expected pain and suffering, 'retard' becomes developmentally delayed because it is associated with expected difficulty and loss, etc, etc...
I agree with your take in your post about hyperstitial cascades though - all else being equal (which it rarely ever is), I will try to slow the rate of pejoration of words around tough concepts by actively resisting adopting new words. It complicates talking about difficult (typically important) parts of reality, and devolving into meta-conversations about proper words. I could be convinced though that this is a worthwhile trade-off for comforting some people, or that if languages all do this pejoration naturally then we should be careful about trying to change things we don't understand (Chesterton's Fence).
"Compersion" has become toxic, I feel, because it gets thrown around in the context of what those of us who aren't convinced by polyamory feel is a condescending/negative manner.
"We enlightened ones who have progressed beyond your petty, primitive, levels of possessiveness which result in jealousy are so much better and morally superior, because we have *compersion*, bigot".
Yes, I know the reasonable people don't use it that way, but (a) it does come across like that and (b) not everybody is reasonable and nice and level-headed. And it does sound awfully like therapy-speak.
Probably, if "compersion" was used more widely and in non-intimate relationships context, it would become more familiar and wouldn't evoke those associations. But since I've only ever seen it used in about polyamory, and never (for example) "Bill got that promotion, I feel so much compersion for him!", then that's where it's stuck.
I don't hear anyone use the word 'compersion' very much. So for me it is mostly just a nice word for a cool abstract idea that I heard in San Fran once. I didn't try to pioneer its use though as it sounds a bit overly formal for casual speak.
Small rant: Envy, jealousy, and schadenfreude are such 'the world is zero sum' emotions and I aspire to feel more 'the world is positive sum' emotions. I loved that the polyamorous community was taking this 'world is positive sum' perspective on sexual/romantic relationships and (while I don't practice polyamory) found it refreshing they were working to align their emotions with this view. It is sad that a cool idea like compersion has also been tarnished by the toxic conversation around poly norms :(.
> It is sad that a cool idea like compersion has also been tarnished by the toxic conversation around poly norms
I think it's not so much poly norms specifically, as that it's been interpreted as yet another way of poly people saying "we're just better than you" (cue the discussion of veganism in "Scott Pilgrim"). And it's not like that attitude is entirely absent from the poly community, but it's also not like there aren't non-poly people just looking for an excuse to feel outraged. :-/
Very late reply, but I was thinking 'gosh I never do that to norms I think could be better,' but then I realized that I do! I used to dislike the Amish - because they seemed to be winning on different metrics of human flourishing (lower rates of depression, large families, low attrition, and low violent crime --- I'm not sure if I've seen other metrics of happiness about them though). Anyways, I can totally see myself being threatened by norms that win on metrics I care about and feeling emotionally incentivized to created shallow objections.
First, appologize for where you've actually been wrong, be clear that you are not treating it as "their problem", empatize with the suffering of another person, try to propose a solution from your side or be open for suggestions:
"I'm sorry for the emotional distress I caused you. This has never been my intention. I understand where your emotions are comming from and how my words can be interpreted this way, and I'll try to use a better phrasing next time in order not to repeat this situation."
And then when this emotional aspect of situation is cleared, re-state the object level diasagreement, explicitly pointing out that it doesn't imply the meta-point, provide a way to reconcile both points.
This is, of course, much more effort than saying a cached phrase, but that's kind of the point.
The fact that "sorry" has two distinct meanings "I apologize" and "it's a sorry state of affairs that this happened", seems pretty relevant here. And I do think it's bad form to lead someone on with a phrase that has this double meaning, even (arguably especially) in a situation where you don't believe you owe someone an apology.
Suppose "Aloha" has two meanings. "I apologize" and "Hey the weather's nice today isn't it?"and usually context cues and surrounding words can differentiate the two meanings.
If Alice expects Bob to apologize to her, and Bob instead says, "Aloha. Love how the weather's pretty sunny today!" I think it's reasonable for Alice to become more offended, and not just because of the non-sequitor. It's both non-Gricean and also emotional manipulation.
The fact that in other circumstances, "Aloha" naturally has a "good weather" meaning isn't that relevant in this context where Alice was fully expecting an apology from Bob. It's also honestly pretty cowardly from Bob, to use an ambiguous phrase rather than one that clearly isn't an apology.
After reading through some of the comments, I think that much like other phrases (e.g. calling someone sexually explicit nicknames, or calling someone a liar), the appropriateness of IMSYFTW depends on context.
I would say the meaning is somewhere in between 'I regret that our emotional reactions to this matter are not aligned' to 'I offer my condolences for your brain suffering from emotions based on a wrong model of reality'.
I think that the phrase should be restricted where the other party has played the emotional distress card. If they just said an object level statement that you disagree with, such as 'Trump/Harris would be a good president' or 'Hitler was right to invade Poland', then a much better response is to say 'Let us agree to disagree on that'. But once you have confessed to having an uncomfortable emotion, people should be free to unironically express their regret over you having to suffer that, same as if you had disclosed you have a tooth ache.
While the phrase is clearly not an apology, I don't think that concepts of apologies are very clearly organized in everyday English.
"Regret something / feeling sorry for something" can both mean that if you could turn back time, you would do things differently, or that you wish your action did not have detrimental side effects, but would do that action again because you think it is the correct one.
"I apologize" is similar, only here it commonly depends on the timing of the phrase. "I apologize, but I have to search your car, sir" is different from "the police apologized for having arrested an innocent" (which still retains the option of 'given the information we had at that time, we would make the same choice again') to "he apologized for misgendering her".
A much more unambiguous phrase is 'I was wrong to do X, and I apologize for it'.
Of course, I can't help but wonder if all this double-meaning phrases around such a socially important concept are a bug or a feature.
Regarding accepting apologies, let me quote Alicorn's Luminosity:
> "I accept your apology," I said. I'd gotten into the habit of saying that instead of "it's okay" when I was fourteen, having noticed that I often wanted to accept apologies for things that were not really okay.
I learned a pitfall in this phrase as a child, late 90s / early 00s. The pitfall is just, if you're not careful with tone and context, it can sound like the "being a jerk" path. Essentially, "I'm sorry you feel bad, [but you shouldn't, and it's pathetic that you do]." In my experience, kids who don't really want to say they're sorry did the jerk version sometimes -- myself included -- and benefited from instruction that we weren't fooling anyone. And, as a secondary lesson, that you have to be careful with your tone if you are trying to take the nice path -- because it can be confused with the jerk path.
It's plausible that "therapy culture" worsened this, and I bet it's worse in text-only mediums as well. But the basic fake-apology pitfall predates that.
(This is probably somewhere in the comments but posting in case not and someone finds it useful...)
I disagree. I think the better phrase is “I’m sorry that I made you feel that way”
The more popular phrase is bad because it basically says “you’re wrong for feeling that way, I give up trying to help you understand why, and I’d like this discussion to end so here’s something that sounds like an apology, hopefully you don’t notice the difference”
If you say “I’m sorry” in a way that doesn’t accept any responsibility, it feels like you’re just button-mashing keywords to end the conversation. Very frustrating to hear.
But instead saying “I’m sorry that I made you feel that way” takes responsibility for triggering their emotions, even if you disagree with their object-level position.
For the drug user case, say
“I’m sorry that I made you feel bad by denying you your drug money… but I do it because this helps you”
In practice rather than expressing sorrowful acknowledgement, I have heard it said to be dismissive of the issue at hand. It comes off the same as someone saying “sorry I’m not reading all that” to a long text you sent them.
But what about forgiveness, Scott? Freddie's primary question wasn't about therapy culture, per se, it was about whether we should place our own needs above others and it was spurred by Christina Caron's argument that you should only contemplate forgiveness if it might benefit you.
> I’m only somewhat exaggerating or joking when I suggest that the piece argues that forgiveness is bad. It would be more accurate to say that it expresses an attitude generally skeptical of forgiveness as a concept, running to out-and-out antagonistic, speaking as though a virtue that people have embraced for thousands of years is some sort of con or dodge or scam.
Personally, I have trouble forgiving anyone who hasn't offered an apology for their transgressions. And as comedian Jimmy Carr pointed out, a sorry-you-feel-that-way may apology is actually a polite way to say f**k you. Why would I forgive anyone who told me to feck off? Likewise, that person is likely to hold my enmity — or at least my distrust — for years to come. Of course, I may have earned that feck-you response by something I did, but unless the transgressor and transgressee can work through their contentions, nothing will be resolved. And serial transgressors should probably keep in mind that, for the transgressees, revenge is a dish best served cold.
My Buddhist training tells me that I should regard transgressors as being motivated by their internal fears and their internal pain — and thus I should cultivate equanimity and compassion toward those who have transgressed me. In this dialectic, forgiveness is an alien concept. Rather than forgiving, we should just let shit go. Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian indoctrinations of my culture, but I can't help but want an apology before I forgive. There are still four or five people from the first third of my adult life who maliciously f**ked with me, for whom I still harbor a fantasy about punching them in the face if I ever encounter them again. I know, I shouldn't think these things. But I do. My only consolation is that they're probably all in the dotage or dead now. OTOH, these people educated me on how nasty humans can be. So, I can intellectually thank them for their teaching moments, even though I want to punch them out. Luckily, I seldom think of them anymore. My life was successful despite them. But when I think of them, my anger is still there like an irritating grain of sand under my shell. And my anger toward them is my karmic burden.
Call me old school, but apologies and forgiveness are important ways to ameliorate interpersonal tensions. If you can't bring yourself to offer an honest apology, it's incumbent upon you to explain why you won't offer an apology — which would require a dialog between the two disputants. Of course, most people are too lazy or too cowardly to engage in a dialog with the people they've angered.
> Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian indoctrinations of my culture, but I can't help but want an apology before I forgive.
I struggle with this too. I've gotten into Buddhism enough that I can almost (metaphorically) *see* the attachments that jerk me around whenever the other end moves. And I want to dissolve those things, out of general principles, and aesthetics, and alas ego. And I interpret the Christian "forgiveness" as simply doing that through an act of will (or something, maybe grace, I dunno, maybe I should pray on it). But I just can't seem to get there from here, you know? :-(
I have the free will not to indulge in my punching fantasies.
If there isn't such a thing as free will, why do different children in different cultures respond to executive function tests differently? If our "will" is just our brain's hardwiring doing what it does then children across all cultures should display identical intra-cohort variance. Of course, culture could override our inborn hardwiring, but why would there be different cultures if people's free wills didn't allow them to behave differently as the circumstances allow?
Scott's essay and Sam Harris's argument are much longer than I want to reproduce in a comment. But I will say it's a persuasive argument and it moved my position from "of course everyone has free will!" to, "oh it's obvious no one does, including me, but the only way to behave is 'act as if.'"
As a subscriber of Harris, I have the ability to send nonsubscribers full paywalled episodes, happy to do that if you want to email me at my username here over at Gmail.
I can summarize Harris's argument quite simply. It boils down to three points. Determinism (due to preceding causes), Unconscious Processes, Illusion of Control. None of these points, if examined carefully, are persuasive. Ultimately it's a variation on the religious argument of predestination modified by the later pseudo-scientific argument that the universe is deterministic.
But surely you concede that you, the observer of your life, are not actually ever *generating* your own thoughts. Ideas simply occur, and you notice them. Some people mostly have only bad ideas occur to them; you could get angry about it in a way that actively bothers you in the long-term, but why? Do you get meaningfully *angry* at the raccoons who get into your trash? Or do think, "raccoons are gonna raccoon, I'd better get a locking lid" to work around them?
Fold in Scott's argument for how the combination of literal genetics and life experience shape people's perceptions, and I don't think it's at all clear that Harris' argument isn't persuasive (especially when paired with his thoughts about how to live with this knowledge).
But more importantly, why you think Scott's Different Worlds argument falls apart? Do you believe that Isabelle, the sufferer of Williams Syndrome, has free will? Do autistic people who can't tolerate certain environments (loudness, chaotic visuals, crowds, etc)
have the free will to stop being bothered by stimuli? Do people with IQs under 80 have free will to become more intelligent, resourceful, and make better choices (do you even know anyone with a low IQ well enough to have observed how they cope with basic challenges over time?)?
If Isabelle, autistic people, and low-IQ people don't have meaningful free will to live *much* safer, more comfortable, more productive lives, then where on the spectrum of humanity do individuals have the right combination of genetics and environment that they experience free will?
Nonsense. I can quiet my thoughts at will through meditation so there are no voluntary nor random thoughts arising. And I can generate my thoughts at will. That's what I'm doing right now thinking ahead about the points I want to make, and typing them out.
Yes, there is a background element of randomness to consciousness. My speech center is largely a black box, but it seems to understand what I need to write to get my point across without thinking through what each word will be. OTOH, I can override my black box speech center — while writing this sentence I specifically chose the words I was going to write by voicelessly sounding them out and pausing after each word. And if I were trying to speak Spanish or Cantonese, I'd have to choose my words carefully because my speech center hasn't fully mastered those languages (yet).
I suppose if one were lazy, one could just let consciousness be free-running. But I am very comfortable with my mind, and I enjoy exercising it. The randomness element of consciousness allows for greater flexibility in my behavioral repertoire, but I don't have to give it free rein.
And my apologies to Scott, but I don't think much of his Different worlds argument. If you're a schizophrenic you may be hearing voices and or hallucinating, but that's because there's something fucking with your qualia. The actions of a schizophrenic may seem irrational to a normie, but that doesn't mean there wasn't intention in their response to their fucked up stimuli. "The voices will stop yelling at me for a while if I'm violent. Therefore, I'll be violent!" And that's why it's so hard for juries to exonerate mentally disturbed people in courts of law. Just because the voices tell you to murder X, it's assumed you have the willpower to ignore their commands. Of course, one could argue that the voices are involuntarily arising from the schizophrenic's consciousness and the fact that the patient has no control over them means they don't have free will. But schizophrenics also resist the commands of their voices. So in my book schizophrenics have free will.
And I think your IQ example is a straw dog argument. My cat The Warrior Princess certainly doesn't have a human's IQ. But when I hold the door for her, and I ask if she wants to go out or come inside, she'll inevitably acknowledge my question with a meow, and then she'll make up her mind. If she isn't interested in going through the doorway, she'll walk away with her tail held high. So I'm pretty sure most mammals have free will.
It's all in the context, but honestly, those sound pretty bad to me too? They're like the corporate liability-reducing doublespeak a faceless drone would say when firing you, or something from a particularly one-sided divorce.
I agree. Asking an open ended question is preferable to these kinds of statements that are intended to shut someone up and move on while appearing as empathy. Even a yes/no question here works -- "is this frustrating?" And even "Am I frustrating you?"
If someone is visibly frustrated and you don't actually want to hear about it, then I think it's more honest to say "I don't have that much invested in this conversation, so if it's making you mad, we can move on to something else."
In general, people don't like to be told how they feel, but they're okay being asked how they feel, or a feeling of theirs being framed as a hypothetical like "if this is irritating to to..."
Critical Drinker is less than gruntled. I'm waiting for a couple other reviewers I trust to get to it. It managed to both mangle the lore even worse than the first season, while being faithful to some of it.
Surely there is a difference between a disagreement and an ad hominem.
“I guess I don’t agree with you.” Is not the same as saying “You are wrong.” Or even worse, “How could you be so stupid?” As far as “I am sorry you feel that way.” That’s useless unless you want to escalate. Or become a therapist…
To play devil's advocate, it's at the relatively harmless end of a spectrum that runs through "that's a bad feeling, and feeling like that makes you a bad person". Sometimes it's the most harmless thing that can honestly be said.
My main problem with it is that it doesn't go anywhere. It closes off the possibility of further discussion, of a meeting of minds, of a rapprochement. And I think that's why it's interpreted as a "fuck you", or less vulgarly as "this conversation is over".
I mostly agree. I would only say that now the conversation is on a “feeling level “ and if you want to continue the conversation it might be better to say “Why are you feeling that way? Help me understand.” But that is an escalation. Or therapy
I make it a point never to take responsibility for someone else’s feelings
This raises a valuable point I think. In my view, there's a very clear distinction between being curious about someone else's feelings and being responsible for someone else's feelings. It's near impossible to be curious about or to listen to someone else's experience if we simultaneously feel responsible for it.
At the point we might ask "Why are you feeling that way?" it's good to check in with ourselves and see if our egos are reasonably out of the way and we actually have capacity to listen with curiosity. It would be sad to me if people lost the skill to do this because we've decided that's therapy. But of course everyone gets to decide for themselves how much room they have in them for another person's experience in any given moment.
It is a form of abject apology. I am not entirely sure which culture it comes from, but quite frankly I heard it first in the Man Who Would be King, which is set in British colonial India.
I think people are justified in hating that phrase when they believe an actual apology is in order. I've only seen it played out as a following scenario: a celebrity says something that someone (rightly or not, that's beside the point at the moment) considers offensive, there is a big commotion, celebrity is afraid of getting cancelled so they make an apologetic-sounding statement to minimize reputational damage and social cost, but they fake-apologize via the "I'm sorry you feel that way", without taking any responsibility but ALSO without firmly stating that they standing by their original position because they know the original position is what caused the uproar in the first place. So they're kind of trying to have their cake and eat it too, so the disingenuousness of this approach is called out, and, in my opinion, justifiably so.
If the disdain has now spread to ALL instances of the phrase, it's unfortunate. Sadly, in my observation, humans on average lack nuance.
I know this hurts you. I can see how my decision is affecting you. But I have to do this anyway. I can explain when you're more receptive. But it has to be this way. Maybe if you got an opinion from someone else about this?
In response to the argument or threat or complaint about lack of love, the word "Nevertheless" is your least bad bet I think. "Nevertheless, that's what I think is best, to the best of my knowledge."
The trouble here is, anyone who's willing to take apart your "I'm sorry" is not a receptive audience, regardless of whether their request could be seen as reasonable by anyone sane, or not. By the time you get here, you only have less bad options to choose from.
Never feel bad if you can't think of any of this when the storm is blowing. Some people are very good at keeping you away from your cerebral cortex. Some are very good at finding just what buttons turn it off. If this happens all the time, consider that this is a weakness you're bringing to the table, that needs to be shored up. (Role playing and practice).
It seems to me that with a spouse, there are going to be times when you earnestly and persistently disagree. And at some level, "I'm sorry you feel that way." But if you leave it at that, your marriage will probably not last, or at least contain a lot more unpleasantness than it needs to. Because if you don't try to actually understand and empathize with the other person's point of view, even in disagreement - a process which is going to involve a lot more dialogue than "sorry you feel that way" - then the gulf between you grows rather than shrinks.
And building on that observation, I will claim that in public discourse, where these words are more commonly encountered, the dynamic is similar. The empathy Scott claims the phrase contains is only there (or only detectable) as part of a more extended conversation. So although I'm trying to empathize with Scott right now, the way he ended his piece makes it harder.
Well, I think a better and perhaps less reproachable form of "I'm sorry you feel that way" will be something like: "It wasn't my intention to make you feel that way". The former can easily be equally employed by someone trying to be sarcastic and dismissive. The latter less amenable to such underhanded usage. The true feeling behind the former (whether the person is indeed "sorry" in a remotely empathic sense) is at best open to speculation. The latter statement is however less interpretively ambiguous
The reason the phrase is infuriating is not because “the words are bad” but because it implies that the addressee is unreasonable.
Consider the following conversation:
Alex: “I wish children didn’t die of preventable causes!”
Betty: “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Betty’s implication is that Alex should feel differently. If Alex thinks he’s right to be upset by dying children, then he also things Betty is a jerk.
The only difference in Scott’s examples is that Alex actually IS being unreasonable, so Betty is right.
"Overfitting social norms" is a really good way to think about this stuff. Explains why the goalposts keep shifting but also whatever position the therapy culture person takes in the moment is obviously correct and just a matter of being a decent human being.
Every social justice pronouncement is along the lines of "this is actually really simple, why are you overthinking it, the answer is obvious, just be a good person!!". That has a certain amount of cachet in the moment because there's generally some particular social norm that supports the position they want you to take.
It's only once you take a step back and start comparing different positions across time that you can see how the principles you're supposed to follow contradict. And so the only way to "be a good person" by the standards of the person you're arguing with is to exactly track whatever they want you to do in the moment and just do that, which cedes them 100% of the power and is obviously silly and wrong.
But the "overfitting" idea is helping me to understand why it's so hard to win these arguments in the moment. You have to be a little bit pedantic and say "ah, but how does that correspond to the thing you said three weeks ago, would this not imply..." and this reads to a lot of people like you're just being difficult for no reason.
> Maybe, but it’s not realistic to expect the average person to figure out a bespoke phrasing in the heat of the moment
I don't really have the money and don't feel comfortable lending it to you because I fear you'll use it on drugs.
I understand he made a sacrifice for his country and I respect people who make that sacrifice even if I disagree with the war.
I didn't mean to trigger you, I'm sorry I brought it up.
I don't think bespoke answers where you actually engage with the other person is too much to ask. Saying a copycat phrase shows you're not even trying to care or understand where they're coming from.
It's another euphemism treadmill. This used to be the way you express disagreement while trying to show some sympathy, but now it's considered not very nice, so a softer euphemism is required.
But it will never be enough, because the underlying conflict of any euphemism treadmill is not what you say, but what you mean. Longhouse-rules simply doesn't allow you to disagree with the victim, or ever challenge the intellectual merits of someone or something...hence the "retarded" treadmill.
I think the biggest problem is that, strangely, people want to offended by something - anything really these days. Very few seem capable or willing to take anything at face value....there has to be another meaning to what they are saying. Unfortunately, that appears to be the case all too often. I am very straightforward, direct, often too honest (so I am told) when communicating verbally and in writing and manage to offend people regularly. If the person is willing to actually express the manner in which they decided to decipher the context, then I almost never use the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way". I will reiterate what I said (because I am quite literal with my words and it should be self explanatory) and explain the intention behind it. I do have to apologize often for being abrasive, or matter of fact, if I haven't recognized a sensitivity ahead of time. I am usually perceptive to it, however, I have ADHD and get distracted by the 30 things going on in my brain sometimes. I guess I don't understand what is wrong with just responding to their feelings with a brief explanation of your intent.....
You don't make much of a defense; all you do is make snotty comments about people who don't seem to get your "deep insights", and you are being a bit defensive about "therapy culture." It has nothing to do with standing your ground and politely accepting differences. "I'm sorry" can be used to express moral culpability. Or it can be used as a way of softening the upcoming message, "Sorry, but we are closed." The latter has no moral component. The "sorry you feel that way" pretends to be the first but is utterly the second. "Sorry you feel that way" is an incomplete sentence, it means to say, "Sorry you feel that way you shithead, but you don't have any right to feel that way so go fuck yourself." It encapsulates passive/aggressive phrasing. It is gaslighting, it says, I'm such a gutless wonder I don't have the ability to deal with your reaction, so I regret that I am facing any opposition in life (such persons probably had 'buddy parents' who thought good parents were their kid's best friend). It is not an expression of sympathy and anyone who says that does not understand what sympathy is. The sym, means together, the Latin root refers to feeling together, you are together with them in your observation of their pain. The phrase you think is picked on - the usage is the opposite: it says that you don't have the right to feel that way, you're irrational, but I (the delivering of the BS pseudo sympathy) don't have the energy or courage or respect to deal with where you are coming from. It's not so much an insult, it's a cowardly way of expressing disagreement, and it selfishly says that the deliverer is uncomfortable dealing with anyone's feelings that fail to fall into the wretched narcissistic assumption that feedback in discussions is a form of confirmation bias. And when it isn't, "I'm sorry you feel that way.'
I would argue there’s no one-size-fits-all phrase to convey this meaning without the baggage. It’s context dependent.
Went through this a lot with my sister in the year before she died. I wonder if I was too firm in the way I said “the answer to your request is no, but I love you.”
To my mind "I'm sorry you feel that" has a patronising air about it, not least because using the word "feel" instead of "think" is implicitly accusing the other person of not giving the point at issue rational consideration but just relying on their faulty intuition.
In that situation, I just say "We'll have to agree to differ". That is just an undeniable statement of fact, which generally ends the dispute. It also has no emotional undertones, either of mine by claiming I'm sorry when in truth I probably couldn't care less what they think, or theirs in relying on knee-jerk feelings instead of logical or evidence-based conclusions.
In much online discourse, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is used interchangeably with an entire family of insincere utterances like "Only joking! LOL u mad?". There is a strong risk that this is the kind of sentiment that your interlocutor will hear when you use these words; therefore, if you do not wish to convey this sentiment, it is best to avoid this phrase.
So I think one major aspect of the disagreement over the phrase is a pretty straightforward miscommunication—over what “feeling” is being sorried. There’s been a lot of discussion here of what “sorry” means in this context, but I think an even greater source of confusion is what the sympathizing-but-not-apologizing party means by “you feel that way.”
When Scott writes about the phrase here, I interpret the phrase as a whole (“I’m sorry you feel that way”) as an expression of regret that the speaker’s previous sentiments in a somewhat argumentative discussion have caused the listener to experience negative emotions, whether or not those negative emotions are a reasonable or normal reaction to the speaker’s sentiments. So if I explain how my views on Mongolian tax policy differ from yours, and you say that those views hurt your feelings, I can use the phrase to express that I did not mean to belittle you and am genuinely sad to hear that my views had that effect on you. (As covered elsewhere in these comments, I’m not saying that your emotional reaction is an appropriate response to my views, that I regret either having or sharing my views, or that I commit to not having or sharing those views in the future.) It’s an expression of sympathy that our conversation led to you having a bad experience, even if I didn’t do anything that I should have expected to cause that result.
But when people opposed to the phrase have used examples in these comments of it being used insincerely, I get an *entirely different sense* of what they mean. In those cases, I primarily interpret the phrase as an expression of the speaker’s regret about the listener’s perspective, or regret *that the discussion is argumentative,* with an implication that it is only argumentative because the listener’s perspective is unreasonable or stupid. If you respond to my views on Mongolian tax policy by telling me that I hurt your feelings, I could use the same phrase to suggest that you are *wrong* about *whether or not I hurt your feelings.* It’s not really an expression of sympathy but instead a personal wish on behalf of the speaker that your perception was more accurate or realistic. Or I might phrase the expression in such a way as to imply that I’m sorry *that you disagree with me on tax policy,* since your negative emotions come from the fact of disagreement—that in order to avoid them, you should have simply agreed with me.
This not only isn’t sympathetic, it’s actively insulting! Whether your feelings are hurt because I called you an idiot or because I failed to address you as “Your Majesty,” you know much better than I do *whether* your feelings are hurt. Whether you cry every time there’s conflict or whether something I said struck you as uniquely wrong, you have as much right to your position as I do mine. So of course people interpret the phrase negatively when it’s used with such an implication.
The core question is whether the speaker is expressing sympathy for the listener’s negative emotions or instead disbelieving them or blaming the listener for those emotions. And both are conveyed really effectively by this same phrase. So when you add in everything else discussed in the piece and the comments—therapy speak, people incapable of imagining themselves on the other side, the genuine opposition to receiving anything short of an apology—a legitimate and necessary aspect of having good conversations becomes presumed to be an insult.
***
One more thing I’ll add: Scott poses three possibilities for the kinds of situations that give rise to the use of the phrase. Either (1) the speaker caves completely (emotional + substantive support for listener’s view) at the listener’s feelings; (2) the speaker taunts the listener for having feelings (neither emotional nor substantive support); or (3) the speaker expresses sympathy for the emotional impact but maintains their substantive stance. He suggested that therapy-culture individuals won’t accept the third solely because they cannot imagine not being in the right, and so can only conceive of Option 1 as being acceptable. Essentially that they’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think it’s worse than that. I think Option 3, the eponymous phrase, is demonized specifically in order to force the speaker into choosing between Options 1 & 2. First, if your only choice is either to monstrously taunt another person for being sad and rejoice in their sadness without sympathy, or to mumble agreement and briefly kowtow to the syndrome du jour, you’re a lot more likely to choose the latter than you might be if you could also express sympathy without leaving yourself open to emotional blackmail. But second, it is much easier for the therapy culture individuals to maintain their “main character” mindsets if everyone who opposes them (read:fails to completely agree with them & do whatever they want) *does* appear to be a narcissistic abuser. If your mindset revolves around black and white morality and constantly seeks to position itself as the pole of good opposed constantly but also only by evil, it’s actually *good* to ensure that your opponents play into that dualism!
It is more work and also much more confusing to have to consider the fact of someone’s sympathy and good intentions while they maintain their refusal to agree with you; if you can ensure that everyone who’s not on your side is explicitly an enemy, it gets much easier. If conflict only occurs when one person is acting Evilly, you can ensure total consistency with this belief by defining all disagreement or conflict as necessarily evil.
