Ghosting

It feels perfectly unobjectionable. We all believe that it’s better to be polite than to be rude. And we all believe in exercising common courtesy when dealing with other people.

So says Dr. Jenny Taitz, who offers the latest in psycho wisdom in the Wall Street Journal.

Hate wondering and waiting? We all do. That’s why it’s important to let people in your personal and professional life know when to expect to hear from you, and also to say what you mean, clearly and kindly, even when it isn’t what they want to hear. As a clinical psychologist, I’ve seen that many people find the prospect of disappointing someone so cringeworthy that they prefer to skip a potentially awkward exchange and just disappear—a practice popularly known as “ghosting.”

This raises an important issue. Ought we to be applying this rule universally, to anyone anywhere, or are there subtle variations that cause us to fit it to different circumstances?

If you have chosen to break off a relationship that has been ongoing for ten years, we all agree that you owe the other person an explanation. You do not just ghost someone you have been involved with for a long time.

And yet, when you have a coffee date with someone who is basically a stranger, and do not want to see him or her again, is it acceptable simply not to contact the person. One imagines that such is the case. You owe him or her nothing. You communicate your lack of interest in having a relationship by not communicating, by ghosting.

One might even suggest that if you call the person to explain that you never want to speak to him or her again, you will be obliged to enter into a conversation about why you feel what you feel. Is there any way you can explain yourself without being rude?

And then, consider the job interview situation. Is it ever acceptable to fail to respond to applicants. Surely, when we are being interviewed for a job, it is nicer to hear directly that we have been rejected. But, is it really? 

Is it acceptable to send a text announcing that another candidate has been chosen? Then again, if you tell the applicant that if you want to proceed further you will contact him or her within a week, your silence counts as a message.

Anyway, things now get more complicated.

If you have interviewed thirty candidates for a job, do you really have the time to call each one personally and to announce that you have chosen someone else?

Moreover, how many of those you call personally will contest your judgment? How many will berate you for ignoring their better qualities? And besides, what if your honest opinion for not choosing the candidate might get you sued. If you do not know what is or is not worthy of litigation, why take the chance that you might say something that seems harmless to you but that provokes a lawsuit?

Let us say that you follow the latest in psycho wisdom and do what Dr. Taitz says. That is, that you exercise your empathy muscle and say something kind to the rejected applicant, to the effect that you appreciate his or her abilities but have found someone who is better.

Aside from the fact that empathy is best exercised with infants, we must notice that such a gesture opens the door to a further relationship. If you have no intention to have a relationship with the other person why are you opening the door to one?

Isn’t it kinder to simply cease all communications, without explaining why you are doing so?

Anyway, psycho professionals believe that you should never ghost anyone. They believe that you should always explain yourself, even at the risk-- which they do not recognize-- that you will be obliged to insult the other person by explaining your reasoning. Be clear. If you do not want to see someone again or do not want to hire someone else, the reason must have been unflattering.

Dr. Taitz explains:

Rather than delegate the task of delivering bad news to someone else, like the human resources department, you can think of doing it yourself as a chance to exercise your empathy muscles.

The psycho world has a vague sense that the no-ghosting rule should not be applied to all situations. Consider this:

Though you don’t need to formally break up with someone after one meeting or reply to every message you receive on LinkedIn, “If someone you’ve engaged with contacts you, you have to respond,” says Dr. Guy Winch, a clinical psychologist and co-host of the podcast “Dear Therapists.” While at times you can’t help having to disappoint someone, reaching out promptly and offering compassion eases the sting.

Of course, this depends on what you mean by engaging with another person. The important point is that the rule is not universal and is not absolute. In some situations it is rude to call and break off in person. Besides, reaching out to someone you barely know does not say that you want to break off. The action contradicts the message. 

The notion that all communications should be open and honest needs some serious qualification. We are all in favor of being polite, but sometimes the effort to be polite makes us more rude than we need to be. And it opens us up to conflict and drama. As long as we do not know who is more or less likely to want to engage in a conversation or even an argument about our judgment, we might do better simply to ghost the person. As I noted, if we tell a candidate that he or she should hear from us within a week if we wish to proceed, not communicating counts as a message.

Cross posted on my Substack. Feel free to sign up.