i think the problem really is that im too friendly and forward-facing, so ppl read me as fundamentally unserious, i.e. not worth listening to
#i asked some friends for advice#and laid out irrevocably contradictory viewpoints over the course of an hour to see if they were listening#and they said yup do the first thing and also do the second
I don't know about other instances, but it sounds to me like it's your friends there who are being too "friendly and forward-facing", i.e. too eager to please / unserious / unwilling to confront in this instance.
This is only tangentially related, but one of the things I really like In healthy competitive gaming communities is that they vaccinate people against that sort of reflexive avoidance of productive conflict.
In a healthy competitive community, you spend your time 1) putting yourself in direct competition against others, and 2) immediately afterwards discuss with your opponent about how the both of you can improve from there. That's because if you want to improve as a competitor, the best way is to surround yourself with other competitors who will constantly test the boundaries of what your playstyle is capable of doing, while improving their own.
Let's say you find a specific "trick" in the game, that few people have seen. Maybe it's novel enough that most players just don't know how to deal with it, so you end up relying hard on that one trick. But what happens when an opponent actually knows how to deal with it? If you're flying solo, it might take a while before you figure it out. You don't want to pay a lot of time and effort to travel to a tournament, and have your first exposure to opponents who know how to deal with the trick live, during your tournament match.
So you go to your local meetup, you think of a way someone can get out of the trick, and you straight-up teach them. You say "hey, you know that trick I always do? It works like ABC, maybe try doing XYZ to counter it?". And then you can see how you deal with opponents who actually know about your trick, and reach the next level.
I find it really strikingly similar to the platonic ideal of a debate, where after the two sides use arguments and test each other's positions and viewpoints, both sides come out closer to the truth. The point is that yes it's a confrontation, which can feel like an attack in the moment, but it's also ultimately constructive - both parties accept temporary incomfort to reach greater heights.
I find that people who are used to doing this, to constantly test each other's immediate points in service of longer-term growth, are much less likely to be avoidant doormats in their personal lives as well - the reflexes transfer well. Conflict over-avoidance is not a virtue.


















