This will be a short one; I feel the need to clarify certain things I’ve said as I’ve oversimplified it a bit too much
The other use of disclaimers
The excessive use of disclaimers in everyday speech is not a good thing. It’s distracting and detracts from the point, regardless of whether it undermines the speaker’s credibility or not, and I’ve found it often linked to something else.
Disclaimers are important in academia, and the educated generally know how to use them properly and effectively, so this isn’t about them, but rather the uncertainty certain laypeople apply ubiquitously in their everyday speech.
In everyday speech, what we may find is not usually genuine disclaimers but rather insincere and useless doubt. For example:
A: The weather is nice today, isn’t it?
B: Yeah it is… I think.
A: I love this ice-cream
B: It’s probably good.
A: That was a nice movie.
B: See, I’m not sure if I believe that, but I’m inclined to agree.
And yes, these are paraphrased from real anecdotes; people like these actually exist. What this is, however, is not really what I describe as useful disclaimers or attempts at honesty but rather:
Take the first example: it could be a valid point of discussion, as one could doubt their senses, the subjective interpretation of “nice weather”, the fact they have only stepped outside five minutes ago and can’t conclude too much about the weather, etc., but that’s not usually what B does.
No, B appends some kind of doubt or disclaimer about uncertainty to an excessive and inordinate amount of sentences, because B is motivated by something else: low self-esteem.
Low self-esteem and insecurity
Low self-esteem (or insecurity) manifests itself differently in many ways, but the one most relevant to us here is their fear of being wrong—their fear of criticism. By adding a disclaimer to everything they say, they can safeguard themselves from criticism because they won’t “technically” be wrong.
This may be true, but only because they’ve mostly stated a bunch of nothings—all “fluff” but no “substance”. With the third example, B seems to be mimicking an authority figure using “See” as if mocking A’s quick judgement, while still being defended from criticism by using “inclined to agree” without specifying where the inclination comes from. For example, B’s idea of being “inclined to agree” could be the belief that A is being ridiculous and it’s not worth arguing with the likes of someone like A, though—and importantly—it could also mean that B was impressed by enough elements of the movie to believe it was indeed nice.
What B is trying to do is maximise plausible deniability, leaving them unaccountable for any statements they make. B appears to have said something, but in reality usually says nothing at all, which A doesn’t always notice.
Now comes C. C is a contrarian whose sole purpose is to contradict everything A and B says, like the reification of a NOT gate.
A: The weather is nice today, isn’t it?
C: No, it is not.
A: I love this ice-cream
C: It’s terrible and overpriced.
A: That was a nice movie.
C: No, it was a travesty of the filmmaking industry
But now let’s see how B’s plausible deniability can save them from criticism by inserting B and C together in the same conversation. If it makes it any easier, you can imagine A as already having left by the time B and C meet.
A: The weather is nice today, isn’t it?
B: Yeah it is… I think.
…
C: No, it is not.
B: Yeah that’s what I suspected.
A: I love this ice-cream
B: It’s probably good
…
C: It’s terrible and overpriced
B: That makes sense.
A: That was a nice movie
B: See, I’m not sure if I believe that, but I’m inclined to agree.
…
C: It was a travesty of the filmmaking industry.
B: Exactly. I just didn’t want to argue with someone like A.
You can see how B is a lot more subservient towards C, agreeing flatly with much lesser ambiguity in order to avoid criticism from C as opposed to being generally skeptical about everything (in which case a stereotypical C would get angry with B for doubting).
In either case, B can be said to agree with either A or C, depending on who’s in the conversation. This is one of the ways people with low self-esteem use ambiguity to their advantage and avoid having to “stand behind their words” or be held accountable for their opinions.
If they’re ever wrong about anything, they can just pretend like that’s not what they meant to begin with and easily deny it. It works, but I can’t imagine it would be fun being around people who only speak in defensive nothings. In addition, many have gotten so good at it to the point A is very unlikely to notice (unless A has a background in psychology and starts to notice several red flags over time, more on this later).
Disclaimer about low self-esteem
This is not a hit on those with low self-esteem more than a clarification of my stance as I do not support this kind of useless doubt—doubt only for the purposes of avoiding criticism and defending oneself as opposed to being motivated by a sincere desire for accurate knowledge.
Low self-esteem is very common in depressed individuals, meaning these people may actually be suffering a lot inside.
Given that their behaviour can be seen as insincere or traitorous, they try their best too hide it in order to avoid being caught, in order to not lose their “friends”.
It’s a sad way to stave away loneliness, and relationships between people can be better than this, but to those who believe little of themselves and that they have little intrinsic value, its not something they have the privilege to contemplate about.
If A happens to notice these warning signs due to some background in psychology (that’s not confirmation bias), perhaps this A will be more understanding of B’s situation and tolerate it better, perhaps even help B, but there are a lot of distorted and ingrained thinking patterns in those with low self-esteem that it’s not always so easy. Here, CBT does make a good point when it comes to distorted thinking, especially with their often excessive and unreasonable use of “should”s. Guilt, after all, is one of the hallmarks of depression which this pattern of thinking only further reinforces.
But this article is going on for far too long now. To put it short: as annoying and sometimes condescending (the best defence is the best offense) B might sound, it helps if we understand why they act that way and adjust our words accordingly. People tend to become less defensive if they feel like they can take a hit. Perhaps you might not be able to cure them once and for all, but being able to empower someone to become even a slightly better* person is in itself tremendously rewarding, especially if B is someone close to you.
*Okay, “better” is highly subjective, but you get my point.
There’s more: Part 3 can be found here.