Possibly related: One subset of English speakers (notably including the British and Canadian people who say "I'm sorry" all the time) use "I'm sorry" to mean "I acknowledge that something at least mildly negative has happened from your perspective; I regret this negative aspect of what has happened," without necessarily implying any degree of culpability or responsibility.
There is another subset of English speakers who truly do not seem to understand that usage. They seem to think that "I'm sorry" is necessarily an apology or an admission of guilt. You can say, "I'm sorry you're not feeling well," and they will react with confusion, or say, "It's not your fault."
Maybe the reaction against "I'm sorry you feel that way" arose (originally or mainly) from the second population.
You demand an immediate answer. Either you agree or you don't (i.e. the first and the third option).
What they need is for you to demonstrate curiosity.
To ask questions. To genuinely look for a mutual understanding. Even if you think there's a 100% chance that you're right (which is a bad idea), then at least you should be modeling their point of view in order to help them see yours.
"I'm sorry that way" means you're slamming the door shut towards any further reconciliation.
A blind contestant was promised audio description of visual aids in a TV quiz, but it was pulled at the last minute. BBC apologised, but only because "two of the contestants felt their access requirements were not sufficiently met by the production". I get that corporate bodies can't say anything that implies liability but "felt" is seriously weak here and it's this kind of cowardly use of the word that makes it a red flag in other contexts.
Bravo! Basically, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is most often not a failed attempt to apologize, nor an expression of some kind of psychological pathology on the part of the speaker. It is a COMPASSIONATE way of disagreeing with the premise put forward by the other participant in the conversation. If one just takes it apart logically, it says "You feel a certain way. I hear you and I recognize that this is the way you feel about the matter. I disagree. I often feel good when we agree on things. That's not the case here, though."
Where this phrase is most likely to be criticized by the "Internet randos" you cite is when what the first speaker has done is not to ask for money, or the recantation of a position, or to stop doing something you had no way of knowing you were doing in the first place (the "triggering" example - and don't even get me started on THIS one...); but when the first speaker has stated a value judgment regarding something done or said, and, either specifically or less directly, demanded an apology. I think this class of conversations is the actual root of "I'm sorry you feel that way" being vilified. The presumption is that by starting with the words "I'm sorry" one is engaging in a cruel bait-and-switch. My own sense is that one is simply being compassionate and communicating that one IS sorry, but not for the reason the speaker demands. I find "I'm sorry you feel that way" much kinder and gentler than, for instance, "No, you are wrong. I am not sorry." And it serves the same purpose.
You've kind of carved out a stance that anyone who doesn't like "I'm sorry you feel that way" is an ill-intentioned, malign, cultist with a political axe to grind.
I'm in my 60s and have heard people say this phrase going back to my childhood, from parents, siblings, teachers, to loads of other people of all persuasions.
Is there room for people having a different take on this phrase than you and being also upstanding, moral, well-intentioned, sincere people?
People have been trying to coerce apologies from people for a really long time. In marriages, friendships, between political rivals. This is part of human behavior as I witness it and doesn't belong to one political faction.
I'm aware I can feel however I like, you don't need to give me permission for that. I don't think I was mainly expressing feelings here. I was saying that your argument looks inaccurate from where I sit based on the evidence I have.
Rather than engage with the content of what I said, you labeled it "feelings" and then moved the goalposts to ask me to present arguments about something different. Not about your initial statement that the people who dislike the "I'm sorry you feel that way" are woke-ists with a political axe to grind, but now about why the phrase itself "isn't a perfectly common and legitimate English expression ..."
If you search for my handle on this page, you'll see that I've added my two cents on that topic all through here, including voicing support for lots of other people who make their own arguments.
"It's what we say in English in that circumstance" is non-responsive. People also say, "You're a shithead and I'm not going to talk to you." People also say, "You're hysterical" or "I don't want to talk about this now" or a thousand other things. The conversation in these comments isn't about whether it's a thing people say or not. It's about whether it's a helpful or skillful thing people say. And on this topic, it's clear that intelligent people disagree.
I respect Scott and his arguments, and I'm grateful for his willingness to try out ideas on here that people are likely to disagree about. It allows us to come in here and have these fun lively conversations while also disagreeing, and to do that mostly civilly. I've been reading and commenting in here for over a decade and I continue to feel grateful for Scott's clarity and courage and modeling how to have intelligent conversations across different viewpoints and kinds of people.
Your stance seems to be that intelligent people can't disagree on this, they can only take your side of it. And not only that, but that the people who disagree with you are of necessity from a narrow subculture of political debate. My response to that is that my evidence across years and well before and outside of woke-ism is that that's not supported by the evidence.
There are lot of places in here where I and others give detailed ideas for what might be more constructive to say instead.
The content of your original post conveys the sense to me anyway that you have an axe to grind around a particular political subculture and that you're looking for opportunities to whack them even when it's a stretch in terms of relevance to the current conversation.
You are factually incorrect when you say that this phrase is hated by a specific subculture. This phrase is hated by a whole lot of people across many subcultures, many of whom hold sociopolitical views diametrically opposed to what I am pretty sure you are describing as "The Cult".
I'm sorry that you can't figure this out for yourself.
Well, people who hate hearing it but like saying it are hypocrites, and there's no shortage of those. But John above is right that this isn't a woke thing. A lot of people dislike passive-aggressive behaviour like pointed non-apologies. It's personality, not politics.
Pointed non-apologies are not "empathy". There's nothing empathic about saying "sorry you were so pathetic as to be upset by that", which is the meaning covered by these phrases. "What, you're trigged?!" and so on.
> Well, people who hate hearing it but like saying it are hypocrites
What? How is it hypocritical to believe that a phrase is insulting, and to use it yourself when you want to insult someone?
It's hypocritical to condemn the phrase as dishonest when other people use it but then to smugly use it yourself. Hypocrisy, at base, is holding other people to a standard you refuse to apply to yourself.
What you said was that people who hate hearing it but like saying it are hypocrites. Would you care to defend that claim?
I don't have absolute recall for everything I've ever said, but I have some level of confidence that I've not used those exact words, and I have rarely used any similar formulation, except for ironically.
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.
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.
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." - 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.
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.
Sure, but the customer service rep usually isn't saying "I'm sorry you feel that way." (If they did, I wouldn't blame the customer for getting even more upset!)
Perhaps more importantly, conversations with customer service reps are very different in a lot of ways from the type of conversation where you're likely to hear the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way." You're strangers, so it's less personal. It's probably less emotionally charged; or if it is emotionally charged, it's typically because of the situation and not because of anything the other person did. It tends to be understood, even if it's never said in so many words, that the customer service rep is representing their company and is apologizing on behalf of the company rather than for any personal wrongdoing. (And therefore, arguably it is in fact a real apology rather than just an expression of sympathy.) It tends to be understood, even if it's never said in so many words, that the customer service rep has limited power, and therefore the apology, however it might be interpreted, is probably the best they have to offer. It tends to be understood, at least on some level, that the problem and its lack of solution isn't meaningfully the rep's fault; they're just the messenger. And so on. Context is important. They're really not comparable situations at all.
Besides, there are two facets to the "I'm sorry you feel that way" problem that I think people are sleeping on:
1) In the situations of "I'm sorry your dog died" or "I'm sorry" (as said by a customer service rep), there is a more or less unified understanding of what the phrase is supposed to mean. The first phrase is a set phrase that is almost universally understood to be The Thing You Say when you want to express your condolences about a loss. The second phrase is almost universally understood to be The Thing You Say when you can't help the customer but you wish you could. When you hear these phrases, you know what they mean. And even if you don't know what they mean, they tend to fail safely; even if the recipient doesn't pick up the intended meaning, they are unlikely to interpret the phrases in ways that are deeply insulting to them. (Even if they interpret the customer service rep's "I'm sorry" as insincere and are angered as a result, they are unlikely to feel like the rep is implying that THEY'RE the problem, or that their feelings are invalid or of no account.) Conversely, as demonstrated by the arguments in this very comments section, there is a much less unified understanding of what "I'm sorry you feel that way" is supposed to mean. It can be used in a few different ways, and some of the more obvious ones are snide and deeply insulting. "Your feelings are dumb and wrong and unimportant, and for maximum insult value I'm going to convey this in a way that sounds like an apology but isn't." Some people genuinely don't mean that when they use this phrase, but many people do, to the point that it can be difficult to imagine someone NOT meaning it that way. It doesn't fail safely; there's too much variance in usage. Even if someone tells you they don't mean it that way, and you believe them, the phrase itself triggers a bad emotional reaction because of conditioning from all the people who do mean it that way, so it would be valid to object "If you didn't mean it that way then you shouldn't have used that phrase, you should have used a different phrase that made it more clear what you meant." (Of course, at that point it can become an argument about hyperstitious slur cascades and semantic treadmills, but I think that can be a separate argument. The sort of situation where you're using the words "I'm sorry", regardless of their intended meaning, is the sort of situation where you should be more worried about communicating effectively than about reclaiming a phrase.)
2) In the situations of "I'm sorry your dog died" or "I'm sorry" (as said by a customer service rep), the recipient is getting more or less what they expected and wanted. In the first case, they wanted condolences and got condolences. In the second case, perhaps they didn't get the solution they wanted, but they know they're getting the next best thing, and it's what they expected to get if they couldn't get an actual solution, and it's probably at least not incredibly odious to them even if it's not quite what they wanted. And, as mentioned previously, they probably know that the problem and its lack of solution isn't really the customer service rep's fault; they're just the messenger. But in the case of "I'm sorry you feel that way", even if the recipient understands that this is an expression of genuine sympathy, that's of no use to them if what they wanted was an honest-to-God apology. And since the speaker probably isn't a customer service rep, they can't even argue that they're just the messenger. In the recipient's mind, there is a perception (whether accurate or not) that the present situation is the speaker's fault, and that the speaker's lack of contrition is also the speaker's fault. (At the very least, it certainly isn't some nebulous third party's fault, the way it would be if the speaker were a customer service rep.) So, the recipient isn't getting what they wanted; and while they might be getting the next best thing, that fact is a lot less meaningful in this situation, because it feels like the speaker *could* give them what they want but is choosing not to. So the "next best thing" isn't just not what they wanted, it's something actively odious to them, a callous refusal to (in their mind) do the right thing. In summary, the recipient is expecting and wanting an apology, and they not only aren't getting that, they are getting something odious instead. And then, on top of that, the odious thing is being framed in a similar way as the thing they actually wanted, which just adds insult to injury.
"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.
As Gavin already responded to FentanylLifehack:
> 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.
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!
I think what Wesley is getting at is that it doesn't matter to the recipient whether the phrase is sincere. What matters is that they are expecting and wanting an apology, and they not only aren't getting that, they are getting something odious instead. And then, on top of that, the odious thing is being framed in a similar way as the thing they actually wanted, which just adds insult to injury.
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.
Sure, but if that is in fact what you mean, the recipient might very well be justified in getting upset with you about it! Scott's argument seems to be that people shouldn't be hostile to this phrase, but all he's actually done is explain what he thinks the phrase means. Even if he's right, why shouldn't people be hostile to it? Reaching an agreement on what "I'm sorry you feel that way" means doesn't dissolve the ill will that naturally arises when someone expects "I'm sorry I was a jerk" and instead gets "I'm sorry you feel that way."
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.
Yes, but the fact that no apology is intended is exactly the problem. The recipient WANTS an apology, feels owed an apology. And maybe they really are owed an apology! But whether they are or aren't owed one, they believe they are owed one, and so naturally they're going to be very upset when you say something that not only isn't an apology, but seems to almost be an anti-apology (actively disclaiming responsibility), and even worse is worded like an apology even though it isn't one (which just makes it sound snide).
Hard for me to put myself back into this thread because I didn't even remember it. It was nine months ago. Anyway.
My response to that is kind of a shrug.
It's not worded like an apology—not everything that begins "I'm sorry" is supposed to be regret. For example, "I'm sorry your dad died" is not a murder confession. It's just sorrow.
This is an impasse. If person A wants confession and repentance from person B and will accept nothing less, and person B feels bad for person A's distress but does not accept any responsibility for causing it, then the sincere thing to do is say "I feel sorrow for how you feel."
Is that probably going to make person A angrier if they can't settle for that? Sure. Is it also completely true and quite compassionate? Sure.
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.
Okay, but the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" isn't only used by people who have in fact done nothing wrong.
And regardless of whether you've done anything wrong, the person to whom you're saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" does indeed believe you've done something wrong, and therefore it is only natural that they'll be upset when you deny this. Denying it in a way that sounds like an apology but isn't just makes it worse, because that dissonance makes it sound snide.
You can express that you are sympathetic but don't feel you've done anything wrong, but you should find a better way to say it. And then, even once you've found a better way to say it, you shouldn't be surprised if the other person still gets upset with you.
Yes, people can be wrong, that's a fully general counterargument against any sort of rhetoric.
The person demanding an apology is already upset with you, and they're unlikely to stop being upset with you, unless you admit fault, which you don't want to do if you think you're haven't done anything wrong. In that case, you need a way to firmly reject to accusation. If the accusation is based on your interlocutors feeling rather than any arguments you could address, that necessarily means dismissing their feelings, of course it's going to sound snide. But the alternative is succumbing to emotional blackmail.
> 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.
Whether you've done anything wrong and whether you've offended the other person are two different questions. If you said or did something, and someone was offended by what you said or did, then you have offended them as a simple matter of fact. Whether you've done anything wrong is another question entirely. "Sorry I offended you" acknowledges that you offended them; it doesn't necessarily accept responsibility or admit wrongdoing. (Although I admit that it seems fairly likely the other person will assume that you are accepting responsibility or admitting wrongdoing, which is a fair reason to not want to use it.)
> “I’m sorry you feel that way” is deliberately a (polite) non-apology.
It is certainly a non-apology, but calling it "polite" is at best questionable and at worst disingenuous. For one thing, the phrase implies that the problem rests squarely on the other person's shoulders; which may not even be true, but even if it *is* true that doesn't make it *polite* to imply it. For another, it's phrased like an apology (which you know is what the person really wants), but isn't one. It's like dangling the thing they want in front of them, tantalizingly, and then ripping it away, and pissing on it for good measure. Therefore, no matter how pure your intentions, it will always sound snide. Better to say it in a way that doesn't sound at all like an apology.
(Indeed, I think I would argue that a pointed non-apology is always impolite. Sometimes it's okay to be impolite, but we shouldn't therefore pretend we're *not* being impolite.)
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.
The problem isn't that they don't know it's sympathy rather than contrition, it's that they don't want sympathy, they want contrition. People don't get mad about "I'm sorry your car broke down" because they wanted sympathy and they got sympathy, so everybody's happy. When someone says "I'm sorry you feel that way", the recipient wanted contrition, and they not only didn't get contrition, they got a very pointed statement that they won't get any contrition, aren't owed contrition, shouldn't expect any contrition, and that's that, no more to be said about it, too bad for you, goodbye.
Even if the person did want sympathy, this doesn't even sound like sympathy. It sounds snide and callous no matter how pure your intentions are; no amount of explaining what you really mean by it will make it sound less snide. So, yes, of course a different phrase is needed, one that at the very least expresses the sympathy part.
(Of course, this doesn't resolve the problem that what the person really wants is contrition. You'll have to either come to an agreement on whether you should be contrite or not, or make peace with them being mad at you.)
Yes, of course. People who feel wronged don't want sympathy, they want contrition.
There has to be a way to express the idea that, "While I don't believe I've done anything wrong, I do sympathize with your distress." Because there are indeed many situations between adults in which this is the appropriate response. One party's hurt feelings is not prima facie evidence of the other's wrongdoing.
It will not help to come up with a new expression. Someone who hurt another person and refuses to take responsibility cannot be forced to do so by changing the etiquette of "sorry."
A really determined responsibility-dodger will come up with all kinds of other phrases. They may even gesture at something like contrition! My personal favorite from my own experience was, "Yes, I acknowledge that I was acting out [when I committed a felony financial crime against you], but we were both behaving badly."
This statement was later described indignantly as, "I apologized!"
The phrase isn't the problem. Assholes are the problem.
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.
This. People seem to not be understanding that just because THEY have only the purest intentions when they use this phrase, doesn't mean everybody else does. I dare say most people don't. To the point that I'm pretty sure most people do in fact hear it as "I'm annoyed that you're being an idiot." It's disingenuous to use it anyway and then expect the other person not to be upset.
(Of course, this is only part of the issue. The other part is that the recipient probably doesn't just want sympathy or compassion, they want contrition; and "I'm sorry you feel that way" not only doesn't express contrition, it's a pretty pointed way of saying that they're not going to get any contrition. If they think they're owed contrition, this is inherently a hostile statement. Which makes it doubly useless to expect them not to get mad, even if they believe you that you intend it as an expression of sympathy. They don't want sympathy, they want you to apologize! Obviously people are allowed to disagree about whether someone did something wrong, but you should expect at least one of the people involved in that disagreement to be angry with the other one.)
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.
> 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.
Sure, but if you're in a position of saying "I'm sorry you feel that way", it's a safe bet that the other person believes you did something wrong. And believing that someone did something wrong is internally indistinguishable from them actually having done something wrong. So obviously they're not going to agree that it's appropriate for you to deny wrongdoing, and therefore they're obviously going to get upset when you do. It's unreasonable to expect them not to. If you really believe you did nothing wrong, and you value your integrity, obviously you shouldn't back down; but you'll have to make your peace with the person being mad at you.
> 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.
Obviously it's infuriating either way, but it's far more infuriating when it's expressed with the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way." Because then they're not just failing to express admission or contrition, they're very pointedly telling you that they know you want that but you're definitely not getting it, so there, too bad for you. And, as many others have pointed out elsewhere, it also implies that the problem rests squarely on your shoulders and your dumb, unimportant feelings; which is infuriating to hear regardless of whether it's true.
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.
1) The thing about "I'm sorry your dog died" is that it is in fact obvious to many people what it's conveying; but even more crucially, even when it isn't obvious, the recipient doesn't thereby feel insulted, because there's no implication that their feelings are wrong or bad or invalid or not cared about. The same cannot be said for "I'm sorry you feel that way". Many people do not find it obvious what that's meant to convey (partly because people don't all use it the same way, see point #2); and people who do not find the intended meaning obvious do thereby feel insulted, because the most obvious interpretation implies that the problem is located in their feelings, an implication which they would probably strenuously object to.
2) For many people, the very fact that it isn't expressing contrition is exactly the problem. They *want* contrition, and they aren't getting it. And even worse, they're getting something that *sounds* like contrition even though it isn't, which just makes it sound snide. (And besides, a lot of the time it *is* snide! People use this phrase snidely all the time!)
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.
They're not responsible for your projections.
They are if it's deliberately manipulative.
That's a fully humpty-dumptyesque argument. If a speaker refuses to adjust their statements to how a listener will predictably perceive them, because the speaker isn't responsible for that perception, then they're not attempting communication at all and might as well just say "I am groot".
There is nothing endemic to "I'm sorry you feel that way" that could justify an interpretation like “I am sorry for you, the poor emotionally unstable retard, that you get offended by truth.” There is no difficulty in perceiving what's given at face value.
Notwithstanding non-verbal communication and context, most often "I'm sorry you feel that way" means what it means: regret that the other party feels the way they do but not conceding wrongdoing. Clarifying as much would **not** be any more satisfactory to the listener, as you seem to imply. They're angry that the speaker isn't yielding. That's it.
All of this other "interpreted" garbage is projection driven out of insecurity, like those types who react to advice as though they've just been called stupid. You don't need to tip toe around that because they'll do it anyway, unless you shower words of validation and sympathy around the actual core message, but then they'll just come away with what they were looking for.
I am Groot!
> “I am sorry for you, the poor emotionally unstable retard, that you get offended by truth.”
But sometimes people do get offended by truth, and politely calling that out may in fact be the correct response.
As this discussion shows, there is a good chance that people wouldn't perceive such response as polite, which means that it failed in its intended purpose.
Intended purpose is not necessarily contingent on it being polite. And I disagree, I don't think the objection is over politeness somehow endemic to that selection of words, I think people don't like the actual message. The message is "I sympathize that you feel the way you do, but do not concede any wrongdoing". That infuriates the types who will only get emotional satisfaction from the other party yielding.
The problem is that we come come up with language to distinguish assholes from non-assholes, and then the assholes will catch on and start using the non-asshole language themselves but in their asshole-y way.
We’re seeing this a lot now with therapy-speak. It used to be that if someone wants to set a boundary they were doing it because someone was being an asshole to them, but now people will set “boundaries” that are really just them telling you what to do.
I think the phenomenon seems to come from therapy culture because of how common therapy is now, but I think it’s more related to word-use drift (like how some words used to be not offensive but now are).
The most important skill is to learn to see the intentions behind people’s words.
Dividing the world into assholes and non-assholes is not a great first step. Reducing a person to the speech/opinion you disagree with is the problem here, right? If we acknowledge that disagreement is not disrespect then the content of 'I'm sorry you feel that way' becomes 'It seems we disagree on this.' And the latter is a normal and non-threatening situation to find yourself in. I agree that the language of therapy has been co-opted to catastrophise these types of differing views though.
but i think the point is that people get offended by things and you (the supposed offender) don't really think you did anything to hurt them.
another, maybe more easily understood example: one of my kids wants something that they're not permitted to have. a really expensive toy, let's say, and i say no, and they start to cry, and i really feel sad that they feel sad, because i understand disappointment, i really feel their pain from having to accept that you will not always get what you want in life. so i hug them and kids them and say I'm so sorry you're sad about this, i understand. i love you to pieces but the answer is still no.
I think your example is completely understandable and makes a lot of sense. Of course you feel that way when your child has a meltdown over something they can't have. It is sad they are feeling distraught, but that doesn't change they don't get it (in fact, probably means they really shouldn't have it now, so as to not teach them feeling bad loudly gets them what they want).
But in my opinion that just makes it even clearer that treating an adult in that way is in fact patronizing.
But if you have a belief a loved one feels hurt by -- say a spouse is upset to find out you think it's a sign of bad character to have some belief -- you surely still need to communicate that you care and feel bad this is really hurting them even if it obviously can't change your belief.
Okay, I guess I'm confused about the scenario, but let's go with: You think Sauron is evil, your spouse is pro-Sauron. You say "that's okay honey, I still love you, I just think this guy is bad" they say "I'm hurt you're calling me a bad person for what I believe" you say "I'm not calling you a bad person, I'm sorry you feel that way, I just think you should stop giving money to Sauron"
I still think it's patronizing, even if the person being patronized clearly deserves it and is in the wrong. But yes, sometimes you do need to say those things -- sometimes people are out of line, won't be talked with, and you have to delicately straddle the line between maintaining honesty and imploding a relationship. Nonetheless, it's not a phrase I would appreciate hearing in an earnest conversation where both parties are being genuine -- it seems like a fallback to just mollify them. I'm not disagreeing that at times those tactics are necessary, but if I'm NOT being so unreasonable that I need my feathers to be unruffled, then I would be offended. And if I AM being that unreasonable, it seems unlikely it would make me go "oh, I'm being unreasonable here." In short, I don't really see when it would possibly work to do what the user wants it to do, outside the above example of a child. (Of course, sometimes we're all unreasonable).
For instance, if at this juncture you said to me "I'm sorry you feel that way", you can obviously see why that would be taken poorly :)
I was thinking more that you say “it’s a sign of bad character if you support Sauron” and then it turns out their parents are Sauron supporters and they’re upset you have that belief (even after you say that you like their parents you just think a bit less of them for that). That minimizes the object level conflict and it’s just about you having a certain belief.
But yes, I ultimately agree that the particular phrase has come to have a meaning which is a bit more patronizing and is more like “sounds like a you problem” but I don’t think it’s patronizing to convey what I think the original/intended meaning of the phrase was - I care about your feelings and don’t like making you feel upset even if I still believe that I’m correct.
The core problem with your argument here is that “I’m sorry that you feel that way” doesn’t actually communicate the message you describe in the third bullet point very well, in part because actual usage is usually passive-aggressive and pragmatically communicates the meta-message “You’re being unreasonable to an extent that I don’t think it’s worth engaging with your concerns.”
The problem is not the phrase itself but what follows after it.
Often it's a form of "I already said sorry, so stop talking about it" which is meant to stop short any discussion.
With the "I'm sorry how you feel about it" you implicitly state "I don't think it makes sense to discuss the topic with you"
Instead of standing firm to your view and supporting it with arguments, you are sorry about the feelings of the other person and thus move all their arguments on the issue into the "feelings" category.
That might be okay in the drug addiction example but in the case of disagreements about a genocidal war, an honest and compassionate discussion about the topic would sometimes make more sense.
The problem with the phrase is that it shuts down your ability to see if the other person has a point. Sure, sometimes the other person's an addict trying to score money for drugs and dismissing them is reasonable, but in both your other examples you could conceivably concede the object level point or explain why you think it's wrong or not analogous (like "yes that crime is terrible, but I think this is different from your case because...). Or at least demonstrate you understand the downsides of your position ("yes, if the crime actually did happen then I'm unfairly maligning and hurting a real victim, so I should be careful about my skepticism").
Or if you don't have the energy for an actual argument, "I'm sorry, I can't handle getting into this right now" makes more sense than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
I didn't know if it "shuts down" the ability, as it signals that "I'm stopping trying (if I even tried in the first place)"?
So I think there's a general thing where saying something to someone else also moves you into that mindset. Emgm if you tell someone "I agree with you" that probably kicks off an internal thought process listing ways in which he's right, and if you say "you make some good points, but..." You'll start mentally listing flaws with his argument. So as part of this thing, if you say something to indicate there's no use in trying to understand, it goes with putting yourself in that mindset.
It seems pretty simple: “I’m sorry you feel that way” is 100% fine from someone who’s right in the underlying dispute, and callous from someone who’s wrong in the underlying dispute! But as in countless other cases, when the underlying dispute is too hard, people feel compelled to retreat to arguments about language.
Surely that's part of it but don't you also think that this specific phrase has started to actually change meaning to something more like "that sounds like a you problem" not a genuine expression that you regret having caused them pain.
I think it's more a matter of whether it's a reaction to a feeling or not. "The sky is blue" "But that's hurtful" "I'm sorry you feel that way" is fine, "The sky is blue" "No it's not" "Sorry you feel that way" is not fine. Something being hurtful has nothing to do with whether that thing is right or not, and using "I'm sorry you feel that way" being ok does not directly relate to someone being right or not.
Aren't there meta levels here? Whether the person thinks they're right, whether they think that the other person thinks they're right, etc.?
I think you're getting to the same nut I see. I think in terms of three parties; call them Sorry, Upset, and Other.
Sorry: ISYFTW; nevertheless, I'm right.
Upset: I do feel that way; maybe you're right; but that's not immediately clear to me.
Other: Sorry says he(or she or they)'s sorry; Upset says he isn't satisfied. If Sorry is right, then it's Upset's problem, but that's not immediately clear to me. And it's entirely possible, then, that what I'm seeing isn't Sorry, but one of two evil twins:
-- NotSorry, who *says* he's sorry, but only to get Upset to cede the conflict
-- SorryButWrong, who is truly sorry, but is *wrong* *and* believes he's right
...and I think Upset is smart enough to know he might be seeing one of those twins, doesn't have enough information to disambiguate, which means:
-- if it's NotSorry, Upset is now more upset because he's talking to a bad-faith actor
-- if it's SorryButWrong, Upset is now more upset because he has to persuade SBW when SBW is entrenched in a logical fallacy
-- if it's Sorry, Upset is now more upset because he knows Sorry is also smart enough to realize this
-- this Aaronson fellow surprises me; I would have expected him to have fallen afoul of this trap enough times in the past to notice it
...all of which leads me to infer that, more likely than I thought, people aren't good at thinking outside themselves.
There may not be a right or wrong that can be discovered ever. Suppose I say that I think abortion is murder, and my friend quietly confides in me later that she had an abortion when she was in high school, and is upset to be called a murderer. We actually have conflicting beliefs there, and there's never going to be an experiment we can run or an oracle we can consult to determine who's right.
I can tell her I am sorry for upsetting her, and be truthful. But that doesn't imply my changing my belief, nor her changing hers.
Tangential to the discussion, but if that's a belief that (the hypothetical) you genuinely hold, why are you sorry about upsetting a murderer? And why are you staying friends with her?
You can care about people you think have done terrible things in the past, or even people who are doing terrible things right now. You can care about people with whom you disagree about whether the things they have done are terrible.
Understandable. You can care about them overall. But do you not believe they should feel terrible and remorseful about the truly terrible things they've done? Otherwise you're kinda advocating for zero accountability for terrible things?
But wouldn't you want those people to feel bad specifically about the terrible things being done? Would you feel the same way about actual, non-abortion murder: e.g., you mention that you're strongly against murder, your friend says “Hey, I'm a murderer, so it really hurts when you say that”. Are you gonna be like “Sorry, man, didn't mean to make you feel that way?”
