WHY YOUR TRUTH-TELLING WILL PISS PEOPLE OFF, AND WHY YOU SHOULD DO IT ANYWAY
By Michael Kelman Portney
Before you deploy tit-for-tat strategy in your personal or professional life, before you start asking perfectly calibrated Socratic questions, before you implement the framework I've outlined, you need to understand something crucial:
People will become furious with you.
For their own decisions.
Not for what you did. For what they did.
And they will never, ever acknowledge this distinction.
HOW THE ANGER WORKS
Here's the sequence:
You: "Why weren't the shares in the trust like the will said?"
Them: "Well, it's complicated, and you don't understand trusts, and this is really inappropriate..." [DEFECTION]
You: "That's not an answer. The will said put them in the trust. Were they put in the trust or not?" [RETALIATION]
Them: "You're being aggressive! You're attacking me! This is harassment!" [ANGER]
What just happened?
From your perspective:
You asked a simple question (cooperation)
They evaded (defection)
You pointed out the evasion (retaliation per tit-for-tat)
They're angry at you (for their choice to evade)
From their perspective:
You asked a "gotcha" question (attack)
They gave a reasonable response (cooperation)
You "attacked" them for it (aggression)
They're defending themselves (justified anger)
Same sequence. Completely different interpretation.
WHY THEY BLAME YOU
Because you made their defection visible.
Think about it:
Before you asked the question:
Nobody knew they hadn't put the shares in the trust
Or nobody was forcing them to address it
They could maintain the appearance of propriety
No consequences for their actions
After you asked the question:
They had to choose: truth or evasion
They chose evasion
You made the evasion visible
Now there are consequences
From their perspective, YOU created the problem.
Not by the original malfeasance (that's in the past, it's complicated, let's not dwell on it).
By asking the question that forced them to choose between admission and evasion.
You created the accountability moment.
They hate you for it.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISM
This is fundamental attribution error meets cognitive dissonance with a dash of loss aversion.
They can't think: "I chose to evade a simple question, and now I look evasive."
Because that requires:
Admitting they did wrong ✓
Taking responsibility ✓
Accepting consequences ✓
So instead they think: "He asked an unfair, aggressive, inappropriate question, and I'm defending myself against his attack."
This preserves:
Their self-image (I'm not the bad guy) ✓
Their ego (I made the right choice) ✓
Their position (I'm the victim here) ✓
The anger is real.
They genuinely feel attacked.
Because acknowledging they attacked themselves is psychologically impossible.
THE PATTERN
Once you start deploying tit-for-tat systematically, you'll see this pattern everywhere:
They defect → You retaliate → They're angry at you
Every. Single. Time.
Example 1:
You ask direct question
They evade
You point out evasion
"Why are you being so aggressive?!"
Example 2:
You offer cooperation
They attack your credibility
You present evidence of your competence
"You're so arrogant!"
Example 3:
You maintain calm professional tone
They escalate emotionally
You maintain calm (which highlights their escalation)
"You're making me crazy!"
In each case:
They made a choice ✓
You responded according to tit-for-tat ✓
The response revealed their choice ✓
They're angry about the revelation ✓
Not the choice.
The revelation of the choice.
IT'S LIKE TURNING ON THE LIGHTS
Imagine someone is stealing from the cookie jar in a dark room.
You turn on the lights.
They're standing there with their hand in the jar.
They're not mad they got caught stealing.
They're mad you turned on the lights.
From their perspective, everything was fine until you flipped the switch. The problem isn't their hand in the jar. The problem is your unreasonable insistence on illumination.
Tit-for-tat is turning on the lights.
They've been defecting in the dark for years.
No consequences. No visibility. No accountability.
You ask one simple question, and suddenly:
Their defection is visible ✓
Observers can see it ✓
Consequences exist ✓
And they will hate you for turning on the lights.
Forever.
WHAT THEY'LL SAY
The specific accusations will vary, but the pattern is universal:
"You're being combative, aggressive, hostile"
Translation: You're holding me accountable and I don't like it
"You're twisting my words"
Translation: I said something I now regret and you remember it
"You're playing games"
Translation: You have a strategy and I don't
"You're making this personal"
Translation: This has consequences for me personally and I want it not to
"You're being unfair"
Translation: Fair would be letting me defect without cost
"You're obsessed"
Translation: You won't let me change the subject
"You need help"
Translation: If you were mentally ill, I could dismiss your points without addressing them
All of these translate to the same thing:
"Please stop making me face consequences for my own choices."
THE SOCIAL COST
Here's what you need to understand before you deploy this framework:
People will think you're an asshole.
Not the people you're in conflict with. That's expected.
But people around the conflict.
People who:
Don't understand game theory ✓
Don't see the full pattern ✓
Don't realize you started with cooperation ✓
Don't track defection, retaliation cycles ✓
They'll see:
Someone (you) asking hard questions
Someone (opponent) getting upset
Someone (you) not backing down
Someone (opponent) claiming victimhood
And they'll think: "Why is Mike being so hard on them? Can't he just let it go?"
