I’m quick to see in black-or-white. This judgment system was reinforced by advice I read in college.
Derek Sivers told me, “If you’re not saying ‘HELL YEAH!’ about it, say no.”
Mark Manson codified it as “The Law of Fuck Yes or No”.
It made sense back then. Obviously that’s how I should live my life! Why would I settle for anything less?
The rule works well when there are clearly bad options you should turn down. It’s a reminder not to give into desperation or base impulses. But does it work with more subtle ambiguity?
For example, how’s the rule work when I was looking at my post-graduation options and had varying reservations about all of them? Saying “no” to all my options to move back home with my parents didn’t feel like a “hell yeah” either.
The implicit assumption about this rule is that you can trust your “no”. But what if I’m clinging onto an outdated worldview that’s trying to maintain the status quo? What if I’ve been using the rule as an excuse to keep optionality while avoiding commitment?
As I mentioned in The Costanza Compass:
Naysayers want to maintain inner equilibrium and are quick to quash any threats to stability.
…the naysayers’ general attitude is one of stimulus rejection — a pervasive unwillingness to respond to impulsive or environmental forces.
Similarly, I have an avoidant attachment style. It’s something I’m working on, but I can’t imagine ever yelling “HELL YEAH” to a fight. So when is an argument a dealbreaker and when am I just inadequately equipped to deal with conflict?
Manson tries to add some nuance to the rule in his essay, but it falls short.
You can be “Fuck Yes” about sticking it out in an unhappy relationship because you can see the long-term potential in the future.
I don’t know about you, but that’s just about the worst “Fuck Yes” I’ve ever heard in my life.
It turns out the world is not black-or-white. It’s a rainbow of gray, and I’m not sure how to handle the nuance.