>100% fine from someone who’s right in the underlying dispute
I disagree. If it is not necessary to come to an agreement about the dispute, then it may not be fine to fight on it even if youre in the right.
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is 100% callous and offensive if there is a dispute for you to be right or wrong about, because the other party believes they are right and you are wrong so they will predictably hear the callous version whether that's what you meant or not.
It's only appropriate in cases where there is no underlying dispute.
spoken: I'm Sorry You Feel That Way.
subtone: Your feelings, your problem. you manage that.
message: i'll now switch my attention to something more relevant for me.
You don't get to apologise for *my* feelings. It's incredibly rude in the same way that "I'm sorry you're wrong" or "I'm sorry you're incompetent" would be. If you think I'm being so unreasonable that you're not willing to apologise for upsetting me (even if you're not going to change your object level position) then better to not apologise at all.
"I'm sorry you dropped that brick on your foot." Not an apology, an expression of regret that you are suffering. "I'm sorry you feel that way." Not an apology, an expression of regret that my disagreement with you caused suffering.
"I'm sorry you dropped that brick on your foot" is still making it very clear it has nothing to do with you. As if you are just a passerby noticing the other person is having a bad time. In the context of, in fact, noticing someone is just having a bad time, that's fine! In context of an argument where the other person feels that you are *causing* the bad time, that's only more fuel to the fire.
Not quite. There is a difference between being causally responsible and being morally responsible. If I serve a friend a meal with cumin and neither one of us previously knew they were allergic to cumin, then I am causally responsible for their hives. But I am not morally responsible for the hives. "I'm sorry you're allergic to cumin" expresses my regret at their suffering, but is not an apology since I did nothing morally wrong.
I think this is getting a little out of the realm of the emotional reactions in the post; of course for a situation when one's physical actions directly or indirectly cause unanticipated harm that you can't do anything about, you're right. But also, you can't just "take back" the allergen, so there's no point being sorry (e.g. about spilled milk). In the arguments the post describes, the speaker changing their mind or actions is implied to be able to "fix" the problem which is purely an emotional reaction predicated on the speaker's opinion or choices.
If you had an epipen on you but refused to use it in that situation and just express your sympathies, I think that friend would then have the right to be angry. Not to torture a metaphor. From the other person's perspective, you have an epipen and are offering feeble sympathies instead of it; they want you to "make it right" by giving up your views. Obviously, whether it's actually correct to do so or not is completely dependent on the context, the point is that offering one's sympathy is the wishy-washy middle road people hate.
"I'm sorry you're allergic to cumin" expresses my regret at their suffering, but is not an apology since I did nothing morally wrong."
But that sounds even more unreasonable. Why are you sorry that they're allergic? You didn't know, you're not responsible, and there is no expectation that every single person in the world will never have an allergy.
"I'm sorry your dog died" is the model here, so it would be better stated "I'm sorry that happened" (the cumin in the dish triggering the allergy). Expression of sympathy.
"I'm sorry, I had no idea you were allergic!" is the apology for the causal responsibility. As you say, you are not morally responsible because this was not done with full knowledge and on purpose to do harm. Expression of contrition, the idea is that now you know, you won't do it again.
"I'm sorry you're allergic" - what the heck is that? It may be an expression of sympathy, along the lines of "I'm sorry you can't enjoy delicious cumin due to your allergy", but more conventional usage in English would be "It's a pity" or "Such a shame" that you are allergic to cumin, since it is an impersonal fact and not the fault in any way of the speaker that this person has an allergy to cumin.
I have a friend who is allergic to cumin. Like, anaphylaxis will definitely die without an epipen level allergy. I have told him that I am sorry he is allergic to cumin--he's missing out on delicious Indian and Mexican food unless he carefully prepares it himself at home. Seems like a reasonable thing to say. Anyway, more broadly people can have reasonable or unreasonable emotions. Emotions aren't sacrosanct. I may be angry that the road is out and I have to take a detour. But that's an unreasonable emotion to maintain when I discover the detour is actually a shortcut. I could express regret that someone has an unpleasant emotion without having to concede that it is a reasonable emotion to have. Or I could express sorrow that someone has a reasonable but unpleasant emotion ("sorry your dog died").
That's more "I wish you could share this good experience", though. Although it could also come across as "ha ha, I have this enjoyable sensation which you can never know, sucks to be you" (but I am confident you do not mean to convey that to your friend).
"I'm sorry God created a universe in which suffering exists." :-)
I'm sorry you feel that way 😇
You remind me of a pet peeve I have with a fairly unrelated phrase:
"I'm sorry to hear that."
My reaction is invariably not that. If you're a friend of mine and you give me bad news, I'm not sorry to hear it. I'm *glad* I heard about it, since I know now to cut you a little more general slack and understanding. I'm sorry it *happened*.
(That being said, if you give me bad news and I reply with "I'm glad to hear that!", I'd expect you to be, uh, sorry to hear that. And possibly hit me with a halibut.)
Agreed. "I'm sorry to hear that." also carries the worry about what the person saying it plans to do in the future. It _could_ be interpreted as suggesting that they will start actively avoiding such news.
You should read "I'm sorry to hear that" as "hearing that made me sad". It's not about whether the transmission of information was good or bad. It's about what the effect on you was.
"I'm sorry your foot hurts when I drop bricks on it."
A real apology acknowledges specific harm and ideally addresses how that harm will be avoided in the future.
If the second half is not achievable, then a regret for the circumstances kind of 'sorry' can still be issued, but the more specific the better - the injured party wants to feel heard and understood, so no generic wording is going to work for actually making them feel better, rather than just being vaguely polite.
That may be true but trying to be specific is often a big risk. First, it's very difficult when there are disputes about how to characterize something -- sometimes any way of describing the situation one party is comfortable with will offend the other. Also it can sometimes just remind people about why they are angry.
I married someone who likes to talk and argue as much as I do and that's a trap we tend to fall into. If we try to specifically summarize why they are upset the temptation is to fight about that summary (bc we both not only feel we are correct but that we are justified so that any fully accurate summary should entail the correctness of our case).
It's hard because you are totally correct we all want the other party to show they understand why we are upset but for some of us it's very hard to resist either correcting that summary or saying "so obviously you see now why I'm correct since...."
My wife and I often suffer from this. She can't stop summerizing things in the most rediculously negative light, and it triggers me to go another round in the argument. My gosh...You didn't check on me enough when I was sick, becomes you never checked on me at all, Actually I checked on you 5 times each time your were still asleep.
Though the way you just summarized her behavior in your comment does make me wonder if she’s the only one who does this :-)
This is the difference I think between reflecting back what someone said through our own filters and trying to get in their shoes to say, "oh now I can see how you'd feel that way about this. That makes sense." And if we can't yet see how it's understandable how they'd feel that way from their point of view, then we have more questions to ask and listening to do.
All our various stances may not be objectively "right" or "true" or "rational" but they are understandable, meaning, possible to understand with enough curious listening.
You've not said this here, but when I hear "I'm sorry you feel that way," I hear, "I'm not interested in understanding you any better." As a statement, it's a wall rather than a door, but is masquerading as a door.
Problem is sometimes we are offended by someone correctly understanding why we feel a certain way.
I know this is true of me sometimes. The real reason I might find something upsetting that someone else says might be because I'm afraid what they believe might be correct and I find it threatening. Or because I'm insecure about my ability at something and they tried to give me some helpful tips but I felt threatened and started insisting they were being disrespectful or whatever.
Ok, so what can the person I'm fighting with say? They can have a more accurate conception of where I'm coming from emotionally than I do but they obviously can't tell me they understand how threatened I feel because that would be even more threatening and upsetting. Best they can do is make it clear feel bad I'm so upset.
--
And this isn't uncommon. I think many of our fights in a relationship are really about insecurity in many ways and that's not something you can really deal with while you are in a fight.
I agree the phrase isn't great but sometimes it really is true that the best thing for a relationship is to acknowledge you care for each other but it's not beneficial to keep fighting about it now. It's something it took my wife and I far too long to learn.
We throw up all kinds of defenses in a fight, for sure.
Our upset feelings are the trailing edge of our vulnerability and then our defenses try to tuck that back under the curtain and when we can't, the lack of control is even more upsetting. And the ways someone else attends to all that can feel like it's shining a light on what already feels inadequate or too vulnerable.
Ultimately we totally can deal with insecurity in the midst of a fight, it's hard, but unbelievably helpful.
>the injured party wants to feel heard and understood, so
Concern about making people *feel* heard and understood is part of the problem here; it's inherently Dark Arts.
If we start from the principle that we can't control how another person feels (which we can't), then the framework isn't "making people feel" but rather as you quoted, understanding that most people want to feel heard and understood when they're trying to communicate something to us. "Making them feel" isn't in our power to force, but we can make honest attempts to understand and then check with them to see if we're getting close or not.
It sounds like what you're calling out is manipulation -- maybe the kind where a person poses as trying to understand you but they're just waiting for their next moment to reassert their rightness or even to throw our words back at us in a demeaning way. But in calling out manipulation, it seems you're including in it sincere efforts to understand each other.
People can be manipulative mostly unconsciously but sometimes intentionally. And we have agency to not be manipulated. If we trust our agency in that, then we can expose our thoughts and feelings to them without diminishing our integrity in the hopes of a satisfying meeting of the minds or hearts. There's no doing that without some risk, always. But the more we're confident that we have our own back, the more that this kind of normal risk-taking in human interactions feels perfectly safe. No one can take us where we don't want to go.
If it looks like someone's effort to understand us is turning into an ego-driven compulsion to prove their own righteousness, then we can stop the conversation. "You're not really listening to me. You're looking for an opportunity to prove I'm wrong and defend your rightness. You can do that, but don't do it while acting as if you're actually trying to understand where I'm coming from."
If the person is worth talking to, they'll say, "I'm sorry, you're right. Can we try again and this time I'll really try to listen to what you're saying." And then we risk sharing something real with them again. We might even say, "What are you hearing me say this time?" And if all they can do is twist our words in service of their argument and there's no place where we feel, "Okay, this time they heard me better," then we get to say "This isn't working. You're still doing the thing that's not about listening but about continuing to litigate your point of view. I'm done now."
>It sounds like what you're calling out is manipulation -- maybe the kind where a person poses as trying to understand you but they're just waiting for their next moment to reassert their rightness or even to throw our words back at us in a demeaning way. But in calling out manipulation, it seems you're including in it sincere efforts to understand each other.
Almost, but I don't think you've quite got it.
My point is this: there is a difference between the goal-states of "I understand John" and "John feels that I have understood him". I'm claiming that deliberately targetting the latter state is inherently manipulative (or, in LW slang, Dark Arts). I am, furthermore, claiming that the great prevalence of such and similar targetting in current society (every corporate PR/complaints department, just for starters) is part of the reason why phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way" are so loathed; people resent attempts to manipulate them.
I can't see it yet. Will you hang in there with me? (totally fine if you don't care to)
Your mention of PR/complaints departments makes me think you're talking about all the bulls*it institutional language that gets used insincerely. I'm sorry you're displeased with us. I'm sorry you feel that way. You need to understand there's nothing more we can do. I don't have access to that information. The actions we took are consistent with current standard practices. And so on. Let's call these CYA bureaucratic lies. I mean, sometimes they may actually be true, but certainly they also get used to pawn people off while avoiding liability. That part I think I get in what you're saying.
I'm not getting the difference you're pointing to between "I understand John" and "John feels I've understood him." Anytime we say we understand someone, we're either venturing our unproven opinion that we do or we're saying that because John just told us, "you understand me now."
Are you saying that there's a way for me to *make John feels as if* I've understood him but the truth is I don't?
This one is hard to wrap my head around because it seems to me that we always need to test for understanding in a conversation, we can't just assert it. "Wait, so if I'm hearing you right, you're saying that you think we're responsible for your bad experience with X" or "Am I getting it that you feel shut out when I don't want to talk about my weekend with my friends?" To know if we've understood John, we have to say what we hear him saying and then John needs to either say, "No, that's not what I'm saying" or "Yep, that's right."
What does the actual manipulation you're speaking of look like?
I think we can speak customer service sentences or bureaucratic lies in the hopes of getting rid of John, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. Maybe I'm wrong about that? Are the Dark Arts just PR, marketing, and propaganda or are you talking about something else?
>Are the Dark Arts just PR, marketing, and propaganda or are you talking about something else?
Dark Arts is LW jargon for techniques to persuade X of Y that don't rely on valid reasoning for Y being more probable than X currently thinks. PR, marketing* and propaganda are indeed central examples of Dark Arts; cult indoctrination is another one. This page (https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/permission-structure) stinks of Dark Arts, too.
Dark Arts are called that for a variety of interrelated reasons: a) they are combative, in the sense that one would generally prefer, from a God's-eye view, to *not* be convinced by Dark Arts arguments (whereas one wants to be convinced by valid arguments), b) they're disrespectful of the target's rationality and agency, c) they are highly useful to frauds and other exploiters (who want people to believe false things). This is not to say that it's never justified to use them, but it's definitely a "do the ends justify the means?" question.
*Old-school advertising, from like 1930s or earlier, had a much lesser degree of Dark Arts use - it was just "hey, X exists, it does Y, Z is how to get it". That's a pure positive for society (well, unless X doesn't actually do Y). But that only reaches people who already want a thing that accomplishes Y; Dark Arts techniques are used to trick people into buying goods that they'd (on reflection) rather *not* buy, which is zero-sum or negative-sum (but more lucrative for the advertiser, hence the increasing use of it over time).
>I think we can speak customer service sentences or bureaucratic lies in the hopes of getting rid of John, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. Maybe I'm wrong about that?
That basically is what I'm talking about, yes. I'm saying that the general loathing for phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way" is basically societal antibodies against rampant, systematic Dark Arts abuse.
I think I understand now. I was thinking mainly of social interactions -- friendships, acquaintances, etc. And I think you were thinking mainly of institutional or professional persuaders who try to manipulate public opinion.
To the extent a person in a social interaction is working as an agent of persuasion for a political or public policy or profit agenda, then that would include them as well.
You've changed my mind on the phrase as a whole, though as you point out it is a phrase that has been tainted by abusers and there are other ways to communicate "i respect [your] feelings, didn’t mean it personally, and hope we can stay on good terms" which wouldn't have this problem.
"respect their feelings" is kind of a nebulous concept, because if you actually believe that the other person is not justified on their demands, you don't really respect that particular feeling, do you? Maybe something like "I generally like and respect you, but that position is unreasonable, and your demand is not justified, and here's why" would be more appropriate.
Of course, there have been victims of completely unjustified internet shitstorms whose apology of "I'm sorry you feel that way" triggered a new shitsquall (because, as you imply, the audience expected a groveling mea culpa to be followed by a chorus of "see? Told ya he's guilty!"). In such cases, being a jerk is probably the correct reaction, but it requires thick skin to pull off.
Why do you think seeing a negative feeling as justified is a prerequisite for respecting it? How does “respect” cash out for you here? For me it is just acknowledging that the feeling is real and unpleasant and powerful and it is unfortunate that the person is in the position of experiencing it. That is entirely different from respecting a demand or a moral claim. "I hurt" is not something I have to justify.
I think the trust and intimacy of the existing relationship makes a big difference here.
In an extremely close and intimate relationships, as with my best friend or husband, "I hurt" isn't something either of us has to justify. We get to share even irrational feelings. We can afford to extend extra patience and charity, because a) we are deeply invested in each other and b) we have built up trust that this charity won't be abused.
In less intimate relationships, the extra patience and charity make less sense. For starters, I cannot necessarily trust that their feelings are not exaggerated to manipulate me. Hell, I've had someone outright lie about my supposed wrongdoings in order to justify and cover for their own felony financial crime.
How does "acknowledging that the feeling is real and unpleasant and powerful" cash out for you here? Maybe I am an autistic lizard person in skin-suit who doesn't understand people and language, but all I see is an arms race of emotional word salad.
Maybe I shouldn't have even replied because this entire discussion thread seems nebulous: we went from talking about justifying claims and positions to talking about experiences and feelings. I suspect all 3 of us are going to be talking past each other
""I hurt" is not something I have to justify." - well, if you try to make it my problem by accusing me of causing your hurt and demanding an apology or other fix, then yes, you have to justify it (unless it's obviously justified).
To me, 'respecting' a feeling includes, as you write, acknowledging it as real, but also acknowledging it as justified. When a toddler throws a tantrum because he wants his favorite dessert instead of what's on the menu, yeah, it's real, it's powerful, it's unpleasant, but I don't 'respect' it.
"I hurt" or "I am mad" or "what you said makes me feel bad" are all statements about your emotional state, and while they could be lies, it's going to be pretty hard to tell from the outside. But none imply an obligation to change your behavior or beliefs or words.
If I say the US committed genuine war crimes in the war on terror, that will make some people very angry and offended. But their offense doesn't mean the claim is false, nor that it's wrong to say it out loud. It's good to be sensitive to the feelings of others, especially people with whom you have a personal relationship, but that doesn't extend to an obligation never to say or believe things that upset anyone.
"But none imply an obligation to change your behavior or beliefs or words."
I would disagree here - in the mind of the one making the statement, they usually do. At least toward strangers or casual acquaintances, I don't usually announce my negative emotional state, especially not implying they caused it, unless I want something to change. When someone comes up to you and says "what you just said was deeply hurtful to me, and I feel traumatized by it", do you autocomplete that to "...and I want an apology, and I want you to stop", or "...but I know I'm irrationally sensitive on that issue, so please, do carry on"?
"that doesn't extend to an obligation never to say or believe things that upset anyone" - that, I agree with. Especially since some of statements that upset me the most were among the most useful to me, once I'd had time to get over my cognitive dissonance and digest them properly.
I don't think that's why people object to the phrase? I don't think the idea isn't that you should always apologise for upsetting people. But that the social role of an apology is to admit fault you regret and would change your behavior. So it annoys people by having the structure of an apology and not being one. And if you believe you did the right thing, and would do the same in a comparable situation l, you should simply not apologize at all.
I agree with this.
If something I've said upset someone and I care about that person, I can say, "I think I've upset you, is that right?" And then listen to what they say and try to show I'm listening and try to understand it from their point of view without first defending myself. If I care about them, I let their upset in, I can try to let in their view about it without getting my ego too in the way. If I can learn something from their view or say "Oh I can see that", then so much the better. That doesn't have to be taking all the blame or saying they're right or I agree, I don't have to say "Oh I'm so sorry." I can just listen and try to understand and try to show understanding of their perspective.
If something I've said has upset someone and I don't have an investment in that relationship and I don't feel I have anything to apologize for, then I can be as curious as I want and listen as much or as little as I want. I can also just say, "I hear you" and move on without any further need to engage.
To me, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a condescending, passive aggressive thing to say. It's pretending to be emotionally present with someone when you're actually conveying disengagement. If what I want to do is disengage from their emotional upset, then I can do that sincerely without posturing.
My problem with "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that some people try to pass that off as an actual apology. It's not. It's usually a way of saying "I still completely disagree and I'm not actually sorry but I want to end this conversation".
Yes I see that too. It seems to me "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a manifestation of a confused boundary. It's pretending to convey emotional presence while also shutting a door and moving on. Either engage and try to understand their view or disengage and move on, but don't try to show engagement while disengaging.
"I'm sorry" is a heartfelt kind of a thing. Either you're genuinely sorry because you stepped on their toe or you're genuinely sorry because they're going through something hard and you care about them. Genuine caring is a key ingredient to both kinds of sorry.
But "I'm sorry you feel that way" in the midst of a disagreement carries no such heartfelt care to it and so is a kind of lie, because one is neither sorry for toe-stepping nor sorry for the hard thing the other person is experiencing. It's too pro forma for that.
To convey heartfelt care about another's hurt feelings, we've got to come up with some of our own words that sound more genuine than the twitter post, "Thoughts and prayers." "Oh man, I can see what I said didn't sit well with you. Do you want to say more?" or if we don't want to hear more, "It feels like you're blaming me for something that's not my responsibility and I don't care to engage with that right now."
It's one or the other, you're letting someone in to understand better or you're moving on. If the aim is to move on, then "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a dishonest way to convey that we're moving on. To move on, we can just say, "I hear you," and show through our actions that we're moving on. This is obviously not for intimates. For intimates, we can say, "I don't have capacity to listen properly right now, but I'd like to come back to this." And then it's on us to come back to it.
I think the objection is when the phrase is used and the speaker of the phrase is in the wrong or they conceded to a request for an apology, but instead say “I’m sorry I made you feel that way” rather than “I’m sorry for my actions”
It's not even "I'm sorry I made you feel that way", though. It's "you feel like that, your problem, it's 'cos you're dumb and stupid and over-sensitive and on the wrong side of history, sorry you're such a loser".
It's a phrase that's supposed to show empathy, but if that's not how folks hear it, then it's not doing it's job.
So you get a new phrase. There's a lot of room between, "Haha! Triggered!" and "You are correct and I am wrong."
Since you aren't apologizing for your position, framing your response as an apology is incorrect. Instead, better to react directly to the feelings they're expressing and then separately reaffirm your belief. This highlights the compartmentalization of these things (their feelings vs. the object-level disagreement), which hopefully helps the interlocuter do the same. Just saying, "I'm sorry you feel that way" fails to separate them sufficiently.
What does it mean to "apologize for ones position?" Does that just mean "changing positions?"
You also speak as if compartmentalizing is desirable. But I am discussing positions with my friend, and it leads to him making emotional outbursts, it seems to me I should ignore them. If he presses me to acknowledge his emotions, then isn't he failing to compartmentalize (and is obviously using a rhetorical technique to influence the discussion of positions)?
Matt's saying as I hear it, in the situation where you're not intending to apologize for what you've said (your position) then there are lots of choices between mocking their emotional reactions and saying that you screwed up.
I hear him as saying too, there are two things going on in that kind of conversation. One is the position that you hold that led you to say the thing that upset the other person. And then there is the other person's evident upset. They are separate things and are better talked about separately.
What people often do because we're argumentative and defensive, is that we'll say something like, "You may not like to hear it, but here's more about how I'm right..."
But the point at which someone in the conversation becomes upset, they are no longer in a place to hear more about why we think we're right. We're not going to be heard. So we have the choice to listen and try to understand why what we said upset them first and then see if later they are game to listen and try to understand our viewpoint. But it's not going to work to try to do both of those things at the same time because neither person will end up feeling heard and then there's no conversation really happening at that point.
You can try to ignore your friend's emotional outbursts, but it's unlikely they're really listening to you at that point and so if you care to be heard, you'll likely need to wait until your friend is no longer upset, whether he calms down on his own or though your listening to him.
In about 2004 Labour introduced 24 hour drinking, and were also going to allow supercasinos before backing down due to negative publicity. Tessa Jowel (RIP) was interviewed by a select committee some time later and said "well obviously this proposal stirred up strong emotions..." This is a kick under the table and implies the opponents of the idea were driven solely by passion. If strong emotions make for bad judgement, that seems like a good reason to regulate drinking and gambling! This is just one example, there are many instances where framing the other side as being motivated by feelings is an escalation.
Lots of great comments here but I would suggest another option:
“I’m sorry, I did not expect your reaction to my statement. Would you like to elaborate?”
Then “I understand your perspective - I still believe that the war was bad, but I also respect the sacrifice that your soldier made and the impact it had to your family.”
I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to acknowledge other people’s feelings.
I agree, but I think that was the original meaning of "I'm sorry you feel that way" it's just that over time it's started to mean more "sounds like a you problem not a me problem". So if you went back in time it would be fine but now we should switch to something like what you suggested.
I'd add that in some contexts the you probably do want to avoid elaborations. I went and married someone who likes to talk and argue as much as I do so sometimes the chance to elaborate just leads to an hour of verbal gymnastics rather than a better understanding of the underlying emotional dynamics.
One of the main ways your proposal avoids the original problem is that it commits you to more engagement. Which is very likely what the upset party wants (assuming, of course, that *they* are interacting in good faith).
One of my informal principles for good interaction is "wherever possible, end your argument with a (non-rhetorical) question". One should be trying to get the right answer alongside one's interlocutors, not bean them over the head with whatever yours is.
this is a beautiful thing right here
I agree. It is better to step forward into the disagreement, while signaling that you are going to stay civil.
But I really don't want to hear the person elaborate.
In that case, you'd be better off just changing the subject. A sample phrase could be, "Oh, I didn't realize you were personally invested in this issue - I'll keep my thoughts to myself."
The point here is recognizing that the conversation you were trying to have is not possible, because the other party is too impassioned. You don't have to change your opinions to recognize that some opinions are better off not aired in front of particular people.
Agree 100%, but I do think we need a better stock phrase. I’m going to keep looking!
I suspect you won't find one, and if you try, you'd be wasting your time. Sure, you'll find another way to say it, but the problem is that any phrase you could use over and over can be used by a bad-faith agent. Your other party will practically always know this.
Counterproposal: resign yourself to tailoring a response to the individual case, every time. This exchange is ultimately about building trust, and you can't do that with stock phrases.
The bespoke response is definitely superior, and one can strive for the rhetorical skills to use it.
"ok"
For those who want stock phrases at hand, and I get that, I think we first have to get clear what our intention is in the situation.
If we care about the person and are invested in the friendship, then a stock phrase might be, "I see I said something that upset you, do you want to say more?" But then the task is to listen to their viewpoint and to validate it (validate doesn't mean agree; it means stretching enough to see how their view is understandable, even if you don't share it.)
If we don't particularly care about the relationship with that person, then a stock phrase can be anything from, "I hear you" to "I'm moving on because I don't think we're hearing each other" to "What I said seemed to upset you and I don't have the capacity to go further with it right now so I'm moving on" to "I can tell we're not really understanding each other, but I wish you well." Online of course, just not responding works as well.
If it's a social situation with a acquaintance and you don't care that much but you don't want to burn bridges or create ill will, you can say something like, "I can see what I said doesn't sit well with you. I'd hope with more time and conversation that we could see each other's viewpoint better, but I don't think this is the moment for that. Would it be okay with you if we leave it there?" Of course how upset or blaming or insistent they are will determine whether we have to say anything more. "I want you to apologize for what you said!" "Okay, I hear that. I don't feel I said anything wrong, but maybe on further reflection I'll see it differently." Or, "I don't feel I said anything I need to apologize for. I think it's possible for us to get upset without another person having done anything wrong, and this seems like one of those situations to me." Or, if you can swing more generosity than that, you can say, "It's true, I've been told before that I can be insensitive. I can see you feel that I have been insensitive. I'm going to reflect on that. I feel sorry that what I said upset you."
Side note, it turns out that taking some of the blame/responsibility is easier than we imagine, doesn't diminish us, and can be done honestly in the frame that we really don't know what we don't know about the impact of our behavior on other people.
We often think "But I didn't mean to" covers all manner of sins. But it's not a very big step between "I'm sorry you feel that way" and "I'm sorry my words were hurtful to you" and even better "I'm sorry I upset you." And the latter is going to be so much better received. In the universe where we're not always right and we can't always see where we've been wrong, it can be a whole lot better just to own some part of it even if in that moment we can't see that we may have some responsibility there.
As I write that, I think to myself that humility is the difference between an insincere "I'm sorry you feel that way" and a sincere "I'm sorry I hurt you."
I think also a lot of the time when people are annoyed by a phrase it's because it has been overused in a specific context so reached semantic saturation, not because of its literal meaning.
EG for an in-group example. People used to get annoyed by people prefacing things with "as a rationalist" or "a rationalist approach to...". Not because that would be bad in its literal meaning
I just got "I'm sorry you feel that way"'d just 10 minutes ago and it deeply annoyed me. Then I saw this in my inbox and was disappointed to see that Scott is sorry I feel that way.
Crap.
I'm sorry that Scott feels he's sorry that you feel that way 😀
I'm sorry that you feel sorry that Jon feels sorry that Scott thinks "sorry you feel that way" is the way.
I'm sorry that you feel sorry that I feel sorry that Jon feels sorry that Scott feels "sorry you feel that way".
Are we all now sufficiently respected, heard, and validated in our okayness? 😁 Hmmm - I think you should feel sorry that I feel sorry that you feel sorry that I feel sorry and so forth!
No because I'm offended you would say such a thing.
In that case, in the words of Scott above, “Haha, TRIGGERED!" 😁
That's fair. Should I send you my therapy bill?
<mildSnark>
I'm sorry that there isn't a way to close the loop on this and get diverging meta-ness... :-)
</mildSnark>
Without disagreeing with you, I'd like to suggest there's an opportunity in the kind of situation you've described that you might otherwise miss. When these situations come along, instead of defense/dismissal/acquiesce, consider this as an opportunity to explore a deeper understanding. "Wow, that sounds like a terrible thing that happened to you." You could then talk about what it means to them, then come back to reaffirming your position that you think the accused in this case is innocent.
