Did you just "should" on me?

So, I was doing some teaching in Central Asia recently, and my best student was suspended for being present while his friends drew a football-pitch-sized schlong in the snow outside the school building.

I've always been very sensitive to language, and the use of the word 'should' is a particularly big node in the web of my understanding.

In trying to have my best student digest the disproportionate punishment the school had meted out to him, and to try to understand the conflict between his physical presence at the scene and his mindset (he told me he was trying to stop his friends, and I believe him), I had to negotiate the word 'should'.

Basically, I told him that the word 'should', to the best of my own understanding, is short-hand.  It's a conditional that means something like 'would be good if'.  However, for a lot of people who are rule-based and don't reflect on language for its own sake, the word 'should' carries what is known in philosophical jargon as 'deontological' force.  That is, they use it like a lasso to 'bind' you with what they assume to be shared and non-negotiable moral understanding and rules.

To unpack the complex nature of causation, especially if we want to make room for the complexities of the human psyche, and not reduce a human to a stimulus-response mechanism, I'd say it's necessary to look at any action from a descriptive standpoint, taking the deontological, or morally judgemental, aspect out of it for the time being.  I realise this is a Rubicon a lot of people won't cross, and while that's their prerogative, I don't find it helpful in dealing with sensitive and intelligent students.

Anyway, to cut a lengthening story short, instead of saying, "You should've done xyz," I asked him to think about 1)  What led him to be in that situation, 2)  What he now knew that he hadn't known at the time,  3)  What signs he could look out for in future to help him identify a similar situation as it unfolds, and 4)  What he could do differently in future to avoid a similarly undesirable outcome.

He also had to process the fact that being innocent in the sense of having a clear conscience isn't always enough when dealing with rules-based institutions, although that's beside the point.  

That said, as a teacher, I also use 'should' as short-hand, because the situations I have to deal with are just too fast-paced and complex not to.  Yes, this is a form of psycho-linguistic violence, but I need to earn money somehow, and the formation of what is still recognized as the individual in Western society is founded upon such pruning of mind and behaviour.  The trade-off is that I do my best to make sure I only use it in ways that will smooth students' way forward in life, by getting them to do things like remember to bring a pencil, stop drawing on walls, and focus on what they're doing.

I hope the above makes sense and is helpful.

- Jojo

I was a professional development seminar a few weeks ago, and one of the presenters talked about how she tells her students "don't should on yourself."

Of course, the kids often think she said some other SH** word, and that makes it have an even stronger impact. The goal is to get kids (and ourselves) to stop thinking about what could have happened and to stop beating ourselves up about stuff that happened. It's better to focus on what we can do and what we will do, rather than what we "should" have done.

But, of course, the whole time they were talking about "shoulding," I was reminded of this thread on permies.

Don't should on others, and try not to should on yourself, either!

My communication ideal includes being able to listen to somebody and respond to what they are trying to say. Like most ideals, my practice falls somewhere between perfection and total apathy. It makes for a good exercise to apply to the shoulds of the world.

If my neighbor saw me pruning my hedges, and in complete ignorance over what hedges they were, why they are planted here, and why I am pruning them this way, told me that I should prune them in a particular way, it feels like someone walking up and blowing sand in your eyes. But what might she be trying to say? Maybe it's something like "I am proud of my standards for styling hedges, and I would love to share them with you." Still a little arrogant, but I think a well-meaning person could find a friendly response to that.

I think most well-meaning shoulds leave the problem solving to the listener. "You should include this information when you make a decision, and I hope the information is useful. "

The shoulds that include the message that your mind is already made up, that you are the expert and the listners are waiting to be educated by you, those are the shoulds nobody likes. If you haven't listened to anything I have to say and you're explaining how you came to the correct conclusion, you are here for a TED talk or lecture where my role is to listen and applaud. However if you try to hear what they're trying to say, it's probably that they want some sort of connection with you, or they want recognition and appreciation for their knowledge. Something we all experience.

Problem solving is closely tied into this. I myself have a strong problem solving nature and have to suppress it at times. My problem solving nature is great while I'm at my job, but if I keep the same behavior during family life, I won't be able to give my attention to the people in front of me. Staying in problem solving mode, I'm sure I would should everyone I meet because every inconvenience and discomfort and worry is just a problem that can be solved, and I'm pretty good at finding solutions to those kinds of problems. It was a big step in maturity to learn that sometimes I need to exist in a space without solving problems.

Being a guest in someone's house is a perfect example, they're inviting you over to enjoy your company and help you feel accommodated. They're not hiring you as a consultant to solve all the little problems in an inefficiencies of their house, so if I'm invited as a house guest and I start dropping shoulds on everything I see that I would have done differently, I probably won't be invited back, as others have expressed.

In fact, it is plausible that the word "should" might be used for one's one personal gobbledy-gook exclusively.   Maybe I could say "I really should eat more cookies"  or "I think I should take more naps."

I was suggested by a professional looking out for my mental health to reduce or remove the word "should" from my internal vocabulary. "I should go tend to the sunflowers before breakfast" becomes "I COULD go tend.." big difference internally. Especially if you're like me and you could end every day with a long list of Todo items that you didnt make time for. It's not possible to do it all, so be careful with the authority you give to certain tasks by using the word "should".

I usually solve the problem with synonym.

Google says Some words that have a similar meaning to "should" include:

   Must: Used to indicate a requirement or obligation
   Ought: Used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency
   Have (to): Used to indicate a requirement or obligation
   Need: Used to indicate a requirement or obligation
   Shall: Used as a synonym for "should"
   Will: Used as a synonym for "should"

Though those don't really work so I usually say:

My suggestion would be ....

Just a reminder to all that we're sensitive here about folks being told what they "should" do.

From my experience, I find we live in an age where folks have lost the ability to use common sense, logic and reason.  Words are no longer allowed to be casual, general conversation.  Everything has to come with a disclaimer (hence my signature) because Karens, armchair judge and juries, and all sorts of people can't just take something that's being said for what is it.  It's one of the reasons why I don't have any social media.  (One of many, many... many reasons.)  

For example:  "In Appalachia, green beans are a staple in our diet."

Common replies:  "People all over the world eat green beans, not just an Appalachian thing."
"I'm in <insert name of any state, region, or country here> and we eat green beans all the time."

Lord love a duck, that's not at all the gist or intention from what was said!  🤪 🤦‍♂️  And this is a mild example.

Folks need to just calm the freak down and not assume or impart meanings and intentions to what others say in casual, general conversations.  It's exhaustipating.  On a positive note, I do find it to be a very helpful indicator of determining my level of interaction with people.  So, there's that.  I no longer have the tolerance for such foolishness.

Anne Miller wrote:Google says Some words that have a similar meaning to "should" include:

   Must: Used to indicate a requirement or obligation
   Ought: Used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency
   Have (to): Used to indicate a requirement or obligation
   Need: Used to indicate a requirement or obligation
   Shall: Used as a synonym for "should"
   Will: Used as a synonym for "should"

Though those don't really work

I agree. These are words that might come across as having the same effect as 'should'.

Softer words like 'might' or 'perhaps' or 'could' may soften a message that comes across as a bit 'truthy'.

Emmett Ray wrote:exhaustipating

That's a keeper! I'm adding that to my vocabulary now. 👍