You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response, which given your social circle is I think fairly unusual isn't accusing you of lying so much as asking if he read it correctly.
And he didn't -advise- you, he asked why you -didn't- do that.
Of course, assuming bad faith and then using his age as an argument as to why your knee jerk reaction was ok apparently is also an option - but not up to your usual standard. I think perhaps the 'emotional minefield' part is crucial here, and next time you should step away for that hour before replying at all.
You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response, which given your social circle is I think fairly unusual isn't accusing you of lying so much as asking if he read it correctly.
I certainly did that.
Of course, assuming bad faith and then using his age as an argument as to why your knee jerk reaction was ok apparently is also an option - but not up to your usual standard. I think perhaps the 'emotional minefield' part is crucial here, and next time you should step away for that hour before replying at all.
In this case stepping away for an hour would not have helped. Because with a strong emotional frame in my head, I had no path from there to seeing any other reaction. It was going to take someone else, in this case you, to show me another possible way to frame it. I'll need to take time to digest that fact before I try to figure out how to avoid responding that way in the future.
Thank you for your helpful response. I'm sorry that I had the reaction that I did. These things happen with humans. Some days more easily than others. Some humans more easily than others.
PS: Ironically, knowing a few successful startup founders is one of the most normal things about my social circle.
Reacted emotionally because of care for your family and then did your best to be more logical about it when given a chance to do so? I'm not sorry, and I'd anticipate their not being sorry either.
(a slightly gratuitous additional reframing perhaps, but one I think deserves to be given voice)
> You're assuming sarcasm rather than a "whoa, seriously?" response
There is a difference between "whoa, seriously?" and "whoa, seriously? if that's so, then why aren't you swimming in money?". The former is ok, the latter is generally given to people who tell you that they speak with Elvis or they can travel freely to the future and back.
You are correct, and this is one reason why it was difficult for me to see a better frame. Of course once I am aware that a better frame exists, I should give the benefit of the doubt by assuming that one until proven otherwise. (Even if I suspect it is not what was truly going on.)
I can only say I admire your determination here. In this specific case I have no or very little doubt that your suspicion is correct, especially in the light of later edits above. I think that I personally wouldn't be able to reframe the situation and change my way of thinking just because I was shown that it is possible. I suspect I wouldn't even want to, and it's not a noble thing to do, and I know this, but I think I still wouldn't be able to stop. I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed that you were able to overcome these emotions, really, honestly impressed.
Given the answer to "whoa, seriously?" is "yes" in your case, a good faith answer to a bad faith question is also the most effective smackdown; I find arranging things such to be useful where I have such suspicions :)
And he didn't -advise- you, he asked why you -didn't- do that.
Of course, assuming bad faith and then using his age as an argument as to why your knee jerk reaction was ok apparently is also an option - but not up to your usual standard. I think perhaps the 'emotional minefield' part is crucial here, and next time you should step away for that hour before replying at all.