Why go to the extra trouble? I'm not saying you have to. It's just that in my experience the other person is not likely to get past their hangup if you don't address their feelings-based objection. If you first discuss and acknowledge their feelings in a genuine way, you can help them understand that a reasonable person can empathize with their emotions while disagreeing with their conclusion.
This method takes more work, and is not always successful. I agree that for a troll you probably want to stick with the dismissal, "I'm sorry you feel that way", and not waste your time. But it's worth it for a friend.
Yes yes, well said!
Also, of course, the required xkcd on this topic: https://xkcd.com/945/
I think there is a bit more to it about that specific phrase. I think it's a bit of the same euphemism treadmill that keeps causing us to change the word we use for people with intellectual disabilities.
Over time the fact that "I'm sorry you feel that way" gets associated with not really being that sorry means that it starts to actually take on the meaning of "haha, triggered". So in addition to being object level upset there is the feeling that the person saying it is choosing to be delibrately harsh by using that phrase.
I mean it won't make it all better if you instead say, "I understand this must be upsetting to you and I'm sorry I've upset you" but I think it does come off as more genuine now. Of course, give it 10 years and we'll need to switch yet again. Luckily changing the phrases we use isn't that costly.
The phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" offers genuine sentiment while also indicating that the target of said phrase is the one whose emotions are not as in control as the purveyor of said phrase.
This is why it's obnoxious.
Exactly so.
This is a very good point.
I once witnessed two co-workers who disliked each other stuck on the same project. They were nominally co-equal leaders of a team. One co-leader started making unilateral decisions and promises to their supervisees. She also provided a sympathetic ear to the supervisees' complaints about the other leader, and possibly even joined in denigrating him. She believed this was justified by her "better rapport" with the supervisees. When her co-leader found all this out, he told her he felt undermined.
"I can't cater to your insecurities," she replied.
To me, this was even worse than, "I'm sorry you feel that way." It was, "You're a loser for being upset about my behavior." It's extra infuriating for the target, because it's so difficult to defend against it. It sounds so lame to say, "I'm not insecure!"
It's low-key manipulative.
Saying "I'm sad for contradicting you" or "I don't enjoy disagreeing with you" owns the emotion without commenting on the other person's interior state, which often feels intrusive even if the intention is good (and oftentimes it isn't).
Honestly, I don't like the idea of other people commenting on my interior states unless they are really doing the work to describe it accurately. Perhaps that's high maintenance but if the endgame is de-escalation then it really won't work.
I think "I don't enjoy disagreeing with you" works quite well as an alternative.
I might steal that
Thanks! Of course sometimes it is a little bit fun to disagree with people...
I agree, it's a good one. It evinces that you are not simply trying to make that person feel bad on purpose, that you want to stay on their side and appreciate them as a human, but you simply cannot agree with them although you would like to. It's on them if that's enough. Taking a copy for myself.
In English, “I’m sorry” has at least two meanings: one is apologetic (“I’m sorry I lied”) and the other is sympathetic (“I’m sorry your mom died”).
People don’t like “I’m sorry you feel that way” in the context in which an apology is being sought because it sounds like an apology but is really a show of sympathy.
And I think this phrase really gets under people’s skin when the *ambiguity* of the phrase is being used by the speaker as a way to merely mollify the person seeking an apology without either directly defending their behavior nor offering an actual apology.
I think it’s fine not to apologize to someone that is hurt or offended by your words/ behaviors if you don’t think that an apology is warranted. But, in this moment, offering a show of sympathy with words that sound very close to but are not actually an apology probably just isn’t a good idea, no matter how the show of sympathy is intended.
I have a feeling that people wouldn’t mind the phrase “I’m sorry you feel that way” if it was offered in a context in which it was clearly offering sympathy as *not* acting ambiguously as a mollifying half-sympathy, half-apology, as in: “I’m sorry you’re angry with me, but I don’t think that I owe you an apology, and here’s why … “
I also think there are some other good phrases to show sympathy in this moment as well:
- “I’d never want to hurt you, but I don’t think that I did anything wrong.”
- “I hate to see you hurting/ angry, but I don’t think I did anything wrong.”
- “I care about your feelings and would never want to dismiss them, but I don’t think that I owe you an apology, and here’s why …”
You can apologize for the offense and hurt, without admitting that the other person is factually correct or that you agree with them. "I am sorry for offending you." "I apologize for making you feel hurt." If needed and appropriate, you can follow that with "...but I don't agree with you". Use your social judgement.
It's perfectly natural to feel bad and want to apologize about making another person feel bad, even if that person's bad feelings are irrational. Managing those feelings and your relationship with that person comes first. Rational discussion will happen better when tempers have cooled, and an apology for the part that is always worth apologizing about helps that along.
The problem with "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that it denigrates the other person's feelings as unfortunate and wrong. Feelings need not be wrong even if the reasoning that leads to them is wrong. It certainly doesn't help bring the discussion to a calmer tone to express such a position anyway.
So well said
I'm coming to terms with the fact that, no matter what you say, it will probably be misunderstood sometimes. And mostly it will be misunderstood by well-meaning persons, but sometimes it will be weaponized by bad persons. If one allows the words-as-weapon-users to push you back, and try to change your wordings, next they will weaponize either the new form (persistence in attack, which can only be met by defense in depth, but they usually have unlimited self-righteous stamina, so this is only a stopgap measure), or way worse, they'll attack another completely different thing you weren't expecting.
So, my current position on the matter is a lot of "in defense of" traditional forms of communication to be used as a shorthand. Most of the time they are well understood. And when a misalignment / miscommunication happens, switch immediately and profusely to... long form debating. If the person is sincere, they will go long form, and you both will hash it out, and sometimes you reach an agreement or sometimes a crux, but things are clear(er). It they are not willing to go long form, I immediately suspect bad intentions and either cut communications or put up a gigantic semantic stopsign saying "agree to disagree". It's not worth the time.
And I now give up 70% of the way into the hyperstitious cascade for traditional forms... but I certainly fight tooth and nail if I suspect the percentage is lower. We can't give up our words, or "they" will take everything
I learned in psychology class that the keys to successfully responding to someone’s feelings are
validate: show that you think the other person is reasonable,
understanding: show that you understand the other person. Make them feel seen.
Caring: show that you value the other person and care about their problems.
“I’m sorry you feel that way.” Is all “caring” and no validation or understanding.
What should you do if the other person isn’t being reasonable, so you don’t want to validate them? You should at least do a better job of showing understanding. You could also validate something else about them.
“I’m sorry, I know withdrawal can be a torturous experience, and I hate that I am putting you through it by refusing to give you drug money. I’m still not willing to subsidize your addiction, but I really do love you. I’d pay for rehab if you would go.”
“I’m sorry you feel that way” actually fails on “caring” because it is a cliche. If you really cared, you could put some effort and creativity into your response. At a minimum you can rephrase and repeat the other person Eliza-style, which shows understanding.
There cannot be a go-to sentence response to dealing with someone’s emotions because they came to *you* to talk about it rather than going to a fortune cookie.
I think this hits on something other commenters have missed too; it's cookie cutter. You're slapping them with the text of an [insert name here]. Scott bemoans that you can't "figure out a bespoke phrasing", but of course you can -- you've presumably been holding the entire discussion with "bespoke phrasing" up to then, why does he retreat to form letters now?
I had this thought too - why is less effort being put into validating the other person's feelings in the face of a disagreement than is put into stating the disagreement?
Yeah. To stereotype horribly, it feels like a somewhat autistic desire for a button that makes the uncomfortable conversation go away. "Say this magic word, and you don't have to deal with the person's feelings any more."
Carl Rogers was the man. I know that stuff sounds cheesy, but it's practically a Jedi mind trick. When I was really trying to embody it, I found random people suddenly pouring their guts out to me. It takes constant deliberate effort though. The "trick" is *actually* trying to understand the other person's feelings/perspective from their own point of view, and actively asking them to help you clarify and understand.
"I'm Sorry You Feel That Way" puts the blame squarely on the other person whereas "I'm sorry if I've offended you" doesn't, but equally doesn't require you to back down. You're apologizing for the offence caused not for the original opinion.
FWIW they usually come back with "well you have offended me" but that then sounds a bit weak and pathetic - so we're talking about how to manage people now which is only one step off manipulation.
>And if you disagree, I’m sorry you feel that way.
Tangentially related: I disagree to agree that it's possible to agree to disagree. Call it whatever you want, but that's not agreement, it's *something else*.
To me, it's in the same class as "sorry you feel that way" in that it is trying to communicate "I do not want to discuss this" but without actually saying those words.
I like your phrasing but I still disagree. “Agree to disagree” is a mellifluous shorthand for “neither of us is going to convince the other on this point, but our relationship is important enough that it can withstand this disagreement.”
Yes, what your agreeing to is to stop arguing over the underlying disagreement.
I would consider it way better communication to say the latter sentence in full!
Even when used between people who already have an established relationship* , "agree to disagree" still has a sub-current of "lets treat this disagreement as resolved even though we did not resolve it", which feels wrong to me.
It's ok to give up on trying to convince someone, but this is reaching further and asking them to also give up on convincing you. It's saying, "you're not just wrong, you're so wrong that I don't even know what to say anymore, so please stop talking about it, and agree not to bring this up ever again".
Taking this situation where you are asking something out of the other person, and framing it as a mutual "agreement" when it does not cost you anything to agree (you already gave up!), is kind of manipulative.
*: which, by the way, is not where I encounter that phrase the most - I usually see it used online by people who have ran out of counter-arguments and wish to exit a discussion without acknowledging defeat.
Whatever its origin "agree to disagree" is generally taken as a Whitefield and Wesley reference. George Whitefield and John Wesley had a really intense disagreement about the manner in which our choices are compatible with God's sovereignty, but were in every other respect were very much on the same side. The phrase was an important element in Whitefield's successful attempt to restore their relationship without either man changing his mind about the issue that had divided them.
I personally think it's totally right to understand this as a fake apology, it is, 100% of the time. But I guess people do not like it because they think the alternative is (1), so sure they prefer a real apology to a fake one, especially if it comes with a change of mind. But the alternative to a fake apology is never (1), it's (2), active hostility with consequences beyond the current disagreement. A fake apology do not means you are sorry or sad, it means you will stand your position but do not consider the disagreement a problem big enough it jeopardize future relations or other issues unrelated to the current one. So be happy about a fake apology if you think the same, or be ready to at best loose a relation, at worse gain an enemy.
If the alternative could be (1), you will not have a fake apology, you will get a lot of (possibly heated) discussion about details or alternatives or proposition to discuss again later.
Exactly the same with passive aggression, which feels bad if you think the alternative is cordial relation. It's not, it's active aggression.
The misunderstanding is not what is currently happening, the misunderstanding is what kind of alternative the fake apologizer/ passive aggresser was actually contemplating before deciding to still be somewhat nice because what pisses him off is not (yet) a dealbreaker.
In practical terms, saying "I'm sorry you feel that way. Here's a link to a Scott Alexander blog post explaining why what I just said wasn't me being a dick at all," isn't going to make me any more friends than just pissing people off with the original line.
Sharing Scott Alexander blog posts is a way to select for fewer but better <del>Russians</del> friends.
Well if we're sharing links, here's a great one: https://acko.net/blog/the-bouquet-residence/ I bring it up to gently raise the idea that apologising is for big sissy girls in the first place.
I think the aversion to "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that there are loads of situations where it would be an easy way out.
Suppose you get caught cheating at an exam. Or littering. Or whatever. It's a generic human-violates-social-norm situation.
You can either.
1) Admit culpability, and lose social status + take whatever punishment.
2) Deny that you did the bad thing. And take a bigger punishment for lying if the evidence is obvious.
3) Deny that the thing is bad.
4) Give a generic "sorry you feel that way" or similar.
If there was no social penalty for doing 4, everyone would do it all the time.
As it is, 4 has the association of "I'm guilty, but trying not to openly admit culpability while also not telling any bare faced lies". It's used by people in situations where they have to comment on their alleged misdeeds, but they want to convey as little info as possible.
My wife has called me out for using this phrase with my daughter before.
While I agree that it's actually a good phrase that communicates what I want to communicate, thinking that it might not be a bad idea to come up with some alternative phrasing that communicate the same thing but don't trigger an objection that clouds the communication.
Thinking - "I'm not trying to upset you, but (restatement of original position)" or "It was not my intention to make you upset" (if you just want to end the conversation), might be workable alternatives.
Kids need non-judgmental curiosity and validating from us so that later they can listen to and validate their own internal experience for themselves.
Talking about our intentions makes it about us and not them. Almost no one outside of psychopaths go about the world intending to hurt their loved ones, so it's not really responsive to the other person's concerns to say "I didn't mean to."
When there's been a rupture in the interaction, in the relationship, what the child needs to see is how repair happens between two people where there's been a rupture. Repair starts with nonjudgmental curiosity about the other person's experience (which a child usually can't give back for a long time). "I see I said something that hurt you. I'm sorry i did that. Can you help me understand how it was hurtful?"
There is a big gender component to this. Woman are offended by this phrase. As man who feels offended is not offered sympathy, nor should they be.
In our private lives we tolerate lots of neuroticism among the people we love. Okay you don't like when I (do something reasonable), fine I can try to avoid that, not because you are right but because I love you. We should never tolerate it in public. You are offended by a middle of the road view, well that reflects poorly on you.
I do think that “I’m sorry you feel that way” is passive aggressive and in many cases it’s best to actually be aggressive in this situations.
“I hate you now you didn’t give me drug money”
“I can give you no at for rehab, otherwise piss off and don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Or do, I don’t care”.
Digging into it more, "I'm sorry you feel that way" does seem to invite "So how should I feel?" as a response.
If the other person is being unreasonable, you may be able to explain - tactfully! - why they should not be reacting like that.
But too often it does carry the implication of "you are trying to tell me how to feel" and nobody, particularly when they are angry or offended, or sad, wants to be told that. It does feel like an attempt to control or at least manipulate them.
I don't think aggression is helpful, but it does make sense to me to be clear and sincere.
No, I'm not giving you money, you spend it on drugs. Can I help get you into rehab?
Helping you kill yourself with drugs isn't love.
You're a grown person, no one owes you money. If you want help getting clean I'd be up for talking about how I can help you do that but I will never hand you money directly because it makes me complicit in the thing that's harming you.
My favorite version of the forced apology: "I'm sorry you're an asshole."
Goes with "Fuck you very much."
"I'm sorry to offend you" > "I'm sorry if you're offended"
Removes stated uncertainty about whether there's been an offense and states the apology in terms of actions of the offense giver rather than offense taker.
I agree, the closer we can get to a simple "I" plus verb statement, in general, the better.
I'm sorry I offended you.
I'm sorry what I said hurt you.
I'm sorry I hurt you.
We don't have to agree with their assessment in order to make a very simple direct apology. We can't know all the impacts of all our actions. We can't know that we're always right in how we've acted. We screw up just like everyone else, and when we do, we won't always see it. It's a simple statement of fact that our actions led to their hurt in that moment. We don't need to parse responsibility too finely -- maybe it all goes back to their mother or their depression or they're having a bad day, okay. But it doesn't diminish us to just say it plainly that what we did had a part to play in their current bad feelings.
Nicely put and I plan to incorporate this into my own apologetic praxis
In my experience, "I'm sorry you're offended" and "I'm sorry you feel that way" are twists on the standard apology- or regret-usage of "I'm sorry" that, as other commenters have said, put the onus on the recipient of the statement and absolve the speaker of responsibility. My experience is that this is often quite conscious, and indeed hostile. At the least it says, "I feel no regret for what I did" and at worst, as an ironic twist in usage, covertly insults the recipient's feelings. It's particularly effective as a put-down because it dares the recipient to express offense over a small thing and thus put themselves (even more, in the speaker's view) in the wrong. The subculture in which I was raised, the middle-class-and-above white south, is full of such put-downs ("Bless your heart" is the classic). The white south at that time (I was born in 1962) was not steeped in therapy and the effects of therapy. (FWIW, when I was in about the 8th grade, I was part of a group of boys who misbehaved in chapel and had to write apology letters for it. One of the boys included the line "I'm sorry you are offended," and recounted this to me as an absolutely hilarious joke at the faculty's expense. Let me stress his underlying hostility, which was part of his way of being.)
"It seems to me that we [disagree/feel differently] about this" is my general version of that -- less implicitly belittling and likely to spawn social discord while conveying the same information and laying the groundwork for later clarification.
Nice one. Reminds me of your essay on "bingo card arguments" on your old Livejournal blog:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180215090129/http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html
Where people dismiss an argument by simply declaring that it's old and busted and anybody using that argument is clearly behind the times and has automatically lost the discussion -- *without ever actually disproving it* or making any effort to show that the argument isn't valid in this specific case. (And the most annoying way to do that is by sarcastically shouting "BINGO!", hence the phrase.)
I ctrl + F'd "bingo" just to make sure I wouldn't leave a duplicate comment. I endorse this
I am embracing this. I wonder if another phrase deserves rehabilitation along this same line? You're not supposed to say, "to tell you the truth..." because it supposedly implies that you are lying the rest of the time. But I really like the phrase as a shorthand for "I'm about to be forthright instead of circumspect. Prepare yourself." Anybody with me on that?
Mine is, “BUT.” As in “The Nazis were bad, BUT…” or “Babies are cute, BUT…” People on Twitter chortle because why can’t you just stop with “the Nazis are bad and babies are cute”? But the answer is that people use Nazis and babies (and other maximally bad and good things) to shut down debate otherwise! If I’m arguing for better animal treatment and someone says “the Nazis believed in animal welfare,” if I’m going to respond I have to acknowledge the Nazis were bad dudes BUT maintain that doesn’t mean animal welfare is bad!
The Nazis were bad, but we should contemplate why Hitler is the antichrist of our civic religion despite history including plenty of other other mass murders, totalitarian movements, etc. I just saw a show that opened with the scene from the Cultural Revolution, with a physics professor getting beaten to death by a mob of Red Guard kids, who asserted that relativity was a Western imperialist lie because Einstein helped the Americans build the bomb. It was incredible. Imagine if there was even one such pop culture reference or documentary depiction for every 10 about Nazis. (If anyone has any great documentaries about Communism to recommend, let me know!)
Movies that show life in communism: Mr. Jones (2019), The Lives of Others (2006).
The Death of Stalin (2017) is a dark comedy going over the top, but you can clearly see that the actual reality was pretty dark.
There is a Chinese movie 活着, English title "To Live". It's not a documentary, but it depicts the course of a man's life before and during the Communist period, and for a time it was banned since Communist policies don't come off so well in the movie.
It's worth noting that the movie is a tragedy; nothing ever works out well. If you don't want to see a tragedy, look elsewhere.
As has been covered by other comments, the problem is not with the general concept, but the extra implications of the phrases (theoretical framing, blame assignment). Better alternatives:
If you upset someone by saying something, and actually regret it/wish it hadn't happened (while continuing to hold your position):
* "I'm sorry for upsetting/offending you"
* "I'm sorry to have brought up such a sensitive topic/disagreement."
* "I apologize, I didn't intend to offend."
If you accept no blame, but want to express sympathy for the part of the end result where the listener is upset... well, I don't know any way to do it nicely, but certainly there are better ways than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
* "I'm sorry that this upsets you." (Acknowledges the specific issue rather than the handwavey "you feel that way", doesn't attribute/imply blame or re-emphasize whether the listener is the source of the problem.)
* "We disagree with each other, and that's okay. I know than neither of us means to imply anything hurtful."
I think people dislike the phrase because it is so often used in the context of "I said/did something, I still think I'm right, I don't care about you idiots who felt offended, but I'm being forced to 'apologise' so here. Have an apology for your hurt fee-fees. But I don't mean it and I'm going to do the same thing again".
It's the fakeness that is offensive. Better not to apologise at all than that "you are so stupid you got offended over something that is perfectly fine" or even worse, "yeah I *meant* to offend you because your opinions on this are so dumb and backwards".
"I'm sorry you feel that way" in that instance is "I'm sorry I have to deal with the kind of morons who think I'm in the wrong", "I'm sorry for myself, not for any offence I caused". It's not "I'm sorry you are hurt but I'm doing this in good faith".
People don't like it because there's an implied invalidation of their position and no given opportunity for them to save face while continuing to hold it. More palatable alternatives would be variations on, "I understand how/why you would feel that way. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it's just that (justification)." Or, "I respect your feelings on this. I can't get past my ambivalence about tacitly supporting a genocide, though."
There's a finality to "I'm sorry you feel that way" that implies that discussions on the matter are ending with no opportunity for aufheben. Validating their sentiment isn't agreeing with it, it's acknowledging the validity of it, even if you don't entirely agree, and resolution of the dialectic that leaves both parties validated is still on the table.
Nice word that aufheben and all you say here.
I think the reason that people don't like "I'm sorry you feel that way" is that it carries an implicit "and I'm not going to change my behavior". Of the three examples you gave, only the first is really obviously one where it's correct to not change your behavior even if you know it upsets the other person. If you know someone had a family member who died in the war, then it's reasonable to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your family member, I won't do so in the future".
Basically, the key to a good apology is not admitting fault - it's committing to not do the thing again which upset your interlocutor. That's why people hate "I'm sorry you feel that way" so much.
I think this hits on it. Context really matters with this phrase. If something I do or say makes my wife feel upset then it wouldn't work well for me to respond this way. But for a person who I don't really know to let me know how upsetting something I did or said was because they were "triggered" or see things differently is another matter entirely.
I agree with your interpretation. I do think it’s reasonable to NOT stop protesting the war, too, in which case one can only say “I’m sorry for your loss, and I’m sorry my protest is triggering, but I feel compelled to speak up”—ie, sorry you feel that way. Then others would have to decide if my decision not to change my behavior is reasonable.
Yeah, for sure. I think that "I'm sorry you feel that way" *can* be appropriate in the latter two examples Scott gave, just that it isn't obviously so. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not to keep protesting the war your friend's loved one died in, or whether one should keep defending criminal innocence in front of crime victims.
Exactly. The phrase became notorious because people would use it in situations where lots of people believed (rightly or wrongly) that the behavior should obviously be changed, hence a full apology was called for.
"If you know someone had a family member who died in the war, then it's reasonable to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult your family member, I won't do so in the future"."
I don't know about that. My grandfather died in WWII (as a member of the SS). I would feel weird if someone tried to avoid saying that the Nazis were bad, and the Allies were entirely justified to kill as many people as needed to stop them, just to spare my feelings about my grandfather (which I don't actually have).
I am not sure how a conversation about Nazis would come around to anyone's grandfather and sorrow about their deaths more than 3 quarters of a century ago, any more than a similar discussion about the Pacific theater - but to me there's a "just how stunted are you" meter of sorts that would come into play if I heard someone speaking of say, a 15 or 16yo German kid wandering around Normandy as evil, his death required.
I do think there's an element of "it's WRONG you're feeling that way" in this specific phrase, it's not just expressing regret about the impact of one's behaviour without acknowledging its wrongness -- it has an element of judgment in it.
Exactly. "If I'm sorry you feel that way" actually meant "It grieves me that you are sad; I want to express empathy with your sadness" then it would be appropriate to respond to "My mom died last week; I keep thinking about her, and feel really sad right now." with "I'm sorry you feel that way."
But obviously it would be an insane response in that context! It really means "You feel that way, but I think you shouldn't, and I'm upset that you do feel that way."
"They say it’s a fake apology that only gets used to dismiss others’ concerns. ... People sometimes get sad or offended by appropriate/correct/reasonable actions"
In which case it's still a fake apology used to dismiss others' concerns, but you think that a fake apology used to dismiss others' concerns is appropriate.
That doesn't mean it isn't what it is.
I actually want to go further than this specific phrase (which was used on me *today* and I'm still annoyed by it!):
When I share any kind of bad news with people, the younger generations (Millennial and GenZ) tend to tell me how sorry they are for me.
I hate this.
Perhaps it's because I'm a GenX'er, or perhaps it's because I'm a White Male, or perhaps it's because I'm more of an objective rationalist, I'm not looking for anyone's pity, and that's exactly what younger people seem to want to give me. The sense of giving me your pity actually makes me feel even worse.
What I'm looking for is *understanding* and a sense of comradery and perhaps empathy as well.
So, instead of telling me how sorry you are about whatever I'm sharing, please simply say "man, that sucks."
Honestly, that feels 1000% better to me than "I'm so sorry!"
Cheers.
This reaction is understandable! But let’s note that this use of the word ‘sorry’ is correct, and not an apology. ‘“I’m so sorry to hear that [bad thing]” means they’re in a sorry state. They aren’t making an apology, that would make no sense, grammatically or contextually. This is easy to miss when the “to hear” clause is elided, but it is an elision. “I’m sorry I [did bad thing]” is idiomatically an apology, but the word sorry plays the same role: it means they feel diminished/lesser/bad.
Oh I understand that they're not apologizing. It's that they're expressing sympathy instead of empathy.
Definitely sympathy works for some people and not for others. I don't know if the age difference in the interaction is part of the story because it seems to me it takes some confidence to empathize like a peer with someone who is a lot older than you. "That sucks man" or "Ugh, how awful" convey a peer relationship while "I'm sorry for your loss" works across all kinds of social gaps. I'm with you though that I always prefer empathy to sympathy. Though if someone combines them, "Ugh, how awful, I'm sorry you're having to deal with that," I like that too.
Uh, I don't like the idea of Scott having two "I'm sorry you feel that way" jokes, in one essay.
While ISYFTW does effectively deflect blame onto the offended party, many if not most inner workings which lead one to get offended would be deemed a problem by professional therapists (depending of course on which ideological bent of said therapist we're looking at) for the offended to work through so as to stop being offended, e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy.
If the feeling of offense arises from a trauma that the median therapist would deem sufficiently problematic for the offended/patient to reverse via treatment, is it unreasonable for the offender to refuse responsibility? Assuming of course that it was unintentional, as these most often are, barring deliberate weaponization of a trauma as emotional abuse from someone the offended confided in.
It isn't possible to control other's feelings, after all. Trying to do so is almost always worse than merely causing offense, no less. This is why I've remained puzzled by the recent conflation of ISYFTW with emotional abuse.
I'm confused about why you think that 'many if not most inner workings which lead one to get offended would be deemed a problem by professional therapists'
It's likely the extreme majority of humans are able to be offended by some things, which isn't pathological. A given individual could be more sensitive than the rest, and their reactions might be clinically significant, but that's on a case by case basis and Scott's post doesn't seem to be about those specific individuals, but rather emotion-provoking arguments as a whole. Your implication that any heightened emotions due to an argument are pathological is kind of silly imo (no offense intended!); it's completely natural for interpersonal conflict to lead to heightened emotions.
In general I think we do better to stay out of each other's heads and to interact with people based on what they're presenting us without adding our guesses and interpretations. Of course we can't know what a person deals with.
If someone took offense we can say "I'm sorry I offended you." Or we can even just say, "I see what I said doesn't sit well with you." We don't have to say a single other thing. If they choose to elaborate on their upset, we can listen or not. We can listen nonjudgmentally or not. We can listen a little and then choose to stop listening when we're done.
And we can listen from the perspective that other people's feelings are their job to take care of. If they are overtly blaming us for the feelings they're having without conveying any sense that they are the caretakers of their own feelings, then we can wisely put some distance between us and them.
I'm reminded of the line in the film Donnie Darko where a school principal, firing a teacher, says the line "I am sorry... that you have failed". The mid-sentence pause gives you a moment to expect he might be apologizing for the action he is compelled to take, but instead he finishes the sentence by making it a sure-is-a-shame-you-suck statement of blame.
People likely recognize "I'm sorry you feel that way" as a similar expression of "sure is a shame your opinions suck".
I agree, and I don't with this note. I agree because, indeed, there must be a way to express the recognition of others' emotions without lying as if this is something we somehow feel too. I do not because of semantics. Basically, because the meaning of language is socially constructed, when words have been overused to express something besides their real (read dictionary) meaning, this real meaning actually changes (search for the recent change in the use of rawdogging for example). This applies to full phrases too. "Sorry you feel that way" has been so used to invalidate the expression of emotions that it is very difficult to conciliate it as coming from a good place if pronounced. Therefore, instead of fighting an uphill battle against culture and trying to force the rational meaning to the phrase, my take would be to replace it with something like "That must be difficult for you".
My sense is that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be used genuinely, in the way that Scott notes here, and that this is and should be an acceptable usage to express that you're sympathetic but explicitly not apologizing. I think a lot of people use it as a technique to avoid apologizing when they probably should, so that they can always come back with a "I said I'm sorry!" if anyone points out that they didn't apologize.
Strongly disagree with this.