Because they didn't see:
The initial defection ✓
The pattern of defections ✓
The strategic necessity of retaliation ✓
The framework you're implementing ✓
They just see conflict.
And the person asking uncomfortable questions looks like the aggressor.
EXPECT ISOLATION
When you deploy tit-for-tat systematically:
Some people will understand (rare):
They see the pattern ✓
They respect the discipline ✓
They become allies ✓
Most people will be uncomfortable (common):
They see conflict ✓
They want it to stop ✓
They think you should "be the bigger person" ✓
They distance themselves ✓
Some people will actively oppose you (guaranteed):
They identify with the person you're questioning ✓
They see you as disturbing peace ✓
They think accountability is aggression ✓
They become enemies ✓
"Be the bigger person" is code for "let them defect without consequences."
Most people prefer peace to justice.
They'd rather you stop asking questions than get answers.
Because your questions make everyone uncomfortable.
Including them.
THE LONELINESS OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Here's the hard truth:
Implementing tit-for-tat means choosing accountability over popularity.
Most people choose popularity.
They let things slide. They avoid confrontation. They keep the peace.
When you choose accountability:
You're disrupting the peace ✓
You're forcing people to take sides ✓
You're making things difficult ✓
Even people who agree with you:
Will think you should do it differently. Softer. Quieter. Less persistently.
Will suggest you're damaging your own cause.
Will wish you would just drop it.
Because your persistence makes THEM uncomfortable.
Even though you're right.
Even though you have the evidence.
Even though they know you should get justice.
Your refusal to let it go becomes the problem.
Not the original wrong.
Not the continued evasion.
Your insistence on accountability.
WHY YOU'LL DOUBT YOURSELF
Because everyone will tell you to.
When one person says you're wrong: Maybe they're wrong.
When five people say you're wrong: Maybe they're all wrong.
When fifteen people say you're wrong: Maybe you're wrong?
This is where most people break.
Not because the framework stops working.
Because the social cost becomes too high.
Everyone's mad at you.
Everyone thinks you should let it go.
Everyone says you're being unreasonable.
And you start to think:
"Maybe I am being unreasonable. Maybe I should just drop it. Maybe this isn't worth it."
That's the moment the framework gets tested.
Not in deposition.
Not in court.
In your own head, at 3am, wondering if you're the crazy one.
THE TRUTH THEY WON'T TELL YOU
They're not angry because you're wrong.
They're angry because you're right.
And they know it.
And you won't let them forget it.
When someone evades a simple question, and you point out the evasion, and they explode in anger, that anger is not about your tone or your tactics or your persistence.
It's about the fact that:
They can't answer the question ✓
You both know they can't answer ✓
Everyone watching knows they can't answer ✓
And you won't stop asking ✓
The anger is frustration at being caught.
Not at being falsely accused.
Innocent people don't act like this.
Innocent people say: "Oh, you want to know about the shares? Let me get those documents. Let's figure this out."
Guilty people say: "How dare you question me! This is harassment! You're obsessed! You need help!"
The anger is the tell.
And your refusal to be intimidated by the anger:
Is what makes them even angrier.
THE WARNING
So here's what you need to know before you deploy game theory systematically:
Be prepared for people to become upset with you.
For their own decisions.
Be prepared for:
Accusations of aggression (for asking questions)
Accusations of obsession (for not forgetting)
Accusations of unfairness (for holding them to their words)
Social isolation (from people who find you difficult)
Self-doubt (from the weight of universal disapproval)
Exhaustion (from being the only one who won't let it go)
Be prepared for everyone to tell you: "Just let it go. Be the bigger person. Move on. Life's too short. It's not worth it."
And be prepared to know:
It IS worth it.
Because truth matters.
Because accountability matters.
Because their comfort with injustice doesn't obligate your silence about it.
THE CHOICE
This framework works.
The mathematics are sound. The psychology is proven. The execution is disciplined.
It will get you to truth.
It will establish accountability.
It will win the argument.
But it will cost you.
Not in being wrong.
Not in losing.
In being alone.
In being uncomfortable.
In being the person who wouldn't let it go.
Most people aren't willing to pay that cost.
They'd rather have peace than truth.
They'd rather have comfort than justice.
They'd rather be liked than be right.
That's why most people don't deploy game theory.
Not because they don't understand it.
But because they understand the cost.
So before you start asking those simple questions...
Before you implement tit-for-tat...
Before you deploy the framework...
Ask yourself:
Are you prepared for people to hate you?
For their own choices?
Forever?
Because they will.
They absolutely will.
And if you're not ready for that:
Don't start.
But if you are ready:
If you're willing to be the person who asks the uncomfortable questions:
Who holds people to their own words:
Who implements accountability even when everyone wishes you'd stop:
Then welcome to the loneliest, most effective position you'll ever hold.
The person who turned on the lights.
And refuses to turn them off.
No matter how loudly everyone screams about the glare.
That's the warning.
That's the cost.
That's what nobody tells you about game theory in practice.
You'll be right.
You'll win.
And everyone will hate you for it.
Because you made them see what they chose to do.
And people never forgive the person who turned on the lights.