We live in a culture where people feel hurt at all time for stupid reasons. But there is no correct way 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" with someone who believes you've seriously harmed them.
You either have to change your opinion, change their mind, or bite the bullet and come to terms with the fact that your relationship will suffer. Adding in an "I'm sorry you feel that way" does no work towards any of those goals:
- You're admitting you're not going to change your opinion (and you shouldn't).
- You're inflaming them against hearing what you say by offering a bait-and-switch that sounds like an apology but isn't.
- You're not being accepting of their feelings of hurt and anger, in fact you're explicitly saying you wish they were different.
The best solution to this problem if the other person is unreasonable and unreachable is simply to stop talking about the thing in this context with this person. This will cause less damage to your relationship than an "I'm sorry you feel this way" and will give them the time and space they need to deal with the deep wounding hurt of everyone not thinking they're right about everything all the time. Of course if advocating for the thing is more important or morally correct than your relationship...well that sucks but there's no magic words that lets you get everything you want in that situation.
Frankly, this argument feels a little sophist but I still 100% believe it: words are for communicating. If a series of words is universally decried as being disrespectful of people's feeling, you cannot use those words to mean you respect someone's feelings. There are things you should say even if they'll hurt people, but only if your goal is something other than "making people feel better."
I think one thing you're trying to express here is something like "I recognize that you are upset and I care." That doesn't imply the requirement to fix the thing making them upset. If I tell you your paper is rejected from the journal, you'll probably be upset, and I'm sorry you're upset, your pain is real to me and matters, but that doesn't change the fact that your paper had major errors in it and we're not publishing it. Similarly, if I tell you that I'm not interested in a romantic relationship with you, I can recognize that this will feel bad for you, and care about your pain, but still not plan to start dating you to prevent it. Or if I tell you that I think your polyamorous relationship is immoral, bad for your kids, and unlikely to end well for you, that's probably going to upset you. I can acknowledge that, not be seeking to upset you, and yet still not change my beliefs or my expression of them.
Yeah, I agree that's a valid thing to communicate, I just don't think "I'm sorry you feel that way" communicates it. It culturally is read as "it sucks that your childish emotions get in the way of you realizing I'm right."
There's an argument to be made that a cultural reading is a bad idea because cultural forces often ban every expression of an idea as a way of disappearing the idea. So it might be valid to retreat back to literal definitions. But I don't think that helps the "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologist (heh) at all. It literally means (Depending on the definition of sorry we're working with here) either "I am taking responsibility for causing this problem of you feeling bad," or "It's unfortunate that you have these feelings." The latter is annoying and dismissive. The former is more defensible, but still has the structure of an apology without actually being an apology for any of your object-level actions. I can see why people find this insulting even absent any cultural context. I also don't really believe you - why should you feel guilt that you stood by your convictions in a difficult circumstance? If anything you should feel pride.
Scott makes a dismissive statement about some perfect set of bespoke words that fix everything, but are too hard for the average person to come up with. But this is...just communicating in a difficult circumstance? This is something everyone deals with on a daily basis and has to navigate to the best of their limited ability. Why is it taken for granted that the speaker can make an eloquent logical argument for their position but must resort to stock phrasing when trying to empathize with and manage the emotions of others?
Oh right, cuz of the target audience of this blog. Okay, carry on.
> If a series of words is universally decried
I will nitpick and point out that the decryment (decrination?) is not universal, or Scott wouldn't have written this?
Even in the legitimate use cases you mentioned, it's no mystery why the other party would be irritated. You're saying it means "I did nothing wrong, but I'm sad it upset you." But usually they feel like you _did_ do something wrong. They're upset that you deny it.
You're right that the phrase is overhated. It's the right thing to express in the cases you mentioned. But I'm just saying the irritation isn't all due to misunderstanding. It should more often than not be expected to irritate the other party. They likely think you did something wrong, and you're denying it. You're denying it in the nicest way possible, but you're still denying it.
This post has the potential to go viral well beyond the usual SSC/ACT fanclubs. It succinctly and straightforwardly puts a case that is widely intuitively felt already (but also *just* controversial enough), and which (to my knowledge) has not yet been expressed in a forum with a high-enough already-existing profile -- & certainly not expressed with this optimum combination of brevity & detail, sympathy & punchiness.
"I know and I regret your pain.
I wish that compromise
would not cost cost more than we would gain
but we need truth, not lies."
There's definitely a place for expressing this, but if you are looking to de-escalate a situation, "we need truth (me) not lies (you)" is pretty much the worst thing you could say.
I think the single worst thing about the english language is that the same word is used for both apologizing and for expressing sympathy.
Good point
"That sucks" is good for abstract informal sympathy, but doesn't capture this situation well, where your actions are causing the pain and yet you don't believe your actions were wrong or plan to change them. I'm sorry I've hurt you but I'm still not going out with you. I'm sorry this upsets you so much, but I still think your religion is false.
Worse than "jail" and "prison" being synonyms, but "jailer" and "prisoner" antonyms?
It kinda depends on context.
At times, this type of phrasing can be a pseudo-apology.
“You’re a D-bag”
“That’s rude and uncalled for”
“I’m sorry you feel that way”
I mean, that’s not a great time for that phrase.
But in the examples you used, no problem. You can acknowledge respect for someone else’s opinion, without conceding any part of your own. Kinda like “we’re gonna have to agree to disagree”.
It probably advisable to say something more simple, like "I see this is really important to you," or "I hear your feelings." Acknowledge their tender feelings without mentioning your position again, but yeah, you haven't changed what you are going to do. If they ask for money again, repeat that you won't be giving them anything. Try to separate their feeling from the ask by refusing to respond to them in the same sentence.
Look, I'm not saying this is reasonable, its a way to deal with emotionally entitled people.
I get a different impression of "sorry you feel that way". It doesn't seem firm, it seems dismissive. There are ways to communicate firmness while also addressing the other person. I agree with everything you wrote about the third response (addres the other person's feelings, remain firm, remain amicable) but I don't think "I'm sorry you feel that way" does that in practice. I worked in customer service for a little bit, and whenever you heard those words, things weren't going well, and the agent was trying to shut down a discussion that had already gone off the rails. Fair enough if that's the point the discussion is at, but I think there are ways you can execute the sentiments better just by expanding the point.
I.e. "I love you, and I value your wellbeing. I do not want to see you addicted to drugs, and I will not provide any money to help you in that pursuit. [Offer the help you are willing to give]."
If they disagree that you love them, that's on them. But I think it's much better for you to state that outright than let the accusation sit unaddressed, and to offer some kind of olive branch they can come back to when things are less heated. Maybe if they disagree that's when you pull out, "I'm sorry you feel that way"? If so, I guess it's less of a problem. But my experience is that people usually skip the important step of actually addressing the feelings they are sorry the other person has.
This appears to be an example of Scott being way more charitable in assuming trustworthiness than is actually justified. The literal meaning of "I'm sorry you feel that way" is only interesting because (in practice) most people who say it are flat out lying. They are not sorry you feel that way. They don't care one way or another whether you feel that way. Additionally, they aren't even slightly reticent to let you know that. Most of the time this phrase is said, it is an intentional slam. Once you realize that, everything about this controversy becomes clear.
I've never thought about it but it seems like I only hear this phrase in public when a political figure does a non-apology apology.
This feels a lot like the ‘Well aren’t you precious?’ that we hear a lot in the south.
Hi Scott!
Certainly there are better ways to convey sincerity than an overused cliche, no?
"Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction... I feel like you don't love me!"
—"I do love you! I want the best for you and will help you get treatment. I couldn't live with myself if I contributed to your self-destruction."
"My son died in that war."
—"I feel awful for you. I can't imagine the grief you're going through. Can I help in any way? This insane war has to end so other families don't experience this hell."
"I can't believe you're on the perpetrator's side! People like you didn't take my crime seriously, and this is just making me re-live that horror."
—"Sorry, I didn't know you had that experience and certainly didn't intend for you to re-live the trauma. I hate that you had to go through that and live with the bad memories from it. Had I known it was a sensitive topic for you, I wouldn't have brought it up.
"I'm not skeptical of all victims, and especially not you. But as a practicing psychiatrist, I've met far too many people who invent or manipulate victimhood for personal gain. Those are the situations I'm skeptical of."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think one should look for more than just "respecting their feelings" and letting them know you "didn't mean it personally". To me, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a conversation-stopper. It's a tactic to leave the discussion (and not-so-subtly let them know you didn't change your mind).
Instead, I see your examples as opportunities to convey love. (Love—"willing the best for them"... not "gratifying their indulgences".) The other person is sharing a part of the tough stuff in their life with you, and that gives you the chance to bond, become closer to them, make a new friend, and (if needed) potentially help them out.
Kind regards,
David
I bet a lot of us have seen situations where some passive-aggressive asshole uses a seemingly-reasonable position to covertly convey extremely negative sentiments.
Or maybe we've just seen some kids get in a fight because one was looking at another the wrong way, or had a bit of a smile when "apologizing", or something like that.
Words aren't everything, not even to e of voice and facial expression covers it completely. The closest I can get is to say that it's about arbitrarily subtle signals that indicate that the other person is deliberately insincere. And of course it's also infuriating when the other person is obviously sincere, and sincerely thinks you're wrong and overreacting.
Maybe the glorious AI future will find some way to solve this that doesn't involve Kill All Humans.
[Phone auto-swipe chose "gutter" in place of "future".]
I think the problem is that, as you noted, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is NOT an object level apology, and is disingenuous when the speaker pretends that it is.
However, I found it tough to find examples! Most instances I found included an object level apology and are fine. I did find one: https://www.mediaite.com/news/harvard-professor-forced-to-awkwardly-backtrack-after-denigrating-harvard-grads-in-attempted-own-on-conservative-writer/. But overall, I'm not sure how relevant this is. I suspect that public figures are more often taken out of context, with "I'm sorry you feel that way" quoted but the object level apology not. I'll have to pay more attention in the future. Part of the problem is that articles about apologies are easy to find but the full remarks are not. Google provides too many second hand accounts and not enough sources.
"Therapy culture" and politics / social / culture war stuff overlap to a tremendous degree. I think Scott's examples are about mostly the apolitical cases, in which it is generally allowed to have disagreements of blame or fault. When I look up the links I see things like using slurs, which are generally judged to be always wrong.
Interpersonal relationships got politicised by feminism, with the idea that if a man ever violates a woman's feelings, it is automatically wrong because it is an exercise in power. However, later on this got de-gendered, and one often sees women talking with women the same way: if you violated my feelings, you are objectively wrong.
The idea of gaslighting really ties it together. Originally it was a psychological concept, then it was politicised in the way that it is something men do to women as an exercise of power and broadened into any hint at questioning the validity or accuracy of someone's feelings, and then it got de-gendered to a large extent.
I wish more people would show interest in Non-Violent Communication (though it is a little unfortunately named, and that turns people off, it should be non-accusatory communication). The central idea IMHO is severing the concept of validity and accuracy of feelings
1) "A" does something objectively not necessarily wrong, the act stays unjudged
2) "B" feels bad about it anyway
3) these feelings are valid, even when they are not accurate, because it is not the job of feelings to be accurate (we use thoughts for accuracy)
4) "B" should communicate it in the way of "what you did was not necessarily bad but I feel bad about it, the problem might be me, I might just be oversensitive to this, still, please stop doing this"
5) "A" should accept this or stop interacting, and if they don't then they really objectively wrong
This is roughly the same concept as how one deals with disability, illness etc. I talk about spiders and the other person tells me they are phobic to spiders. I was not in the wrong for talking about spiders because I really did not know it, still at that point I should stop.
But, I argue here, those things are decoupling, and conservativism is increasingly a therapy culture https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/therapeutic-nationalism-and-other
I end up saying a variant of “I can see how what I said/did would seem to you/affect you. I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to/want to make you feel that way”.
No one has tried to get me to admit I was actually wrong afterwards. Taking responsibility for their feelings seems enough. Feels silly though because I really am only sorry for the effect it had on them but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it again. Sometimes the right choice is painful and not always to just yourself.
The set of people I trust to be an adult is small.
Hypothesis: it is seen as an attempt to take credit without delivering. Like, collecting Good Person Points for apologizing but not really apologizing. This is why people in this thread said they would prefer an "I disagree", at least you are not trying to take credit.
Another interpretation: "I'm sorry you feel that way" as prelude to murder. (Subtext: because our worldviews are apparently so irreconcilable that we cannot continue to exist in the same world. Cue up a moment of stillness, and then both people drawing weapons and attacking.)
I now want a montage of martial arts film duels where every tentpole fight is preceded by one of the actors' final lines being overdubbed with "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Or gunfights in Westerns.
The crossover version where the terminal exchange is "I'm sorry you brought your fists to a gunfight".
Ha! :-)
Raiders of the Lost Ark
In these situations saying I'm sorry you feel that way is honest. I really do feel bad you got hurt. But I had my reasons for the choices I made and I stand by them. That doesn't mean I don't care about your emotional well being. But its the only thing I care about!
Part of the problem is that we use "I'm sorry" for both apology and sympathy. Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way." _looks like_ an apology, so it gets interpreted as a twisted sort of apology that's trying to deflect blame. Also, sometimes people really do use it in a dismissive way, like "sucks to suck.".
When "I'm sorry" is not an apology, but just empathizing, it can be replaced by "it sucks":
"I'm sorry your house burned down." -> "It sucks that your house burned down."
This has the benefit that it can't be mistaken for an apology or acceptance of responsibility . This clarifies the original sentence from Scott as well as those in the comments:
"It sucks that you feel that way."
"It sucks that what I said left you feeling this way."
"It sucks that my position on this issue offends you."
"It sucks that our disagreement made you feel I don't care about you."
"It sucks that our conversation about our pets brought up such painful memories for you."
This is good and can be replaced by lots of adjacent ones like "It's awful that" or "I hate that" or "How terrible that..." My mom used to say, "It rots my socks that..." Maybe we need some more colorful ones like that.
All those kinds of phrases convey genuine emotion and the genuineness of the emotion conveys caring. "I'm sorry that you...." ends up sounding more like blame or an assessment of the other person, while these phrases express our own feelings, which is really much more our job.
If you think "I'm sorry you feel that way" is insufficiently sincere or groveling or whatever - and can I just make a plea for less talking overall? Least said, soonest mended? - I give you the greatest non-apology I ever witnessed:
I was a clueless substitute teacher in, I believe, a 4th grade class. There was a simmering dispute between two boys, to which I was alerted by another teacher as I came in at midday. It seemed to me the school - [since discipline wasn't allowed, something called ARDs being how they sublimated that sort of thing] - didn't handle stuff like that well, indeed usually involving the counselor and taking just the sort of "therapy" approach to disciplinary matters (or matters that should have been left to DIY-adjudicate themselves, rather than having attention drawn to them and their parties). Thus elevating bad behavior and narcissism in a way, to something that adults are interested in ... Not that this case didn't have justice on one side or the other, but I couldn't have known about that.
If you think I should have known better what to do in such a situation - I'm sorry you feel that way.
Anyway, I didn't actually have anything to do with it; I never took any initiative about such things when I subbed. This one boy, in that not atypical way that Hollywood will never grasp despite its love of the "bullying" scene in kids' movies, was not physically intimidating at all, quite the reverse - but he used his sharper wits to wound this other boy, who must have been very sensitive. I didn't really know them. Anyway, their bickering interaction soon came to a head. I sought that other teacher in the "pod" (they were all about teams then), and she instructed each boy to write the other a note of apology.
I don't recall what the boy who had been driven to tears wrote. But the other boy's offering was a master class in the devastating non-apology:
"I'm sorry for making you wish you were never born."
> "I'm sorry for making you wish you were never born."
Wow.
I think it has more to do with insincere apologies. Which I encounter a fair bit. I'm guilty of them too. I'm Canadian; there's the "Always saying sorry" stereotype.
But the internal attitude of a Canadian who says that is often like the Japanese. They apologize, but it's in Japanese. It's often translated to English as "I'm sorry", though it's apparently more accurate to translate it as "You shouldn't have to have gone to that trouble for me."
Taking offense to my saying or doing something is a thing that occurs in your head, not mine. You can explain why you take offense to it; it's possible that I don't have all the facts.
An actual apology is a sincere action that you take when you realize and agree that you are in the wrong. It's usually due to ignorance. If you're not actually sorry for your action, then it's just words, and we already have far too many "just words" in the world.
A forced apology is an exercise in power. I have the ability to punish you for your action; you say some words in the hope that you accept my humiliation instead of otherwise punishing you. It certainly doesn't change your attitude towards me for the better. It causes resentment, and circumscribes your future actions when I am aware of them.
Until I get the power. Then most likely you should look out for my revenge.
“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, ie ‘I’m sorry you feel that way.’”
It seems like if that is what you mean, then saying, “I respect your feelings, I don’t mean this personally, and I hope we can stay on good terms,” is much clearer than “I’m sorry you feel that way.” I don’t think the phrase necessarily communicates that at all.
Nice one!
To channel Scott's explanations of the offensiveness of blackface, or of "Japs", the phrase was used too many times by politicians and corporate PR people as a way of sounding like you're apologising when you're really not, it then got coded as "that thing said by politicians and corporate PR people as a way of sounding like they're apologising when they're really not", and now we're stuck with needing a new phrase. Because that's how our crazy society works.
There's a distinction to make. I doubt people get hung up on this term in interpersonal interactions. It's less the case that they hate it, and more-so that they want to shame a public figure. This is usually for alleged verbal infraction.
If the figure denies wrongdoing (assuming they reasonably can) and invokes this phrase, the mob will say they should grovel and be punished, though public opinion may be unchanged and supporters won't necessarily take flight. If the figure apologizes, the mob will not then say "thanks, don't worry about it". They'll tell you it sounds like you don't really mean it. You should have groveled harder. They'll scrutinize each word and suggest you only say such and such thing to get out of punishment (but no one gets out of punishment, so it's a ridiculous assertion). And occasionally of course you get the cases where said public figure gets a gold star sticker from the mob because they groveled for something inconsequential and were already well-liked anyway.
The mob wants to circle you, spit and throw stones, and "non-apology" is just a pretext. Whether apology is worth it depends.
Perhaps to avoid the ambiguity inherent in “sorry”, one should say “My condolences that you feel that way”. (This is a joke!)
I think a large part of the problem is just that "I'm sorry" is a terrible phrase that is unfortunately stuck in a central position in the English language. It's terrible because not only does it have two very common, definitely distinct meanings, but they're all close enough to each other that context often won't serve to tell them apart. I'm sorry can mean:
1. I apologize (taking responsibility): "I'm sorry I punched you in the face."
2. I sympathize (no responsibility): "I'm sorry to hear you got punched in the face."
As described in the essay, "I'm sorry that you feel that way" is definitely an expression of sympathy, not an apology. The problem isn't that expressing sympathy here is bad or unreasonable, the problem is the phrasing makes it sound like an apology, just an especially poor or insincere one. It's often delivered in a situation where the affected party is wanting or expecting an apology, so the effect on the recipient is as if the speaker were sort of teasing or hinting towards an apology, then snatching away the offer to take responsibility at the last second. Of course, one may think the recipient is unreasonable for hearing it that way, but I think a large part of the effect is subconscious: their brain's anticipation-prediction machinery is primed to hear an apology, and here's the words coming sooo close (strengthening the anticipation-prediction) before being snatched away at the last second.
My best solution--since I can't wave my hand and reform the English language to remove this issue--is to try to phrase the same sentiment in a way that doesn't sound like an apology at all. "I sympathize, but I can't help you" comes to mind, though there are probably better ways, and it can be tailored to the situation.
Huh. I mean, I agree that there are times that you might want to express "I'm going to keep doing this, but I genuinely think it's regretful that you are upset by it." But as you say:
>Or at least it would have, if Internet randos hadn’t installed a knee-jerk “Oh, you literally said the words, that proves you’re a bad person and I win this discussion!” reaction into anyone who hears it.
But the internet randos have done that, so we need to walk around the next turn of the euphemism treadmill.
Actually, to be fair, I don't think this was the fault of the internet randos, more the fault of the people who started using "I'm sorry you feel that way" in the Jimmy Carr sense that a commenter put up top: the fake apology. But either way, it doesn't really matter why it happened, we just need a new phrase for this situation. (Which will no doubt be abused and need to be replaced again in a few years.)
You might analogize interpersonal conflicts with an actual war. In this case, an apology is like the flying of a white flag in the name of negotiating terms. You are willing to concede some of the other side's points in the name of reconciliation and the throwing down of arms. In this analogy, "I'm sorry you feel that way" comes across as perfidy, the flying of a white flag without actually throwing down arms or being willing to concede anything to the other side.
Apologies play an important and borderline sacred role in interpersonal communication. Especially rancorous conflicts often end with mutual apologies if they end positively at all. The reason that "I'm sorry you feel that way" is so poorly received is because of the ambiguous nature of the phrase "I'm sorry", which is not really an apology in this case. When it is used in this context it can easily be seen as an attempt to hoodwink the other person into believing that they received an apology.
My dad told me that using the word "Sorry" meant that you were apologizing for something you did wrong/were to blame and not to use it when you thought your actions were fine/correct/just/etc. So I don't like to use that phrase but I haven't found an alternative that I like. "That's unfortunate" is a bit trite but I use it sometimes. If it's someone I want to have a long relationship with, I'll try and have a conversation about the situation.
I don't think this is therapy culture I think it's just basic politeness.
In general, an expression of regret about someone's feeling implies that those feelings are unreasonable or inappropriate.
The polite thing to do is to express regret at the cause of those feelings.
Consider:
"I'm sorry your father died"
Vs
"I'm sorry that you feel sad that your father died"
I don't think this changes if the person's feelings are the result of an action you consider reasonable:
"I'm so sorry about your father, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children."
Vs.
"I'm so sorry that you feel that way about your father dying, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children."
So I think there is something inherently dismissive about "I'm sorry you feel that way".
But maybe this is a subtle difference between British and US English?
Let's face it, if we (I) are/am in a situtation where a family member is trying to beg drug money off me, our interactions are going to be way deeper (and more heated and aggressive) than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Depending on how close they are, how pathetic their situation is, and how manipulative they are being, my reaction to "I feel like you don't love me" when I refuse to pay their drug money will be:
(1) "Effin' right I don't, not any more, not after all the lies and deceit and manipulation you've used, not after you've effed up your own life, the lives of those around you, and now you're trying to eff up *my* life by bleeding me dry of my hard-earned money to go right into the pocket of your drug dealer. Maybe this time will be the overdose that kills you, and right now I'm nearly at the point of being willing to pay for that in order to get you out of our lives once and for all"
(2) "It's precisely because I *do* love you that I'm not going to hand over money to you, just for you to continue to destroy your life and maybe even end up killing yourself. I don't want that on my conscience, and I want you to have a better life than reducing yourself to this, to doing anything for the next fix"
What is the equivalent to "I'm so sorry about your father, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children" in a case where the only bad thing that has happened is that the person is offended?
Just say "I'm sorry, can we talk about something else?" You don't need to be truthful about the fact that you feel bad that they're stupid and angry. And frankly, why are you feeling sorry for them in the first place?
I think "I'm sorry you feel that way" is fine in that case, because a dismissive response seems appropriate.
It seemed a reasonable response in the drug addict example, for instance. (I find it difficult to imagine anyone objecting to it's use there, allowing for a few assumptions about the context.)
But in the other 2 examples a bad thing had definitely happened (someone had died and someone else had been the victim of a traumatic crime). It seemed pretty reasonable for the individuals in question to be upset (albeit those feelings are being somewhat misdirected). A dismissive response feels unkind/rude.
"Did what I just say offend you?"
"I'm sorry I offended you."
Optional additional steps would be to ask questions about why and express interest in their reasons and their feelings, while not feeling that you have to apologize further OR defend.
Just be curious. "Oh I think I get it now. When I said X, that meant to you that... Do I have that right?" "I think I get what you're saying now."
If they're like "And you owe me an apology!" You can repeat "I'm sorry I offended you."
And if they're like, "No not for offending me, for holding that offensive position!" Then you can say any number of things. "I think this is an issue that smart/principled people can disagree about. It sounds like we're having that kind of disagreement."
"I'm sorry I offended you" is not "I was unkind/wrong/offensive in what I said and that's why you are offended." It's "You and I are having a sincere conversation about things that matter to us and in that process I said something that caused you pain. Your pain is not my responsibility to take care of, but I also feel bad that my words caused you pain."
It seems to me our integrity is not diminished by this at all. And of course there's always the possibility that we were not so skillful or thoughtful about how we spoke and that there is a piece of the offense which truly belongs to our actions but we can't see it in that moment. And so apologizing there allows for our humility in that situation.
> "I'm so sorry about your father, but I couldn't get everyone out before the building collapsed, and I had to prioritise rescuing the children."
This is a case where (1) your actions are reasonable; and (2) you're not going to repair the relationship regardless of that.
You can't expect words to accomplish goals that can't be accomplished. You don't really need a phrase that lets you feel like you tried.
Meh. People (me-ple) are annoyed by such phrases as a 3rd person observer when they seem to be insincere responses or come from people who seem insincere. It's the same as hearing someone talk with an overt "empathy voice" that seems insincere. Also, when it comes to a response to someone close to you, as in the examples give, you can spend an extra few breaths being more specific in order to avoid using a canned expression that could be aggravating...
I think there's a lot of good analysis of the phrase both in the post and in some of the comments, but I think it might be overanalyzing. It may not be any more complicated than the fact that some folks use the phrase in a glib manner (like the end of the post); therefore, it's got the reputation of insincerity, which can code anyone who uses it a lot as a bad faith actor. Kinda of reminds me of companies that say things like "Waxo Haxo corp cares about your health/the environment/diversity/whatever" Those kind of statements tend to come across as disingenuous due to the many times they've been said hypocritically, so I automatically start to gain a mistrustful perception of Waxo Haxo if they use that kind of language frequently
If you know that most people think “I’m sorry you feel that way” is insulting, and your intent in communicating with a random person isn’t to insult but to sympathize, why on earth would you say it? You’re just undermining your own intent.
Vernacular phrases carry meaning that often has little to do with what the individual words within them mean. For better or worse, it appears this is true of “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
The only way you can say this phrase and expect a random person to understand it as honest sympathy is if you preamble it with your own uncommon definition (which would be ridiculous).
"Lets just agree to disagree" is much better than "I'm sorry you feel that way" since in latter case, the person knows that you are not really genuinely sorry.
I think its telling that your examples are all cherry picked situations where the other person is obviously 100% in the wrong. I find those situations are fairly rare in real interactions, how does this strategy work out when its not so clear cut?
I find that people who use the phrase in the way that you endorse are generally just unwilling to reflect on their responsibility in the conflict and deploy that phrase to give themselves cover for their lack of concern. It isnt polite or compassionate, Its an attempt to dodge the consequences of disregarding the concerns of the other party, both the interpersonal consequences and any feelings of guilt that your own callousness might otherwise produce.
I think if you choose situations where its clearly 100% the other person's issue, you're missing the reason the phrase is so odious, and the reason it is used at all. The purpose of the phrase is to reframe a situation where the responsibility for the dispute is unclear as being the sole responsibility of only one of the people involved.
Greatest Sorry Ever. https://youtu.be/oNG1DkS_f4g?si=ESoOJ94U4MSyaUOa&t=397
The phrase "I'm sorry" seems to have lost its meaning as "I feel bad that" or "It's unfortunate" in our modern apologist culture. So just say "It's too bad you feel that way" so as not to sound like you are falsely expressing remorse.
It can feel like an evasion based on the context that it is used. If we are talking about my mother being sick and you say "I'm sorry your mother is sick," I will rightly interpret that as you are expressing sorrow about my mother's circumstances.
On the other hand, if we are talking about how it was disgusting that you pooped in my oven and you say "I'm sorry you feel that way," then you are expressing sorrow, but about the wrong thing! The problem isn't my disgust, the problem is your pooping habits!
If you had expressed sorrow about the right thing, it would have been an apology. Instead, you are not only saying that pooping in my oven was objectively a good call but also that my feelings about it are wrong and that you wish I felt differently.
So, you can say "I'm sorry that you feel that way," and it isn't the meanest thing you could do when you reach a fundamental impasse. It's just crazy to expect it to go over well with the recipient.
"I understand how you feel, and I can see why you would feel that way, but I disagree." Or, "I respect your opinion, but I disagree." Or, more gently, "I happen to feel differently."
These all seem really good to me.
I had no idea this was a thing among "internet randos". My only context for opposition to the phrase is parents opposing kids using it as a way of "saying sorry" without admitting that they're in the wrong (when they actually are).
The criticism of the phrase made sense originally because saying, "I'm sorry if I offended you," displaces responsibility when someone needs to genuinely apologize.
Example: I say something that 95% of people agree is wildly offense. I apologize by saying, "To anyone I've offended." That implies a narrower slice and ignores that anyone functional should be offended by that statement.
But in the examples you give, the issue is contestible, or if anything, the person doing the apologizing is saying sorry for something 95% of people would not have to apologize for.
It may just relate that if someone is so deeply offended by something that shouldn't offend a regular person, it's better to either just go fully in on the lie apology, "I'm sorry for what I've done, it was wrong for these reasons," or they should not apologize, explain their perspective, and if it's rejected, accept that.
The half-way, "I'm sorry you feel offended," satisfies nobody in the drug example or the war example you've given. While you may be correct on the merits--a rational person should accept a difference of agreement, or even understand you may be right--the very act of having to apologize for a true or at least contestable statement shows you're probably not dealing with the most rational actor in that situation, so the attempt to use rationality for a framework for apologies is going to fail.
Language issue.
I'm sorry doesn't mean "I feel sorrow re. the current situation" even thought it probably should rather:
"I'm sorry" is what clippy suggests as the stock beginning to an apology. Too late to fix it now, we just gotta get a new phrase.
I just say "nonetheless" and get the stink eye.
eh. people often use "im sorry you feel that way" to mean "well, i dont care.". so if you say that, and people feel like you're saying you don't care, that makes sense.
If you just add ", I don't want you to feel that way, because I care about you" or something, people don't hate that. so i suggest doing that.
you can even add "I can see how x would make you feel that way". maybe a small number of weird people online would talk about how this is still gaslighting but... mostly i dont think anyone would make this claim...
I guess I'm not very good at accepting the idea that respecting someone's feelings is valuable in many cases. Especially one like the example used. I can respect your arguments or your analysis or your need. But not your feelings.
As I used to say to my kids when they were moppy and unhappy about some trivial thing, "I'd feel sorry for you but you are so busy doing that yourself that there is no room for me in there. Let me know when you are done and we'll talk."
I do think it would be nice to have a better socially accepted phrase for "I disagree. I think you are wrong, but I value you as a person and wish you pleasant outcomes in your life. I'm not interested in continuing to debate this with you."
The problem is, when you cut it off on the note of “I disagree = will continue to oppose you on this point of conflict”, if they identify with that topic, “Value you as a person” falls flat, and if they believe their life outcomes hinge on it, “wish you pleasant outcomes” falls flat.
It seems bizarre to me that people think that someone cannot simultaneously disagree with them and value them/wish them well. Do they feel compelled to agree with everyone they meet in order to not devalue/dehumanize them?
Of course you can wish them well, in your head. But if the disagreement is serious, over things that are too important to them, you can’t expect them to trust your or take your word for it.
Ah, well, if their life outcomes depend on it, and you are aware of that, you need a different phrase entirely!
Something more along the lines of, "You are an honorable opponent, and I wish for you a speedy and clean death upon the battlefield."
If the disagreement is over a matter of fact, and you believe that they are factually incorrect, it may also make sense to say something along the lines of, "I look forward to gathering the further evidence which we both agree would resolve this dispute one way or the other. We have different predictions about the result, but I acknowledge the logical coherence of your premises. If the evidence does turn out the way you expect it to, instead of how I expect it to, then I will acknowledge you are correct."
If the disagreement comes down to differences in fundamental values rather than factual states of the universe, then it makes more sense to say that explicitly. For example, "You believe in X, where X is a specific unverifiable notion about metaphysical attributes of supernatural phenomena. Since we have established that there is no observable factual evidence which could resolve the difference between our hypotheses, we must agree to disagree on this point."
Or perhaps:
"You value X, Y, and Z. For you these are fundamental values which your conditional values build upon. My fundamental value set is W, Y, and Z. Thus, we differ on our personal valuations of X and W. This means that certain preference orderings over states of the universe will not be equal for us, and downstream effects of that mean we cannot agree on political policy Q. Having established that we cannot resolve this with further factual evidence, we should instead seek to find a political compromise which is as fairly balanced and win-win as possible under the circumstances, given each of our respective power bases."
"Maybe one of your family members makes an unreasonable demand (“Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction”), you say no, and they say they feel like you don’t love them."
Me: Well I don't love this behaviour, seems kind of manipulative. Part of how I show love for my family is to do things that help them have better lives, and drug money will not do that for you. I accept that you may be pissed off at me about this.
"Maybe you speak out against a genocidal aggressive war. Someone complains that their family member died fighting in that war. They accuse you of implicitly dismissing their relative’s sacrifice and calling them a bad person."
That was not my intention. I don't know your relative, but I do know their death was bad too. If I could snap my fingers and make the war not have happened, their sacrifice be unnecessary, and have your relative be alive, I definitely would.
"Maybe you argue that a suspect is innocent of a crime, and some unrelated crime victim says it triggers them when people question victims or advocate for the accused. They say that now they are re-traumatized."
I'm sorry, I didn't know your history and I didn't mean to re-traumatize you. I do think it's important we not put innocent people in jail, but it's also important to recognize that crime has really bad effects, such as what's happening to you right now.
"Is there some incredibly eloquent and original answer that manages to convey joint firmness and compassion without using the dreaded “I’m sorry you feel that way” phrase? Maybe, but it’s not realistic to expect the average person to figure out a bespoke phrasing in the heat of the moment."
You might classify the above as "coming up with bespoke phrasing in the heat of the moment", and unrealistic to do. I'm not great at thinking on my feet, yet in these situations I seem able to manage something better than "I'm sorry you feel that way".
A taken-aback expression, and a long pause to think of how to say what you want to say without giving further unintended offense, seems acceptable in these cases, and likely to de-escalate things. If the pause lasts long enough, "I didn't mean to cause offense/your negative emotional response, and wish I hadn't" will be communicated indirectly.
I don't think I'm guilty of therapy culture, but I react badly to that phrase and I think it's just because it's a fake apology. "Sorry you feel that way" sounds like "How you feel about my actions is your problem, not mine". Imagine your neighbour responding like that after you asked them to stop playing loud music late at night because it's preventing you from sleeping.
Related is the sneaky use of passive voice in statements like "Mistakes were made and lessons were learned". Yeah, but what and by whom?
I only recall seeing this phrase in the context of another party demanding apologies (albeit sometimes implicitly).
Something I picked up from (I think) HPMOR is the distinction between apology-as-regret and apology-as-submission. "Sorry" can mean any one of "I regret my actions", "I sympathize with your pain", or "I submit to you." Someone demanding an apology is almost invariably after that last one -- it's the only one you can actually get by demand. Any alternative phrasing for "I'm sorry you feel that way" that did not include implied submission would still be unacceptable to them.
It probably *should* mean something like "I stand by my actions, but wish you weren't hurt by them."...but the sort of person who can accept that, is not the sort of person likely to angle for apologies in the first place, so I wouldn't expect to see it used that way often.
I grew up in Toronto, and at the age of eleven was allowed to go downtown on the subway by myself. Being an eleven year old boy I made a game of seeing if I could keep steady on my feet as the train started and stopped without hanging on to any of the handholds which were provided for the purpose. I managed this around ninety percent of the time, but sometimes I lost my footing and on a few occasions I bumped into some innocent seated adult. Every time I remember this happening, the adult said "sorry." I was a little perplexed about this at the time. I knew it was my fault, and I felt for certain that the person I bumped into must have also known it was my fault - and yet he said "sorry."
The result of this is that I have developed the habit of saying "sorry" whenever someone bumps into me, even if I am fairly certain that it was the other person who was at fault - and I think this is a good habit. The other person probably knows he was at fault, and if he doesn't know or if he wasn't really at fault then the politeness of the sorry can't really go wrong. I think that this possibly also works when I have been the occasion of someone having hurt feelings when I do not think I have wronged him. Sometimes a "sorry" without qualifications is fitting even when I am still convinced that I acted or spoke properly.
having observed young children (esp. my own), they will *very often* fail to notice when they are 100% at fault, and genuinely believe that the other person is responsible for the bad outcomes, so *both* people saying "sorry" in this case helps smooth ruffled feathers, especially if both participants think the other one is at fault.
This might just be a Canadian thing. Canadians appear to be known for it.
https://satwcomic.com/mindfulness
"I'm sorry you feel that way" - I fail to acknowledge the validity of your feelings, and instead offer a non-apology along the lines of kindergarten "I'm sorry that you're a poopy-head" when the teacher demands that you apologize.
"I'm sorry that I made you upset" acknowledges your part in making them upset, and it validates their feelings (which they are ACTUALLY feeling), and apologizes for YOUR part in it (an apology) rather for THEIR part in it (an insult).
Yes, but sometimes it is important to tell the truth even when you know it will offend someone. There has to be a way of telling people that voting for Sauron is bad without worrying overmuch about how offensive this is to Sauron voters.
Are you really sorry that you made them upset by telling them that Sauron voting was bad, or is it still true that you are really sorry that they were offended by your saying that Sauron voting is bad?
"I'm sorry that I made you upset, but the Earth is demonstrably an oblong spheroid".
acknowledging that your words caused hurt doesn't imply that you take them back.
I think it's pretty much always good to tell the truth, though one doesn't always have to express one's opinions about everything. Do you think the Sauron voter will be persuaded because you say their candidate is bad? It seems to me in addition to being truthful we also need to be clear about our intentions in speaking up.
I think it would be good in general if people worried less about offending other people but then were more generous with apologies when they do.
We've become precious in our perfectionism -- mad when we've offended someone because dammit we've been working so hard to be beyond reproach.
Let's just accept that people get offended and not be surprised when they do. It doesn't mean be callous or in people's faces with our opinions. But if we've been asked our opinion and expressed it plainly without ill will, and the person who asked is offended, let them be so without ourselves getting offended. Let other people have their uncomfotable feelings without it needing to implicate us in any way.
You're stacking the deck by only including examples where the person saying "I'm sorry you feel that way is 100% right". If you feel like it's a fine phrase when said by someone who thinks you're an asshole for donating to AI safety or a protestor who just blocked a road for a cause you disagree with I think you would expect them to justify their position instead of cutting off the conversation.
There are many ways to say it differently, with actual empathy, without a canned blocker like this. Johnny Cash's version is one of them: https://youtu.be/MOJAhKLEFTA?si=OusMlnWoQBxrxeSF
Some off-hand examples:
- I understand that your addiction forces you to look for every possible way to look for more drugs. It sucks, and I wish there was an easy solution. And maybe there is, but giving you all my money is not one of them.
- Wars are terrible, aren't they? I am so sorry your relative died in one, defending the ideas she believed in. This is a tragedy, one that unfolds in wars so many times, and keeps happening in this war again and again. Maybe we can work together to have less of that in the future.
- This is a terrible crime, so sorry you are a victim of one. I think we are both for making sure that real perpetrators do not get away with it.
> I see three classes of potential response:
I suggest "ok" as a 4th class
Aha, here it is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BackhandedApology
The relevant part:
> A subtler variation of this trope is for Alice to apologise by saying something like "I'm sorry you feel that way, Bob." This is a relative of False Reassurance and an even closer relative of the Stealth Insult, since Bob has to pay attention to the wording to notice that she's putting the blame on him for being offended rather than on herself for causing offense.
I'm pretty autistic and I feel like this is one of the times when the high levels of autism in our community makes us unable to understand normal interactions. Because:
>Is there some incredibly eloquent and original answer that manages to convey joint firmness and compassion without using the dreaded “I’m sorry you feel that way” phrase?
No, there is not *A* answer that would work best in all of those situations. Because human interactions can't *actually* be systematized into a simple flowchart where each situation has 2-5 standardized options with predictable formats and outcomes.
The answer is that you have to *actually have a conversation* in each of those cases, which will be highly contingent on the context of teh situation and your relationship to the person, and you'll need to think hard about where everyone's emotions are coming from, what you actually believe, and what you actually want to convey.
-'I understand why you feel like no one loves you when you desperately need drugs and no one will help you buy them. I just want to make it clear that I do love you very much and I'm so desperately afraid of losing you, and I think helping you get more drugs is a step down that path. I'm happy to help you in all kinds of ways that lead somewhere better, like getting treatment or staying with me while you detox or etc. I understand if you can't accept that kind of help right now and I just want you to know it is always available no matter what and you can always come to me.'
-'I'm very sorry for your loss, I can't imagine losing someone like that. I do think the war was bad, but of course that doesn't mean all the people fighting in it were bad or had bad intentions, these things sweep up and mangle lives on every side of the conflict and individual soldiers have little say about it. My feelings about the high-level character of the conflict doesn't take anything away from your family member's bravery and sacrifice.'
-'I'm sorry that what I said was triggering for you, I didn't know you'd had that experienced and I would have spoken more carefully if I had. I do think that what I have to say on this matter is important and correct, but I know that a lot of people say similar things when their real intentions are bad, and how those attitudes can really hurt victims very badly, and I understand why you'd have a strong reaction because of that. I will try to be more sensitive in how I phrase things when we talk about this topic.'
In every case, if you care about the other person's pain enough to want to ease it and not cause more, you have to actually have the nuanced conversation about that specific issue. There's no system or rule or magic phrase that works in every case.
Now, you might respond with 'but what about the least convenient world where that person doesn't accept your careful nuanced conversation and still says you're bad anyway.'
The answer to that is, yes, the world *is* often inconvenient, that could totally happen and it will be annoying. But you and anyone else watching will at least know that you made your best effort, and you'll have contributed to a world with a norm of having real nuanced contingent conversations about important things instead of just repeating short stock phrases.
Or, you might respond 'but I actually don't care about this person's feelings enough to do all that hard work every time they get offended, especially if there's no guarantee it will make them accept me and call me a good person at the end. I do want a short stock phrase I can use in these situations so I can move on quickly.'
In which case... yeah, that's what everyone already *thought* you were thinking and doing when you say 'sorry you feel that way', and they think you're an asshole for it.
You can accept their entirely correct judgement, or you can do something else instead.
This is one of my favorite comments, thank you for this.
I think that progress on this topic requires a sense of intention and subtext.
Speech is an action intended - consciously or not - to cause an effect. And that intention - more than the words - is often instrumental.
The phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a phrase that can be used with wildly differing intentions and underlying meanings.
Sometimes, it means "We do not share opinions, but I see that you are experiencing real suffering as a result of mine. I am unable to change my opinion here and stay honest to my principles and boundaries, but I have real remorse that you are experiencing the suffering, and wish that it were not so."
Often, it means "oh god there you go again with your fEeLiNgS. You're wrong, I'm right, not my problem and fuck you for trying to make it so."
Other times, it means something in between.
I think Scott is defending the first meaning, while critics attack the second. I think that both the defense and the critique are completely understandable and compatible, as long as we're sussing out the meaning beneath the words.
This is - interestingly enough - one of the main problems across the board with overfit therapy culture and language. Telling someone you didn't say what they think you said is "Gaslighting" if Option 1: it's something designed to them feel crazy and question their entire sense of reality. But it's innocuous if Option 2: you have an honest difference of opinions on what was said. This is complicated by the fact that A) someone who is genuinely Option 1 gaslighting is going to take refuge in the appearance of Option 2, and B) depending on your opinions of Freud and his ilk, it is possible for your unconscious to conspire to Option 1 while you genuinely believe you are Option 2ing.
This is not easy, as it requires us to read underneath the words, which is at best deductive and at worst guesswork, but it is also necessary to disentangle the overfit.
A good drop in replacement: "I didn't mean to upset you"
This shows you are aware they are upset, and that wasn't your intention. "I'm sorry you feel that way" could be interpreted in the same way, but also could mean, "I wish you didn't feel that way" or "It's regrettable that you feel that way."
Yes, that's an improvement. The problem with "I'm sorry that you feel that way" is that it's intended to be dismissive. It's passive-aggressive. "I didn't mean to upset you" communicates regret, without you backing down. I think the article's being a bit all-or-nothing about this.
"I didn't mean to upset you" carries an implication that you didn't realise that you would upset them. It's probably not appropriate in situations where you're making a decision which is obviously going to upset them.
"This must be very upsetting, and I'm sorry for that" acknowledges that the person's feelings are entirely reasonable, unlike "I'm sorry you feel that way" which carries an implication that their emotional reaction is their own fault. It also apologises directly for the emotional component, without apologising for the underlying decision. You might immediately follow it up by reiterating the entirely reasonable and non-vindictive reasons why you made your decision.
"I didn't mean to upset you" is a good improvement as long as the person who's upset is someone you don't know that well. And that is how I read the 2nd and 3rd of Scott's 3 scenarios - the way I imagined them in my mind are informal social gatherings where at least some of the people there are people you don't know well. So probably a good reply in those two cases.
"I didn't mean to upset you" doesn't work if the person who's upset is someone who could reasonably expect you to know that what you said would upset them. In Scott's 3 scenarios, this would definitely include the drug-addicted family member. It would also likely include the trauma-victim if she's any closer than an acquaintance to you.
I hate the phrase too, and Scott has not changed my mind. Here are some alternative answers that I think are better.
I would hate it too in your place. Here’s why I’m standing firm.
I feel lousy about turning you down. If you want me to explain more about my reasons for doing it anyway, I can do that.
I of course still love you. But frankly, I think you sort of deserve to feel bad. What you’re asking for is something you probably knew I was unwilling to give. You pushed things to a painful point.
I can see how you’d hate it for me to turn it down, but how do you get from that to me not loving you? It’s not like either of us has never disappointed the other before.
I like your answers, but they seem hard to generate spontaneously. I tend to have lots of emotions sloshing around, and they're not always the ones I'd prefer, or that society thinks I should have. I'd like to be able to only feel the emotions that would be expressed in your answers, but it's hard to do. And it seems to positively attract people who exploit that sort of self-control.
Well, I have had a lot of practice, because I spend a lot of time talking to angry, unhappy people who expect me to help them and have answers. I can't possibly say shit like "I'm sorry you feel that way," without getting verbally clobbered. But the general principles at work are to be real, and to step forward into the disagreement rather than look for a way to paper it over. If your actual reaction to what that said is to want to smack them, or cry, are flee, it wouldn't make sense to say something like what I said. It wouldn't be real. You would probably need to say something about how what they said wasn't awful, but you're having a powerful emotional reaction that's out of proportion to their remark. And then if you know them well you can ask if they'd be OK with you just telling them your reaction, and if you don't you'd might need to excuse yourself for a while, or just ask to drop the subject til you've had time to get past your intense reaction.
Yeah, if it wasn't clear, my general approach has been to try to be the sort of person who would authentically say the appropriate things. :-/
Nobody's like that all the time. I don't know if you saw my post about the worst tweet I ever wrote (replying to a zero-covid nut) : " Listen to me you fucking one-word-sentence moron, there is nothing that nobody dies of. Somebody probably died of asparagus this year." I didn't post it, but almost did.
Ah, I did see that. Thanks for the context. :-)
Now you made me Google "death by asparagus" 😀
Slim pickings, but I did learn that there is a psychic who uses asparagus to foretell the deaths of celebrities (such as the queen), a comedian/actor with the surname of Asparagus (as a stage name, I presume) who died in California, and first allegations, and then retractions, that asparagus could give you breast cancer (so that might fit under "somebody died of asparagus").
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/cutting-asparagus-could-prevent-spread-of-breast-cancer-study-shows
"Breast cancer patients could be encouraged to cut asparagus and other foods from their diets in the future to reduce the risk of the disease spreading, scientists say.
Researchers are investigating whether a change in diet could help patients with breast tumours after studies in mice showed that asparagine, a compound first identified in asparagus but present in many other foods, drives the spread of the disease to other organs."
Literally the next day:
https://www.latimes.com/food/sns-dailymeal-1870395-healthy-eating-asparagus-cancer-misunderstanding-020818-20180208-story.html
"But scientists are biting back, insisting (and pay close attention here) eating asparagus will not give you cancer. The link was an unfortunate misunderstanding - a classic example of journalism gone astray.
“Our bodies make asparagine, as well as many of the other amino acids that form proteins, and [asparagine synthetase] is one of the enzymes that helps make it,” explained Dr. Alex Berezow, senior fellow of biomedical science for the American Council on Science and Health. “Apparently, the more active this enzyme, the better breast cancer (in this mouse model) is able to spread. That’s interesting.”
He explained that the scientists attempted to stop the production of asparagine in the mice and stop feeding them foods that contained the protein. In these cases, breast cancer was less likely to spread.
Asparagine is found in asparagus, but also in nearly every other healthy food: Animal products, potatoes, legumes, nuts, and whole grains are all culprits of spreading this “cancerous” protein."
So, yeah: somebody probably died of asparagine 😁
I love Eremolalos' sentences. I think the trick isn't to feel like you have to memorize the right sentences that stem from the right feelings. That's a recipe for some kind of performance anxiety I would think. We get to have our contradictory feelings and not know what to say. And I'd say that's a whole lot more lovely and genuine than reaching for a stock phrase.
"OH my god I feel so many things about you asking me for money right now. I feel afraid for your life. I feel utterly exasperated that you're not in rehab/getting help. I feel at a loss how to help you without adding to the problem. And frankly I feel overwhelmed."
If you're not someone who can access and name your feelings like that, which is very common, you can say, "God, I don't know what to say about that right now." And buy yourself some time to respond later and in a different format. "Agh, this thing you're dealing with is so big, I think it's way over my head."
"Wow, your anger at me about this is appalling to me. I don't think I'm going to be able to hear what you have to say right now."
Often when we feel stumped about what to say, it's because we have contradictory feelings, as you note. I feel bad I can't help you more. I feel furious that you expect me to.
It can help to get in the habit of feeling permission to give voice to these different opinions in you. "Part of me wishes I could buy you a year in the nicest rehab there is. And another part of me can't believe how much you expect us to help you when you've taken so few steps to help yourself so far."
I think I said somewhere above that I think a lot of us who maybe lean perfectionist -- or the culture pushes us there -- have become so scrupulous about what we say that we're afraid to just speak genuinely. The idea that we need to have the perfect words before we speak only encourages a culture of fragility around feelings and words. I keep hoping if we move through the world acting as if we are all responsible for taking care of our own feelings, that eventually we'll get there.
Now I think the other side of speaking up more naturally about our various contradictory feelings is that we also feel more free to say "I'm sorry, let me try that a different way" or "Oops, that didn't come out right. I want a do-over." Of course internet culture where everything is stored for the public forever and mobs are built around SOMEONE SAID A WORD makes this really hard at times.
I like your sentences too. In general, I think "when in doubt, tell the truth about what you're experiencing" is a good rule of thumb in close relationships. If what you're feeling is confused and overwhelmed by conflicting emotions, say that. It's the only honest way to buy yourself some time.
Yeah, I try to be genuine with responses when I can, but it takes time and effort. :-) And sometimes I even forget that examples like you give are possible. :/
> The idea that we need to have the perfect words before we speak only encourages a culture of fragility around feelings and words
Or worse, that attitude gets weaponized as a tool of abuse. :-(
I assume a large part of the objection to the phrase is actually that they wanted you to choose option 1 and capitulate, and you didn't.
At least to _consider_ option 1
I don't think anything about the phrase tells you whether or not they _considered_ option 1.
The fact that they didn’t choose option 1 is (weak) evidence that they didn’t consider it
If your flowchart starts with "they didn't choose option 1" and then outputs "be upset" without requiring you to make any additional observations, then it seems like an accurate description of cause-and-effect to say "you are upset because they didn't choose option 1", regardless of whether there were some other steps in the middle.
Also, come on. If you consistently got upset with people over evidence THAT weak, you'd be upset with basically everyone basically all the time. "The fact that you aren't currently nursing sick kittens back to health AT THIS MOMENT is (weak) evidence that you hate kittens!"
This is 100% correct and excellent. Thank you.
My first reaction: Is it so hard to give a sincere "I'm sorry for upsetting you" or similar that doesn't imply guilt or wrongness? It may be similar in spirit to "I'm sorry you feel that way" but at this point it's just that specific phrase that one may want to avoid. Assuming it's hit the 70% mark on the hyperstition cascade -- https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way . Which is to say, at some point "I'm sorry you feel that way" really will be equivalent to "fuck you". I guess Scott's point is to resist that, which I'm tentatively persuaded by.
I think better expressions could be engineered depending on context:
I'm hearing what you're saying, but I disagree.
I don't like to cause upset, but this is the way it has to be.
This situation is unfortunate, but it doesn't change my position.
Some of the examples above shouldn't even be sympathized with though: "I'm triggered you think someone might be innocent" I would genuinely respond with "well we aren't going to imprison innocent people so you can feel better, so I'd recommend you stop participating in this conversation for your own health"
"I'm sorry that I've made you feel this way" would be another phrasing that sounds a little more sincere, because it puts the emphasis back on your actions rather than theirs.
But if you go for "I'm sorry that what I did caused such a big emotional reaction for you" then that's putting the emphasis back on them, and implying that their emotional reaction is unreasonable.
There's a lot of ways to tune the wording to make it sound more or less sincere. I think it's a mistake in human communication to say "Well, this combination of words defensibly aligns with my actual meaning so it must be appropriate" without considering all the connotations that it might have.
I think this is just the flaws of text communication. There's nothing wrong with the literal meaning of the words, but that's not all there is to language, and text strips out the cues we normally use.
(I'm going to try to illustrate the failings of text communication, in text communication, so this probably won't go well.)
I think when you write "I'm sorry you feel that way" people read it as whatever the most common way they hear that is. My guess is that this more closely matches something like "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way", spoken in a tone that carries meaning like (I'm exaggerating for illustrative purposes) "I'm sorry you don't realize you're wrong".
It seems you might mean it in a tone more like "Oh, I'm sorry you feel that way".
So, that example sucked, but I'm hoping that prefacing one of those with "Well" and one with "Oh" made them sound different in your head, even tho those are both just filler words.
If it did, then that's most of the issue, that written words carry tone you don't intend when they get to someone else's ears. It's a general difficulty of communication, that it has to go through 3 translation layers to go from my brain to yours.
"I'm sorry" is associated with apologies, which isn't quite what's being offered. It might be better to say "I wish you didn't feel that way," which, unless you like that they feel that way, is truthful without conceding the underlying reason for their feelings.
"I wish you didn't feel that way" could be construed as you blaming them for their emotions. Maybe something like "it's unfortunate that you feel that way"
"you’ve got to try to make them feel better with a polite compassionate response"
Without taking anything away from your argument, I'd say an equally valid use of the phrase is to try to get the other person to reconsider their position - to see the problem not as whatever I said or did, or didn't say or didn't do, but rather their reaction - their "feelings" on the subject. I don't consider this to be particularly compassionate, except in the broad sense that maybe, perhaps, reconsidering one's reaction from a perspective that is not completely self-centered, would be better for everyone involved.
People are talking about the conflation of sympathy and apology in the English word "sorry", but I wonder how much of that is inevitable? What value is an apology with no sympathy for the person you're apologizing to? ("You deserved everything that happened to you, but for reasons of my own, I regret that I'm the one that did it."?) What value is sympathy if the person doesn't apologize at all ? (The Princess Bride - "Beautiful isn't it? It took me half a lifetime to invent it. I'm sure you've discovered my deep and abiding interest in pain. Presently I'm writing the definitive work on the subject, so I want you to be totally honest with me on how the machine makes you feel. This being our first try, I'll use the lowest setting.")
Why not just "I'm sorry I hurt you, but I stand by what I said."?
Even if they are being fragile about it, if you care about someone (a fragile someone) then you'd rather not hurt them, but you do need to say the things you need to say.
I'm sorry you feel that way feels wrong because you're eliding the actual result (someone is hurt) and substituting something vague (the other person feels some general way).
IANAB but it strikes me that buddhism is the religion of "I'm sorry you feel that way".
Part of what probably feels offensive about the phrase is the implication that the feelings of the person being addressed should change rather than the opinions/behaviors of the person saying it.
Buddhism basically says (correct me if I'm wrong, not an expert) "Yes, if you're suffering, your feelings *should* change, for your own good and for the good of all those you interact with."
(BTW, if this is a basically correct interpretation I think I agree totally with it)
Buddhism at least offers "I am sorry, due to compassion, that you are suffering but suffering is the truth of human life and this is the way out of it".
"I'm sorry you feel that way" doesn't offer anything to ameliorate the bad feelings. Maybe if people use it in the way Scott recommends, but I think the general consensus is that it is not so used, rather it dodges apologising and puts the onus on the offended party to stop being such a delicate little flower and toughen up.
Not trying to salvage the phrase at all but this all ties into something I think about a lot....
in political contexts, in philosophical contexts, etc....
Shouldn't offended parties almost always, in almost all situations, "stop being such delicate little flowers and toughen up?"
I mean I would phrase it differently but I think feeling aggrieved (in and of itself) doesn't help anyone with anything.
In my limited experience, there's an emphasis on both sides: not only making oneself less likely to suffer, but also taking care not to cause suffering in the world. The second part is where a lot of the asceticism, vegetarianism, non-violence, etc. come from. And the emphasis on universal loving-kindness also ties into that.
The problem with the phrase is that it's not an apology, but is being used as one.
I think you’re straw-versioning the position under debate. That’s unusual for you!
The steel version is this: if Alice has wronged Bob, and Bob validly complains, and Alice responds with “I’m sorry you feel that way,” then Alice is churlishly refusing to take Bob seriously as a moral subject, *and* Alice is holding the optics of a “reasonable, polite, emotionally regulated” person, which is shitty and manipulative. Alice is offloading the entire burden of Alice’s bad behavior onto Bob, refusing to change, self-reflect, cooperate prosocially, or care about Bob as a person, or even allow a transparent awareness that Alice is screwing Bob over. That’s worthy of the hate.
Maybe a better replacement for your straw scenario—where Carol is right and Dan is a drug addict—is for Carol to name Dan’s emotion without endorsing it. “I hear your anger.” Honestly, I don’t see many better options for Carol besides simply withdrawing from Dan.
How is any of this any different from traditional old fashioned "spinning words to make oneself look better?" People have been misusing language to manipulate others since forever. The specific form it takes may change with ever evolving popular culture, but the underlying dynamics are nothing new.
"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, ie “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
This is a great description of the target statement, and I agree that expressing it well can be very difficult. Fortunately, there is a class of people (probably many classes!) who have to solve this problem professionally. The group to which I belonged for many years was "technical support for *extremely* high-end B2B SaaS where the monthly cost per user was at least £5,000, and where, a few times a year, a user will make embarrassing and costly mistakes" (eg. typing the price and volume the wrong way round on an order entry screen and inserting an order to sell the GDP of Denmark, refusing to admit that's what they did, and insisting that the software malfunctioned).
The best phrase we ever found for dealing with those kinds of problems and expressing the sentiment you described, was:
"I'm sorry."
That's it. No fluff, no qualifications, no caveats. Let it land. Let it be awkward if it is. And then, you can move on to the explanation. In an email, you could massage it a little ("I'm very sorry, but from the logs available to us we can see that [you did something really really stupid]"). When something really bad has happened you can't always make it better in a single shot, but a short, simple apology normally left things in the best-achievable state without having to compromise our position.
I'm aware that this may not work so well in a more litigious framework where an expression of sympathy could be misinterpreted as an admission of guilt. I was working in the UK, and even there the legal team tried very hard to stop us (support) ever saying "I'm sorry", whether a problem was our fault or not. But we did it anyway, it worked, and the company hasn't ever been sued over it.
From what I remember of customer service training, that was the approach you should take. Never say anything that admits liability, but at the same time don't piss off the complaining customer.
So something like "I'm sorry to hear you are having a bad experience with our [product/service/goods], can you tell me more" was the way to go and absolutely never, ever say "I'm sorry we did the bad thing" because now you have just put the business or company on the hook for paying out to fix the problem you just admitted was your (corporate) fault.
I like it.
The dude steals your stereo, and you find it at the swap meet.
So you say He dude, that's my stereo; it's got my name engraved on the back.
Of course, he says Sorry you feel that way; I'll tell you what, I'll let you have it for $40.
Musical accompaniment to this discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eWbDuH2ei4
Now this post is really asking for someone to reply, “C’m’ere tell me you’re sorry I feel this way to my face”, implying they’ll help you be genuinely sorry.
Or the slightly more subtle, "You're not sorry enough. Yet."
Does this only apply to this particular phrase in the English language? Does the problem exist in languages where it’s customary to say the equivalent of “I apologize for . . .” when admitting one’s fault but to use an entirely different expression like “It pains me that . . .” to express sympathy?
Here's a time when "I'm sorry you feel that way" is clearly a terrible thing to say: When you are responding to someone who is mostly telling you what they *think.*. They are giving you their (negative) opinion about something. For instance I, like most psychotherapists, loathe insurance companies. Over the years I have had insurance companies make maybe 50 errors, and every single one has been in the insurance company's favor. Makes you think, you know? So last year there was an insurance situation that I had very good reason to think was the result of grotesque inefficiency on the part of Blue Cross Blue Shield. It involved their clawing back all the payments they had made to me over a two year period for one of my patients on the grounds that she had had other insurance at the time. She had not had other insurance, and she and her family submitted documents that proved that was true, and that BCBS acknowledged as proof. However, for nearly a year they kept dunning me to repay them, and subtracting money from ongoing payments for other patients. When I called, the person I spoke with invariably said they were almost finished "updating the info in the computer," and that within a couple weeks I would be reimbursed. So during one of my final calls I insisted on having the person I was talking to listen to the entire saga, including amounts clawed back, content of BCBS letters, number of calls I'd made, etc., and spoke at length about what a terrible job the company had done of resolving a situation that was not very complicated, and how unfair their treatment of me had been. And I got an "I'm sorry you feel that way." I can't remember what I said, except that it was civil. But a good reply in such situations would be, "Oh, did you think I wanted you to understand how I feel? Actually, what I wanted to get across is what terrible inefficiency and dishonesty I have observed. Setting aside my anger, are you in agreement regarding my opinion of how your company has handled this matter?"
I do understand your legitimate anger, I'd just like to point out (on behalf of my fellow low-level minions) that if you got through to an actual live human, they're probably an 'agent' and may be working in a call-centre and not even the insurance company office.
They're there to be the flak-catchers (in the Tom Wolfe sense) so they bear the brunt of angry customers ringing up and complaining. They have little to no power to change things or get anything done on the complaint.
Even if you do get a real employee of the insurance office, they most likely will not have many options other than "I'm noting that on our file". You have to go further up the tree to light a fire under someone with the power to do something about it, which is precisely why companies make it so hard to find out the people who can do that and hand you off to the phone-answering agents instead.
That kind of "we'll hassle you for a year in the hopes you'll just give up and go away, or give in to our demands" is, unhappily, all too common for big businesses. I've had better luck with smaller concerns where you are more likely to find someone who can do something, or at least will be permitted the discretion to get on to the person who can do something.
Going the consumer relations/ombudsman route also seems to help, as the big businesses do pay a little more attention to "I'm from the government with a statutory role to represent unhappy customers". Best of all seems to be getting the media to intervene on your behalf; all the radio phone-in shows that are "We got on to BigCorp and they sorted out the problem within a week, after our listener had been getting the run-around for three years".
See this example I plucked at random from a Google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/article/2024/jul/16/debt-collectors-are-chasing-my-84-year-old-mother-over-a-water-bill
Correspondent says:
"I emailed six times but received no response other than automated ones, and also made several callback requests. Instead, the bill was passed to a debt collection agency with the balance in my vulnerable mother’s name. She is extremely stressed and worried about this, as am I.
Our bill needs to be paid and the debt cancelled but while it was £180 before, the debt collectors want £500, which is about three years’ worth of water use. I don’t know what to do."
After the newspaper consumer affairs department took up the case - lo and behold:
"Water Plus says: “We’re really sorry about any delay in our response, and have apologised to HS and agreed payment for the water supplied. We’ve cancelled additional charges for this account. We encourage all customers and sites to note meter readings regularly during the year, if the meter is safe to access, and provide these online to reduce estimated bills, along with helping to spot any issues like water leaks early.”
EDIT:
"And I got an "I'm sorry you feel that way." I can't remember what I said, except that it was civil."
That's because it's the first rule of customer service training: NEVER ADMIT FAULT OR BLAME, THAT LEAVES US OPEN TO LIABILITY
If the minion taking your call said or even hinted at "Yeah, I apologise, we screwed up" then bam! you now have cause to resort to legal recourse to get your money back! Granted, trying to prove that they did say the likes of that on a phone call is tricky, but maybe you were recording them, you naughty customer you. That's why you get the "this call is being recorded for training purposes" spiel at the start of every such interaction; the business wants to protect itself in case you claim "but Susie who took my call accepted that BigCorp was to blame and at fault". In case Susie did in fact make an error and responded with the natural human thing of "I'm so sorry we screwed up", then at least BigCorp can fire her for endangering their profits. You're not there to help customers, idiot, you're there to cover our asses.
Yeah, I get that. The individuals I’m talking to in these sessions almost always are polite and competent, and I tell them, look, I have no complaints about you. You are doing a good job of taking in all these details and are a pleasure to deal with. it’s your company I hate.
Yeah, that's it. And it's terrible how the companies take advantage like this, letting a layer of people who don't really have any power to actually help soak up all the complaints and anger.
Ah, well.
I have a theory that there are lots of layers of buffering. So the people a level up from the ones who have to take complaint calls like mine are buffered from the actual calls, just get summary data of issues and outcome. And way up at the top there's somebody who is responsible for the big decisions about the company. But they are protected from guilt by layers below them. They tell somebody below then that profits are down, and that needs to be remedied, and that person passes the problem of how to increase profits to various others who actually have to talk about ugly options -- things like reducing the coverage customers get for certain illnesses, or making the process of billing for services more convoluted and frustrating for providers. So the people making the ugly decisions, in the middle of the hierarchy somewhere, are protected from hearing the voices of the tearful people with cancer and the furious shrinks in private practice. And the guy at the top gets a summary that protects him from the full details of how the profit increase was accomplished. Something like " we used a combo of benefit adjustment and some changes in the provider billing interface." Maybe our species sucks, Deiseach.
It's why I'm so sceptical about "the invisible hand of the beautiful free market adjusts everything to its right value".
Sure, in the ideal spherical cow world the market works like that. In our grubby little real world, "line go up" is the motivation, and that becomes the mainspring driving the business, not "we provide goods/services".
Insurance is one of those industries that gets criticised the most, but there's some justice to all the criticism. Years and years ago I saw a Chinese (I think) modern day ghost movie, where the main male lead worked for an insurance company and was sent out to investigate a case where a claim on a life insurance policy was made.
I always remember the scene where the boss tells him (and all this is in subtitle translation) "Remember our company motto!" and male lead replies "Whatever they say, we won't pay!"
As others have noted, I think the hatred comes more from the reverse use case: those with power gaslighting. Person A wrongs person B in a way where the vast majority would agree A is in the wrong. B objects, but A has the power in the situation. A refuses not only to right the wrong but also to acknowledge and apologize. Then uses the phrase in question to gaslight B and present the case as if B is in the wrong for being upset and A is being generous in at least acknowledging B's feelings.
"I am saddened you feel that way" removes what I think bugs a lot of people about it- the sense that it is a simulacra of an apology.
The main problem is that we're trying to distinguish genuine sympathy or feeling saddened from the glib 'sorry not sorry' non-apology use of the phrase, and that's damn hard.
If we know each other and have a good idea of each other's general opinions and feelings towards one another, then "I'm sorry you feel that way" could be used without giving even more offence.
But if it's "Babulah Kylll YT the creator and Tik-Tok influencer, in response to the storm of criticism over her post 'all blue-eyed devils should be rounded up and exterminated, fr fr (brown-eyed folx you alright even if YT)', issued a statement via her PR team that 'Sorry y'all feel that way, krakkaz' this morning" then... yeah, that doesn't come across as either regret and contrition *or* any feelings of sadness.
And the most common usage is the 'Babulah's PR team' kind.
Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" conveys a respect for the other person's feelings about as much as Google's "we respect your privacy" conveys a respect for privacy. If you actually cared about their feelings, you'd make the effort to respond to whatever it is they said instead of commenting on their emotionality.
For example 1, "I do love you, that's why I refuse to help you hurt yourself". Example 2, "Good people can sacrifice themselves for bad reasons. I'm not trying to criticize your family member." Example 3, "I'm sorry for springing this sensitive topic on you without warning. Do you need a minute?"
You can agree or disagree that the responses above would have the intended effect, but it should be clear that they each engage with the substance of the complaint in a way that the one-size-fits-all "Sorry if you're offended" does not.
I thought for sure somebody would say the following, which may or may not be true, but which many people believe and is highly relevant:
Very many people don’t have object-level views. They aren’t using evidence from objective, trusted sources to create a coherent representation of reality. They’re just reacting to whatever situation they’re in, in a way that seems to make sense to them and the people around them and seems likely to get them what they want.
Babies start out like this. The world is nothing to them; relationships are everything. It’s a very advanced skill to have an opinion about the world that’s distinct from your relationships with people. Maintaining that objective stance takes effort, sacrifice and virtue. Not everybody does it, or is capable of it.
Imagine what objective truth claims feel like, to such a person. Saying “I’m sorry you feel that way” is like saying, “I’m best friends with The Universe, and The Universe doesn’t like you.”
Again, I’m not saying this perspective is true. I’m stating a strong version & I think a weak version is more likely.
Huh, I was just talking about something like this with someone today.
This strikes me as really perceptive: "Saying “I’m sorry you feel that way” is like saying, “I’m best friends with The Universe, and The Universe doesn’t like you.”
It's simultaneously diminishing and dismissing.
The reason people think this is a fake apology is that it is in this context indistinguishable from a fake apology.
The literal meaning of the word "sorry" may be "I feel bad about this", but I'm pretty sure the most common usage by far is to signal an apology, usually a minor one. "I feel bad about this because I did something wrong and it hurt you", with the implied promise to try not to do it again and the implied hope for forgiveness. It would help if we had a separate word for that usage, but we kind of don't.
So if you say to someone "I'm sorry your dog died", and there's no plausible reason to believe you had anything to do with the dog's death, then it's obvious in that context that the meaning is just "I feel bad that your dog died" and an offering of sympathy. But if the dog died because you ran over it with your car, and you believe that you were driving prudently and the idiot dog ran out in front of you too fast and too late to do anything about it, sure, you feel sad that the dog died and you're offering sympathy rather than apologizing. They probably aren't as confident that you are blameless, and so they're probably expecting to hear an apology. And when you start with "I'm sorry...", the standard signal for an inbound apology, they're *really* going to be expecting an apology.
When your phrasing then turns into not just a not-apology, but an implied preemptive dismissal of the possibility of an apology, yeah, that's worse than your not saying anything. The message you intended to send was fine, but the word you used was ambiguous and the context almost guaranteed miscommunication.
The examples you cite, all fall into the "drove prudently over someone's dog" category. You believe you have done nothing you need to apologize for, but they believe you have done something wrong (e.g. failing to support a family member in need because you're a square who just doesn't get it about drugs) and they'll at least tentatively expect an apology.
It is not reasonable to expect everyone else to stop interpreting "sorry" as a default apology. So to avoid a miscommunication that predictably will cause offense, you need to either,
A: use a word other than "sorry", e.g. saying that you feel horrible that their dog died or that you sympathize with the problems they're having not being able to afford drugs, or
B: Say that you're sorry but *without elaboration*, so that they can believe you have in fact offered a minor apology. This is somewhat dishonest, but if the context isn't one where an apology would be followed by further action, it shouldn't cause any real harm or offense.
I've basically given up on using the word "sorry" altogether, outside of a few reflexive applications. Whatever the context, I'll try to find something that is unambiguous as to what I feel bad about and whether I'm apologizing, even if it does come across as a bit formal and stilted. And if someone else uses the "I'm sorry you feel that way" construction, I usually can't know whether they are just offering sympathy or trying to shut down discussion with a fake apology, which will at least be mildly annoying.
Nah, you can just provide more empathy and redirect without engaging the conflict further.
In the trauma example, “I’m so sad that happened to you. I understand how it could be hurtful given your past.” You aren’t implying that they are wrong for feeling what they feel.
In the genocide example, “I’m very sad to hear that your family was affected by this war. Could you tell me more about your family’s experience?”
In the drug example, “I’m sad that I can’t find a way to help you. I hope you know I love you too much to enable you by giving you cash.”
In none of these scenarios do you invalidate their feelings, nor do you agree with them. Most people with neuro-spicy tendencies fixate on who is right, but sometimes the point of a conversation isn’t to settle who is right or wrong. Sometimes the point is to allow someone to tell their story. I don’t think this requires above and beyond EQ- just a recognition that you don’t want to invalidate what the other person feels.
The difference between the two examples (agressor being forgiven because of mental issues vs victim with mental issues not forgiving the aggressor without a sincere apology) is the apology - you first become the underdog and then can be forgiven. If you signal regret about your action then you become aomeone who makes mistakes and feels regret, so you can be forgiven by those around you that don't (at that time) feel regret and do not (at that time) make mistakes. Forgiveness can only be given by superior to inferior. If you only signal your feelings about the feedback you got ("sorry you feel x") then you keep your superior no-regrets persona that cannot be forgiven because there is noone superior to forgive you. A third party superior to both the aggressor and the victim (parents for child conflicts, courts, celebs, media etc for adults) can resolve by forgiving both (first the aggressor for aggression and then the victim for not having been forgiving)
This was refreshing.
**Maybe one of your family members makes an unreasonable demand (“Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction”), you say no, and they say they feel like you don’t love them.**
"Sorry, but I can't afford to do that right now."
OR
"I do love you, so I want you to beat your drug addiction." might be good options here.
Admittedly, "I'm sorry you feel that way" maybe is the best response here if you're both clearly rich and want to de-escalate rather than confront the issue head-on (which will almost certainly lead to an heated argument).
**Maybe you speak out against a genocidal aggressive war. Someone complains that their family member died fighting in that war. They accuse you of implicitly dismissing their relative’s sacrifice and calling them a bad person.**
"Well, it takes courage to fight in any war. Your relative might have been a good courageous person who unfortunately got caught up in a bad war."
If they continue to be upset with you after this attempt to console, I think it's fine to get into why you consider this a genocidal aggressive war.
**Maybe you argue that a suspect is innocent of a crime, and some unrelated crime victim says it triggers them when people question victims or advocate for the accused. They say that now they are re-traumatized.**
"I'm sorry for the pain and trauma you went through, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes innocent people are accused of a crime."
If they continue to be upset, I'd probably just stay quiet at that point. You made your point, and anybody present who's thinking clearly.
I generally dislike "I'm sorry you feel that way" because it just has very dismissive vibes for most people. There's usually a better reply that's both reasonably honest and considerate of the feelings of the person you're talking to. That being said, I agree that in the heat of the moment of a live in-person discussion (or a video chat), it can be difficult to quickly think of the better reply, so I'd be pretty forgiving of this reply being used in such circumstances.
But for a text-only discussion, where people tend to be carefully craft responses, I think that's what is best here. Even then, there might be a rare case where "I'm sorry you feel that way" is the best of a bunch of not-great options, but I think with some thought it'll usually be possible to craft a better reply.
I think there's a few different possibilities for things you could mean in this sort of situation:
(1) "I don't want to make you upset, but I think you're wrong to be upset in this situation,"
(2) "I don't want to make you upset, and it's reasonable for you to be upset, but I still think that the thing I was doing is worth doing, because it has other benefits."
For instance your first example might be closer to (1) - you think that the family member is wrong to demand money to buy drugs. The second and third examples are closer to (2) - it's reasonable to be upset about hearing a family member denigrated or seeing alleged criminals get off scot-free, but it's still important to argue against war and for the rights of the accused.
So the problem here might be that you mean (2) but people think you mean (1).
I would just say something like, "Oh, sorry to bring up a touchy subject."
"Your nose is amazingly soft against my butt cheeks!"
"I'm sorry you feel that way"
"Also, I'm sorry you smell that way"
It's because "I'm sorry you feel that way" is like a sleight of hand where you say the words "I'm sorry", but then make it clear that you don't actually mean it in that way, making the person feel duped.
The phrase itself also doesn't intrinsically imply any compassion.
Something like "I understand that you would feel that way" is much better.
There's nothing inherently bad about the term, it's just often used for plausible deniability
I think the *concept* and the *phrase* are two completely different issues, as someone who strongly endorses the concept but would strongly avoid the phrase.
When your reasonable actions have caused pain to someone you care about and they tell you, usually relational steps to mend things involve something like the following:
1. Hear them out (this is *critical* for moving on to step 2)
2. Explain your motivations (which were not hate or carelessness towards the other person, because you care about them)
(Often, 3. agreeing on some conclusion as to how you will try to act differently and/or they will try to respond differently next time)
#1 avoids being a jerk and #2 avoids falsely claiming wrongdoing.
The *phrase* "I'm sorry you feel that way" sounds like shortcutting that process. Saying it implies that you are not interested in Step 1, so it comes off as being a jerk despite the presence of the words "I'm sorry."
I'm not sure what you add by bringing assumptions about the therapy model into this post. Just say "I’m sorry you feel that way" is really a refusal to apologize, and the recipient recognizes that, but in some situations it's OK to refuse to apologize.
For the record, nobody likes it better when those of us who can craft bespoke versions on the fly do so. I've been informed this feels like being told to go f*ck yourself in the nicest and most eloquent possible way.
Isn't this just an anti-shibboleth?
It's 2024, fractionation is the name of the game. Because the internet connects, and specifically it connects you to the twenty other people in the world that have the exact same crazy ideas as you do, everyone went about creating the most ideologically pure community they could. Now they stand on their self-made islands and get really mad whenever they hear different opinions (read: unspeakable heresy) from the next island over. If you sympathize with the heretics' devil-words, you become an outsider too, and dealt with accordingly. You might have heard that everyone on the internet is Hitler, but that's not true - everyone is Stalin, and they're itchin' to get a-purgin'.
(This creates an interesting problem: we're still people, and think along the same lines, but now we're banned from using the devil-words. As a result, different communities convergently develop different phrases for the same concept. For example, if you said "content warning" around my people, they'd do to you what the revelers did to Orpheus, but something like ">tags: netorare" would convey the same idea and they'd thank you for the warning. You can't say something is problematic, but the exact same sentence would be fine if you use retarded in its place. Trannies are the enemy and should be shunned, but "I want to be the little girl" is a perfectly reasonable sentiment. Modern-day shibboleths.)
So, in the kind of world where US Republicans say engaging with Democrats is making compromise with sin because they're all perverts who want to graft 20000 anuses to your child and force you to worship the ever-flowing shit fountain as your new god, and US Democrats say the same about Republicans because they're all fascists who want to cut out the tongues of every poet of color and eat them to gain the power to say racial slurs, you've found a shortcut to saying "I don't belong to your clan. Please do to me what you do to your heretics". Of course they'll get mad and call you super-problematic or a giga-retard or whatever, they've been conditioned against outsiders and you've just declared that you're one. You must either make an apology video and change your mind 100% to the expected default, or be unpersoned forever.
In a better world we'd agree to disagree, or try to reconcile our positions, or just accept that we might resent each other a bit over this difference in opinion but still value each other as friends. In this world, however, what we get is "Oh, all right. So you admit you're a 94% match to my personal worldview, while all my other friends are 98% or above. You're no longer a friend. I hope you die in terrible pain".
I was confused at first reading this post: my girlfriend and I use it often in conflict to express empathetic disagreement and it works; as long as the tone is genuine. I didn’t think it was a controversial phrase. But then I realized at the same time I wouldn't just text that sentence to her cause it’s easy to interpret as dismissive. So I guess it’s mostly a problem of written vs. verbal communication.
I think this phrase potentially has hyperstitially cascaded into offensive use. There are probably twenty other less offensive phrases meaning the same thing (just ask claude for them), but with less negative connotation or baggage, that are now more optimal. I love the phrase "I love that for you" because it expresses the basic idea of compersion, but that too has become toxic. sad.
Interesting side fact, neutral words/phrases becoming negative/offensive is called pejoration. The reverse is called amelioration in linguistics.
This post feels like it points at something another interesting thing, which is "Why do the words/phrases for certain concepts become pejorized?" I always thought it simply had to do with things that are taboo, or low status, but this seems to point at the fact that it is more likely just negatively reinforced associations.
Like hearing the phrases "I'm sorry you feel that way" is directly associated with disagreement and social fracturing, so it becomes pejorized. Maybe that is the link between all the other words that become pejorized too: 'cancer' becomes tumor because usually it is associated with expected pain and suffering, 'retard' becomes developmentally delayed because it is associated with expected difficulty and loss, etc, etc...
I agree with your take in your post about hyperstitial cascades though - all else being equal (which it rarely ever is), I will try to slow the rate of pejoration of words around tough concepts by actively resisting adopting new words. It complicates talking about difficult (typically important) parts of reality, and devolving into meta-conversations about proper words. I could be convinced though that this is a worthwhile trade-off for comforting some people, or that if languages all do this pejoration naturally then we should be careful about trying to change things we don't understand (Chesterton's Fence).
"Compersion" has become toxic, I feel, because it gets thrown around in the context of what those of us who aren't convinced by polyamory feel is a condescending/negative manner.
"We enlightened ones who have progressed beyond your petty, primitive, levels of possessiveness which result in jealousy are so much better and morally superior, because we have *compersion*, bigot".
Yes, I know the reasonable people don't use it that way, but (a) it does come across like that and (b) not everybody is reasonable and nice and level-headed. And it does sound awfully like therapy-speak.
Probably, if "compersion" was used more widely and in non-intimate relationships context, it would become more familiar and wouldn't evoke those associations. But since I've only ever seen it used in about polyamory, and never (for example) "Bill got that promotion, I feel so much compersion for him!", then that's where it's stuck.
I don't hear anyone use the word 'compersion' very much. So for me it is mostly just a nice word for a cool abstract idea that I heard in San Fran once. I didn't try to pioneer its use though as it sounds a bit overly formal for casual speak.
Small rant: Envy, jealousy, and schadenfreude are such 'the world is zero sum' emotions and I aspire to feel more 'the world is positive sum' emotions. I loved that the polyamorous community was taking this 'world is positive sum' perspective on sexual/romantic relationships and (while I don't practice polyamory) found it refreshing they were working to align their emotions with this view. It is sad that a cool idea like compersion has also been tarnished by the toxic conversation around poly norms :(.
> It is sad that a cool idea like compersion has also been tarnished by the toxic conversation around poly norms
I think it's not so much poly norms specifically, as that it's been interpreted as yet another way of poly people saying "we're just better than you" (cue the discussion of veganism in "Scott Pilgrim"). And it's not like that attitude is entirely absent from the poly community, but it's also not like there aren't non-poly people just looking for an excuse to feel outraged. :-/
Very late reply, but I was thinking 'gosh I never do that to norms I think could be better,' but then I realized that I do! I used to dislike the Amish - because they seemed to be winning on different metrics of human flourishing (lower rates of depression, large families, low attrition, and low violent crime --- I'm not sure if I've seen other metrics of happiness about them though). Anyways, I can totally see myself being threatened by norms that win on metrics I care about and feeling emotionally incentivized to created shallow objections.
I think good version goes something like this.
First, appologize for where you've actually been wrong, be clear that you are not treating it as "their problem", empatize with the suffering of another person, try to propose a solution from your side or be open for suggestions:
"I'm sorry for the emotional distress I caused you. This has never been my intention. I understand where your emotions are comming from and how my words can be interpreted this way, and I'll try to use a better phrasing next time in order not to repeat this situation."
And then when this emotional aspect of situation is cleared, re-state the object level diasagreement, explicitly pointing out that it doesn't imply the meta-point, provide a way to reconcile both points.
This is, of course, much more effort than saying a cached phrase, but that's kind of the point.
The fact that "sorry" has two distinct meanings "I apologize" and "it's a sorry state of affairs that this happened", seems pretty relevant here. And I do think it's bad form to lead someone on with a phrase that has this double meaning, even (arguably especially) in a situation where you don't believe you owe someone an apology.
Suppose "Aloha" has two meanings. "I apologize" and "Hey the weather's nice today isn't it?"and usually context cues and surrounding words can differentiate the two meanings.
If Alice expects Bob to apologize to her, and Bob instead says, "Aloha. Love how the weather's pretty sunny today!" I think it's reasonable for Alice to become more offended, and not just because of the non-sequitor. It's both non-Gricean and also emotional manipulation.
The fact that in other circumstances, "Aloha" naturally has a "good weather" meaning isn't that relevant in this context where Alice was fully expecting an apology from Bob. It's also honestly pretty cowardly from Bob, to use an ambiguous phrase rather than one that clearly isn't an apology.
Nice piece.
After reading through some of the comments, I think that much like other phrases (e.g. calling someone sexually explicit nicknames, or calling someone a liar), the appropriateness of IMSYFTW depends on context.
I would say the meaning is somewhere in between 'I regret that our emotional reactions to this matter are not aligned' to 'I offer my condolences for your brain suffering from emotions based on a wrong model of reality'.
I think that the phrase should be restricted where the other party has played the emotional distress card. If they just said an object level statement that you disagree with, such as 'Trump/Harris would be a good president' or 'Hitler was right to invade Poland', then a much better response is to say 'Let us agree to disagree on that'. But once you have confessed to having an uncomfortable emotion, people should be free to unironically express their regret over you having to suffer that, same as if you had disclosed you have a tooth ache.
While the phrase is clearly not an apology, I don't think that concepts of apologies are very clearly organized in everyday English.
"Regret something / feeling sorry for something" can both mean that if you could turn back time, you would do things differently, or that you wish your action did not have detrimental side effects, but would do that action again because you think it is the correct one.
"I apologize" is similar, only here it commonly depends on the timing of the phrase. "I apologize, but I have to search your car, sir" is different from "the police apologized for having arrested an innocent" (which still retains the option of 'given the information we had at that time, we would make the same choice again') to "he apologized for misgendering her".
A much more unambiguous phrase is 'I was wrong to do X, and I apologize for it'.
Of course, I can't help but wonder if all this double-meaning phrases around such a socially important concept are a bug or a feature.
Regarding accepting apologies, let me quote Alicorn's Luminosity:
> "I accept your apology," I said. I'd gotten into the habit of saying that instead of "it's okay" when I was fourteen, having noticed that I often wanted to accept apologies for things that were not really okay.
I learned a pitfall in this phrase as a child, late 90s / early 00s. The pitfall is just, if you're not careful with tone and context, it can sound like the "being a jerk" path. Essentially, "I'm sorry you feel bad, [but you shouldn't, and it's pathetic that you do]." In my experience, kids who don't really want to say they're sorry did the jerk version sometimes -- myself included -- and benefited from instruction that we weren't fooling anyone. And, as a secondary lesson, that you have to be careful with your tone if you are trying to take the nice path -- because it can be confused with the jerk path.
It's plausible that "therapy culture" worsened this, and I bet it's worse in text-only mediums as well. But the basic fake-apology pitfall predates that.
(This is probably somewhere in the comments but posting in case not and someone finds it useful...)
I disagree. I think the better phrase is “I’m sorry that I made you feel that way”
The more popular phrase is bad because it basically says “you’re wrong for feeling that way, I give up trying to help you understand why, and I’d like this discussion to end so here’s something that sounds like an apology, hopefully you don’t notice the difference”
If you say “I’m sorry” in a way that doesn’t accept any responsibility, it feels like you’re just button-mashing keywords to end the conversation. Very frustrating to hear.
But instead saying “I’m sorry that I made you feel that way” takes responsibility for triggering their emotions, even if you disagree with their object-level position.
For the drug user case, say
“I’m sorry that I made you feel bad by denying you your drug money… but I do it because this helps you”
In practice rather than expressing sorrowful acknowledgement, I have heard it said to be dismissive of the issue at hand. It comes off the same as someone saying “sorry I’m not reading all that” to a long text you sent them.
Ordeal of Civility in the flesh. Being polite involves maintaining a pleasant facade of caring about others' feelings.
But what about forgiveness, Scott? Freddie's primary question wasn't about therapy culture, per se, it was about whether we should place our own needs above others and it was spurred by Christina Caron's argument that you should only contemplate forgiveness if it might benefit you.
> I’m only somewhat exaggerating or joking when I suggest that the piece argues that forgiveness is bad. It would be more accurate to say that it expresses an attitude generally skeptical of forgiveness as a concept, running to out-and-out antagonistic, speaking as though a virtue that people have embraced for thousands of years is some sort of con or dodge or scam.
Personally, I have trouble forgiving anyone who hasn't offered an apology for their transgressions. And as comedian Jimmy Carr pointed out, a sorry-you-feel-that-way may apology is actually a polite way to say f**k you. Why would I forgive anyone who told me to feck off? Likewise, that person is likely to hold my enmity — or at least my distrust — for years to come. Of course, I may have earned that feck-you response by something I did, but unless the transgressor and transgressee can work through their contentions, nothing will be resolved. And serial transgressors should probably keep in mind that, for the transgressees, revenge is a dish best served cold.
My Buddhist training tells me that I should regard transgressors as being motivated by their internal fears and their internal pain — and thus I should cultivate equanimity and compassion toward those who have transgressed me. In this dialectic, forgiveness is an alien concept. Rather than forgiving, we should just let shit go. Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian indoctrinations of my culture, but I can't help but want an apology before I forgive. There are still four or five people from the first third of my adult life who maliciously f**ked with me, for whom I still harbor a fantasy about punching them in the face if I ever encounter them again. I know, I shouldn't think these things. But I do. My only consolation is that they're probably all in the dotage or dead now. OTOH, these people educated me on how nasty humans can be. So, I can intellectually thank them for their teaching moments, even though I want to punch them out. Luckily, I seldom think of them anymore. My life was successful despite them. But when I think of them, my anger is still there like an irritating grain of sand under my shell. And my anger toward them is my karmic burden.
Call me old school, but apologies and forgiveness are important ways to ameliorate interpersonal tensions. If you can't bring yourself to offer an honest apology, it's incumbent upon you to explain why you won't offer an apology — which would require a dialog between the two disputants. Of course, most people are too lazy or too cowardly to engage in a dialog with the people they've angered.
> Maybe it's the Judeo-Christian indoctrinations of my culture, but I can't help but want an apology before I forgive.
I struggle with this too. I've gotten into Buddhism enough that I can almost (metaphorically) *see* the attachments that jerk me around whenever the other end moves. And I want to dissolve those things, out of general principles, and aesthetics, and alas ego. And I interpret the Christian "forgiveness" as simply doing that through an act of will (or something, maybe grace, I dunno, maybe I should pray on it). But I just can't seem to get there from here, you know? :-(
Huh.
Between Scott's Different Worlds post (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/) and Sam Harris's argument for the nonexistence of free will, I basically don't experience anger anymore.
Frustration, irritation, a desire for the person negatively impacting my life to simply go away and stop bothering me, sure.
But actual *anger?* The kind of anger that feels motivating to hurt them back?
No, because it's not really their "fault" that they're them and that they're acting that way, the poor dumb bastards.
I have the free will not to indulge in my punching fantasies.
If there isn't such a thing as free will, why do different children in different cultures respond to executive function tests differently? If our "will" is just our brain's hardwiring doing what it does then children across all cultures should display identical intra-cohort variance. Of course, culture could override our inborn hardwiring, but why would there be different cultures if people's free wills didn't allow them to behave differently as the circumstances allow?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/08/29/research-bias-cognitive-studies-executive-function-marshmallow-test/
Scott's essay and Sam Harris's argument are much longer than I want to reproduce in a comment. But I will say it's a persuasive argument and it moved my position from "of course everyone has free will!" to, "oh it's obvious no one does, including me, but the only way to behave is 'act as if.'"
As a subscriber of Harris, I have the ability to send nonsubscribers full paywalled episodes, happy to do that if you want to email me at my username here over at Gmail.
I can summarize Harris's argument quite simply. It boils down to three points. Determinism (due to preceding causes), Unconscious Processes, Illusion of Control. None of these points, if examined carefully, are persuasive. Ultimately it's a variation on the religious argument of predestination modified by the later pseudo-scientific argument that the universe is deterministic.
But surely you concede that you, the observer of your life, are not actually ever *generating* your own thoughts. Ideas simply occur, and you notice them. Some people mostly have only bad ideas occur to them; you could get angry about it in a way that actively bothers you in the long-term, but why? Do you get meaningfully *angry* at the raccoons who get into your trash? Or do think, "raccoons are gonna raccoon, I'd better get a locking lid" to work around them?
Fold in Scott's argument for how the combination of literal genetics and life experience shape people's perceptions, and I don't think it's at all clear that Harris' argument isn't persuasive (especially when paired with his thoughts about how to live with this knowledge).
But more importantly, why you think Scott's Different Worlds argument falls apart? Do you believe that Isabelle, the sufferer of Williams Syndrome, has free will? Do autistic people who can't tolerate certain environments (loudness, chaotic visuals, crowds, etc)
have the free will to stop being bothered by stimuli? Do people with IQs under 80 have free will to become more intelligent, resourceful, and make better choices (do you even know anyone with a low IQ well enough to have observed how they cope with basic challenges over time?)?
If Isabelle, autistic people, and low-IQ people don't have meaningful free will to live *much* safer, more comfortable, more productive lives, then where on the spectrum of humanity do individuals have the right combination of genetics and environment that they experience free will?
Nonsense. I can quiet my thoughts at will through meditation so there are no voluntary nor random thoughts arising. And I can generate my thoughts at will. That's what I'm doing right now thinking ahead about the points I want to make, and typing them out.
Yes, there is a background element of randomness to consciousness. My speech center is largely a black box, but it seems to understand what I need to write to get my point across without thinking through what each word will be. OTOH, I can override my black box speech center — while writing this sentence I specifically chose the words I was going to write by voicelessly sounding them out and pausing after each word. And if I were trying to speak Spanish or Cantonese, I'd have to choose my words carefully because my speech center hasn't fully mastered those languages (yet).
I suppose if one were lazy, one could just let consciousness be free-running. But I am very comfortable with my mind, and I enjoy exercising it. The randomness element of consciousness allows for greater flexibility in my behavioral repertoire, but I don't have to give it free rein.
And my apologies to Scott, but I don't think much of his Different worlds argument. If you're a schizophrenic you may be hearing voices and or hallucinating, but that's because there's something fucking with your qualia. The actions of a schizophrenic may seem irrational to a normie, but that doesn't mean there wasn't intention in their response to their fucked up stimuli. "The voices will stop yelling at me for a while if I'm violent. Therefore, I'll be violent!" And that's why it's so hard for juries to exonerate mentally disturbed people in courts of law. Just because the voices tell you to murder X, it's assumed you have the willpower to ignore their commands. Of course, one could argue that the voices are involuntarily arising from the schizophrenic's consciousness and the fact that the patient has no control over them means they don't have free will. But schizophrenics also resist the commands of their voices. So in my book schizophrenics have free will.
And I think your IQ example is a straw dog argument. My cat The Warrior Princess certainly doesn't have a human's IQ. But when I hold the door for her, and I ask if she wants to go out or come inside, she'll inevitably acknowledge my question with a meow, and then she'll make up her mind. If she isn't interested in going through the doorway, she'll walk away with her tail held high. So I'm pretty sure most mammals have free will.
You could try “I see this situation is frustrating for you” or “I understand this is difficult for you.”
It's all in the context, but honestly, those sound pretty bad to me too? They're like the corporate liability-reducing doublespeak a faceless drone would say when firing you, or something from a particularly one-sided divorce.
I agree. Asking an open ended question is preferable to these kinds of statements that are intended to shut someone up and move on while appearing as empathy. Even a yes/no question here works -- "is this frustrating?" And even "Am I frustrating you?"
If someone is visibly frustrated and you don't actually want to hear about it, then I think it's more honest to say "I don't have that much invested in this conversation, so if it's making you mad, we can move on to something else."
In general, people don't like to be told how they feel, but they're okay being asked how they feel, or a feeling of theirs being framed as a hypothetical like "if this is irritating to to..."
Tell yeh this much, I'm waiting for the next Open Thread so I can rant about the first three episodes of Season Two of "Rings of Power".
There will be *plenteous* "Sorry you feel that way" and "sorry you're offended" from my side. And I do mean in the "eff you" sense of those phrases.
I'm looking forward to it!
I took notes and everything. I'm ready! 😁
Huh! Who are you expecting to object to your rant to a degree that you need to say "sorry you feel that way" et al?
I intend to address an imaginary audience of strawmen viewers who may, God save the mark, think this show is not that bad or even *good*.
In which case - I'm sorry you feel that way 😁
(There are a couple of good scenes. But by 'eck, there's a lot more poor to genuinely bad ones).
I'm going to skip the actual show and let The Little Platoon tell the tale.
Critical Drinker is less than gruntled. I'm waiting for a couple other reviewers I trust to get to it. It managed to both mangle the lore even worse than the first season, while being faithful to some of it.
And the Anti-Beard Agenda continues!
Surely there is a difference between a disagreement and an ad hominem.
“I guess I don’t agree with you.” Is not the same as saying “You are wrong.” Or even worse, “How could you be so stupid?” As far as “I am sorry you feel that way.” That’s useless unless you want to escalate. Or become a therapist…
> That’s useless unless you want to escalate.
To play devil's advocate, it's at the relatively harmless end of a spectrum that runs through "that's a bad feeling, and feeling like that makes you a bad person". Sometimes it's the most harmless thing that can honestly be said.
My main problem with it is that it doesn't go anywhere. It closes off the possibility of further discussion, of a meeting of minds, of a rapprochement. And I think that's why it's interpreted as a "fuck you", or less vulgarly as "this conversation is over".
I mostly agree. I would only say that now the conversation is on a “feeling level “ and if you want to continue the conversation it might be better to say “Why are you feeling that way? Help me understand.” But that is an escalation. Or therapy
I make it a point never to take responsibility for someone else’s feelings
This raises a valuable point I think. In my view, there's a very clear distinction between being curious about someone else's feelings and being responsible for someone else's feelings. It's near impossible to be curious about or to listen to someone else's experience if we simultaneously feel responsible for it.
At the point we might ask "Why are you feeling that way?" it's good to check in with ourselves and see if our egos are reasonably out of the way and we actually have capacity to listen with curiosity. It would be sad to me if people lost the skill to do this because we've decided that's therapy. But of course everyone gets to decide for themselves how much room they have in them for another person's experience in any given moment.
My favorite is “i am in ashes”
I don't get it; would you mind explaining?
It is a form of abject apology. I am not entirely sure which culture it comes from, but quite frankly I heard it first in the Man Who Would be King, which is set in British colonial India.
I am so sorry, I am in ashes.
Edit: Apparently, it is from the Bible.
https://biblehub.com/kjv/job/42.htm
I saw the Bible reference, but it didn't look quite right...
I am in ashes
I think people are justified in hating that phrase when they believe an actual apology is in order. I've only seen it played out as a following scenario: a celebrity says something that someone (rightly or not, that's beside the point at the moment) considers offensive, there is a big commotion, celebrity is afraid of getting cancelled so they make an apologetic-sounding statement to minimize reputational damage and social cost, but they fake-apologize via the "I'm sorry you feel that way", without taking any responsibility but ALSO without firmly stating that they standing by their original position because they know the original position is what caused the uproar in the first place. So they're kind of trying to have their cake and eat it too, so the disingenuousness of this approach is called out, and, in my opinion, justifiably so.
If the disdain has now spread to ALL instances of the phrase, it's unfortunate. Sadly, in my observation, humans on average lack nuance.
I'm getting mileage out of "I know".
I know this hurts you. I can see how my decision is affecting you. But I have to do this anyway. I can explain when you're more receptive. But it has to be this way. Maybe if you got an opinion from someone else about this?
In response to the argument or threat or complaint about lack of love, the word "Nevertheless" is your least bad bet I think. "Nevertheless, that's what I think is best, to the best of my knowledge."
The trouble here is, anyone who's willing to take apart your "I'm sorry" is not a receptive audience, regardless of whether their request could be seen as reasonable by anyone sane, or not. By the time you get here, you only have less bad options to choose from.
Never feel bad if you can't think of any of this when the storm is blowing. Some people are very good at keeping you away from your cerebral cortex. Some are very good at finding just what buttons turn it off. If this happens all the time, consider that this is a weakness you're bringing to the table, that needs to be shored up. (Role playing and practice).
It seems to me that with a spouse, there are going to be times when you earnestly and persistently disagree. And at some level, "I'm sorry you feel that way." But if you leave it at that, your marriage will probably not last, or at least contain a lot more unpleasantness than it needs to. Because if you don't try to actually understand and empathize with the other person's point of view, even in disagreement - a process which is going to involve a lot more dialogue than "sorry you feel that way" - then the gulf between you grows rather than shrinks.
And building on that observation, I will claim that in public discourse, where these words are more commonly encountered, the dynamic is similar. The empathy Scott claims the phrase contains is only there (or only detectable) as part of a more extended conversation. So although I'm trying to empathize with Scott right now, the way he ended his piece makes it harder.
Well, I think a better and perhaps less reproachable form of "I'm sorry you feel that way" will be something like: "It wasn't my intention to make you feel that way". The former can easily be equally employed by someone trying to be sarcastic and dismissive. The latter less amenable to such underhanded usage. The true feeling behind the former (whether the person is indeed "sorry" in a remotely empathic sense) is at best open to speculation. The latter statement is however less interpretively ambiguous
The reason the phrase is infuriating is not because “the words are bad” but because it implies that the addressee is unreasonable.
Consider the following conversation:
Alex: “I wish children didn’t die of preventable causes!”
Betty: “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Betty’s implication is that Alex should feel differently. If Alex thinks he’s right to be upset by dying children, then he also things Betty is a jerk.
The only difference in Scott’s examples is that Alex actually IS being unreasonable, so Betty is right.
"Overfitting social norms" is a really good way to think about this stuff. Explains why the goalposts keep shifting but also whatever position the therapy culture person takes in the moment is obviously correct and just a matter of being a decent human being.
Every social justice pronouncement is along the lines of "this is actually really simple, why are you overthinking it, the answer is obvious, just be a good person!!". That has a certain amount of cachet in the moment because there's generally some particular social norm that supports the position they want you to take.
It's only once you take a step back and start comparing different positions across time that you can see how the principles you're supposed to follow contradict. And so the only way to "be a good person" by the standards of the person you're arguing with is to exactly track whatever they want you to do in the moment and just do that, which cedes them 100% of the power and is obviously silly and wrong.
But the "overfitting" idea is helping me to understand why it's so hard to win these arguments in the moment. You have to be a little bit pedantic and say "ah, but how does that correspond to the thing you said three weeks ago, would this not imply..." and this reads to a lot of people like you're just being difficult for no reason.
> Maybe, but it’s not realistic to expect the average person to figure out a bespoke phrasing in the heat of the moment
I don't really have the money and don't feel comfortable lending it to you because I fear you'll use it on drugs.
I understand he made a sacrifice for his country and I respect people who make that sacrifice even if I disagree with the war.
I didn't mean to trigger you, I'm sorry I brought it up.
I don't think bespoke answers where you actually engage with the other person is too much to ask. Saying a copycat phrase shows you're not even trying to care or understand where they're coming from.
It's another euphemism treadmill. This used to be the way you express disagreement while trying to show some sympathy, but now it's considered not very nice, so a softer euphemism is required.
But it will never be enough, because the underlying conflict of any euphemism treadmill is not what you say, but what you mean. Longhouse-rules simply doesn't allow you to disagree with the victim, or ever challenge the intellectual merits of someone or something...hence the "retarded" treadmill.
I think the biggest problem is that, strangely, people want to offended by something - anything really these days. Very few seem capable or willing to take anything at face value....there has to be another meaning to what they are saying. Unfortunately, that appears to be the case all too often. I am very straightforward, direct, often too honest (so I am told) when communicating verbally and in writing and manage to offend people regularly. If the person is willing to actually express the manner in which they decided to decipher the context, then I almost never use the phrase "I'm sorry you feel that way". I will reiterate what I said (because I am quite literal with my words and it should be self explanatory) and explain the intention behind it. I do have to apologize often for being abrasive, or matter of fact, if I haven't recognized a sensitivity ahead of time. I am usually perceptive to it, however, I have ADHD and get distracted by the 30 things going on in my brain sometimes. I guess I don't understand what is wrong with just responding to their feelings with a brief explanation of your intent.....
You don't make much of a defense; all you do is make snotty comments about people who don't seem to get your "deep insights", and you are being a bit defensive about "therapy culture." It has nothing to do with standing your ground and politely accepting differences. "I'm sorry" can be used to express moral culpability. Or it can be used as a way of softening the upcoming message, "Sorry, but we are closed." The latter has no moral component. The "sorry you feel that way" pretends to be the first but is utterly the second. "Sorry you feel that way" is an incomplete sentence, it means to say, "Sorry you feel that way you shithead, but you don't have any right to feel that way so go fuck yourself." It encapsulates passive/aggressive phrasing. It is gaslighting, it says, I'm such a gutless wonder I don't have the ability to deal with your reaction, so I regret that I am facing any opposition in life (such persons probably had 'buddy parents' who thought good parents were their kid's best friend). It is not an expression of sympathy and anyone who says that does not understand what sympathy is. The sym, means together, the Latin root refers to feeling together, you are together with them in your observation of their pain. The phrase you think is picked on - the usage is the opposite: it says that you don't have the right to feel that way, you're irrational, but I (the delivering of the BS pseudo sympathy) don't have the energy or courage or respect to deal with where you are coming from. It's not so much an insult, it's a cowardly way of expressing disagreement, and it selfishly says that the deliverer is uncomfortable dealing with anyone's feelings that fail to fall into the wretched narcissistic assumption that feedback in discussions is a form of confirmation bias. And when it isn't, "I'm sorry you feel that way.'
You seem to be saying “there’s no situation in which the offender can actually know that they’re not the asshole”.
Did you read the beginning of the article? He gave three such examples.
That the phrase CAN be used in a gaslightly way doesn’t mean it ALWAYS is.
It has nothing to do with cognition or self awareness. So that blows up the point.
I would argue there’s no one-size-fits-all phrase to convey this meaning without the baggage. It’s context dependent.
Went through this a lot with my sister in the year before she died. I wonder if I was too firm in the way I said “the answer to your request is no, but I love you.”
I think people dislike the phrase because it can be a passive aggressive motte and bailey:
"I'm sorry you feel that way":
Motte: I'm sorry we can't agree. I respect your views.
Bailey: I'm sorry you're such an unreasonable person and that you insist on holding such ridiculous views.
To my mind "I'm sorry you feel that" has a patronising air about it, not least because using the word "feel" instead of "think" is implicitly accusing the other person of not giving the point at issue rational consideration but just relying on their faulty intuition.
In that situation, I just say "We'll have to agree to differ". That is just an undeniable statement of fact, which generally ends the dispute. It also has no emotional undertones, either of mine by claiming I'm sorry when in truth I probably couldn't care less what they think, or theirs in relying on knee-jerk feelings instead of logical or evidence-based conclusions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Sorry_You_Feel_That_Way
In much online discourse, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is used interchangeably with an entire family of insincere utterances like "Only joking! LOL u mad?". There is a strong risk that this is the kind of sentiment that your interlocutor will hear when you use these words; therefore, if you do not wish to convey this sentiment, it is best to avoid this phrase.
So I think one major aspect of the disagreement over the phrase is a pretty straightforward miscommunication—over what “feeling” is being sorried. There’s been a lot of discussion here of what “sorry” means in this context, but I think an even greater source of confusion is what the sympathizing-but-not-apologizing party means by “you feel that way.”
When Scott writes about the phrase here, I interpret the phrase as a whole (“I’m sorry you feel that way”) as an expression of regret that the speaker’s previous sentiments in a somewhat argumentative discussion have caused the listener to experience negative emotions, whether or not those negative emotions are a reasonable or normal reaction to the speaker’s sentiments. So if I explain how my views on Mongolian tax policy differ from yours, and you say that those views hurt your feelings, I can use the phrase to express that I did not mean to belittle you and am genuinely sad to hear that my views had that effect on you. (As covered elsewhere in these comments, I’m not saying that your emotional reaction is an appropriate response to my views, that I regret either having or sharing my views, or that I commit to not having or sharing those views in the future.) It’s an expression of sympathy that our conversation led to you having a bad experience, even if I didn’t do anything that I should have expected to cause that result.
But when people opposed to the phrase have used examples in these comments of it being used insincerely, I get an *entirely different sense* of what they mean. In those cases, I primarily interpret the phrase as an expression of the speaker’s regret about the listener’s perspective, or regret *that the discussion is argumentative,* with an implication that it is only argumentative because the listener’s perspective is unreasonable or stupid. If you respond to my views on Mongolian tax policy by telling me that I hurt your feelings, I could use the same phrase to suggest that you are *wrong* about *whether or not I hurt your feelings.* It’s not really an expression of sympathy but instead a personal wish on behalf of the speaker that your perception was more accurate or realistic. Or I might phrase the expression in such a way as to imply that I’m sorry *that you disagree with me on tax policy,* since your negative emotions come from the fact of disagreement—that in order to avoid them, you should have simply agreed with me.
This not only isn’t sympathetic, it’s actively insulting! Whether your feelings are hurt because I called you an idiot or because I failed to address you as “Your Majesty,” you know much better than I do *whether* your feelings are hurt. Whether you cry every time there’s conflict or whether something I said struck you as uniquely wrong, you have as much right to your position as I do mine. So of course people interpret the phrase negatively when it’s used with such an implication.
The core question is whether the speaker is expressing sympathy for the listener’s negative emotions or instead disbelieving them or blaming the listener for those emotions. And both are conveyed really effectively by this same phrase. So when you add in everything else discussed in the piece and the comments—therapy speak, people incapable of imagining themselves on the other side, the genuine opposition to receiving anything short of an apology—a legitimate and necessary aspect of having good conversations becomes presumed to be an insult.
***
One more thing I’ll add: Scott poses three possibilities for the kinds of situations that give rise to the use of the phrase. Either (1) the speaker caves completely (emotional + substantive support for listener’s view) at the listener’s feelings; (2) the speaker taunts the listener for having feelings (neither emotional nor substantive support); or (3) the speaker expresses sympathy for the emotional impact but maintains their substantive stance. He suggested that therapy-culture individuals won’t accept the third solely because they cannot imagine not being in the right, and so can only conceive of Option 1 as being acceptable. Essentially that they’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think it’s worse than that. I think Option 3, the eponymous phrase, is demonized specifically in order to force the speaker into choosing between Options 1 & 2. First, if your only choice is either to monstrously taunt another person for being sad and rejoice in their sadness without sympathy, or to mumble agreement and briefly kowtow to the syndrome du jour, you’re a lot more likely to choose the latter than you might be if you could also express sympathy without leaving yourself open to emotional blackmail. But second, it is much easier for the therapy culture individuals to maintain their “main character” mindsets if everyone who opposes them (read:fails to completely agree with them & do whatever they want) *does* appear to be a narcissistic abuser. If your mindset revolves around black and white morality and constantly seeks to position itself as the pole of good opposed constantly but also only by evil, it’s actually *good* to ensure that your opponents play into that dualism!
It is more work and also much more confusing to have to consider the fact of someone’s sympathy and good intentions while they maintain their refusal to agree with you; if you can ensure that everyone who’s not on your side is explicitly an enemy, it gets much easier. If conflict only occurs when one person is acting Evilly, you can ensure total consistency with this belief by defining all disagreement or conflict as necessarily evil.
Possibly related: One subset of English speakers (notably including the British and Canadian people who say "I'm sorry" all the time) use "I'm sorry" to mean "I acknowledge that something at least mildly negative has happened from your perspective; I regret this negative aspect of what has happened," without necessarily implying any degree of culpability or responsibility.
There is another subset of English speakers who truly do not seem to understand that usage. They seem to think that "I'm sorry" is necessarily an apology or an admission of guilt. You can say, "I'm sorry you're not feeling well," and they will react with confusion, or say, "It's not your fault."
Maybe the reaction against "I'm sorry you feel that way" arose (originally or mainly) from the second population.
Nah, you're missing the point
You demand an immediate answer. Either you agree or you don't (i.e. the first and the third option).
What they need is for you to demonstrate curiosity.
To ask questions. To genuinely look for a mutual understanding. Even if you think there's a 100% chance that you're right (which is a bad idea), then at least you should be modeling their point of view in order to help them see yours.
"I'm sorry that way" means you're slamming the door shut towards any further reconciliation.
More on the use of "feel" as a circumlocution:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/dec/01/university-challenge-special-axed-for-not-supporting-disabled-contestants
A blind contestant was promised audio description of visual aids in a TV quiz, but it was pulled at the last minute. BBC apologised, but only because "two of the contestants felt their access requirements were not sufficiently met by the production". I get that corporate bodies can't say anything that implies liability but "felt" is seriously weak here and it's this kind of cowardly use of the word that makes it a red flag in other contexts.
Bravo! Basically, "I'm sorry you feel that way" is most often not a failed attempt to apologize, nor an expression of some kind of psychological pathology on the part of the speaker. It is a COMPASSIONATE way of disagreeing with the premise put forward by the other participant in the conversation. If one just takes it apart logically, it says "You feel a certain way. I hear you and I recognize that this is the way you feel about the matter. I disagree. I often feel good when we agree on things. That's not the case here, though."
Where this phrase is most likely to be criticized by the "Internet randos" you cite is when what the first speaker has done is not to ask for money, or the recantation of a position, or to stop doing something you had no way of knowing you were doing in the first place (the "triggering" example - and don't even get me started on THIS one...); but when the first speaker has stated a value judgment regarding something done or said, and, either specifically or less directly, demanded an apology. I think this class of conversations is the actual root of "I'm sorry you feel that way" being vilified. The presumption is that by starting with the words "I'm sorry" one is engaging in a cruel bait-and-switch. My own sense is that one is simply being compassionate and communicating that one IS sorry, but not for the reason the speaker demands. I find "I'm sorry you feel that way" much kinder and gentler than, for instance, "No, you are wrong. I am not sorry." And it serves the same purpose.