To add on to this, this thinking of "fake" vs "real" gratitude falls into the typical Socratic thinking of "I can tell you what isn't XXX but I can't tell you what it is cause I'm not wise yada yada." As human beings we like to think we can tell human beings intentions. However, as miscommunication proves, we often can't, at least accurately. Having individuals go through the motions of generosity, humility, and gratitude is just as good as teaching people those intentions e.g. play the part long enough and you stop playing.
why do we need to teach people though? If its obvious that gratitude is good why can't we simply adopt it in an instant. Unless you mean 'anti gratitude' is inherent to all human minds and needs to be constantly suppressed and overpowered through practice.
Call it "teaching," "training," "learning," "conditioning," or whatever else you like, but it seems pretty self-evident that people change how they think and feel based on their experiences. Some of those experiences involve acting a certain way and seeing how others react.
Think about it the other way—in terms of negative emotions. A person with anger problems might practice suppressing blowups and taking a moment to try to deal with the anger before moving on. Would you accuse them of being fake-not-angry? Of course not. They're practicing healthy behavior, and over time the practice becomes natural and they don't even have to think about it anymore. They have become a genuinely less angry person by practicing non-angry behaviors.
Practicing gratitude is the same thing, except you're reinforcing a positive emotion rather than suppressing a negative one. You can become a genuinely more thankful person by reminding yourself to express gratitude.
I question any person's ability to truly read the thoughts or emotions of another. At any given moment, a person's thoughts and feelings are very complex and entangled, yet when we interpret their actions we reduce them down to a simple emotion or intention. That oversimplification is always inaccurate, and we should work to develop more complex understandings of other people. So when someone looks like they're faking modesty, they may in fact feel somewhat modest, or at least be faking it for "good" reasons.
There is, of course, a difference between "saying what you're supposed to say" and "trying to be more outwardly grateful," but in reality the lines blur a lot and neither is a bad thing. This may be an unpopular opinion, but when it comes to public discourse, I'll take fake expressions of gratitude over genuine expressions of contempt any day of the week.
Just curious about your reasoning behind the last statement, that with "public discourse [you'd] take fake expressions of gratitude over genuine expressions of contempt any day of the week".
If they were to openly express their contempt, then I know where they stand, and adjust my actions accordingly. If they fake expressions of gratitude, I can't be sure what their feelings actually are. Are they having a bad day, and trying to turn it around? Do they genuinely view me with distaste? If it's the former, it might benefit me to support this person. If it's the latter, I might not.
I can understand why it'd be good for a politician to present this ambiguity, but why is it good for you, the consumer of the public discourse?
I put a lot of stock in the power of discourse. When a person publicly expresses their hatred or contempt, they always raise the levels of hatred and contempt in the listeners--those that agree with them are emboldened, and those that disagree are aggravated. Creating a more hateful society is so negative (in my opinion) that it outweighs the benefits of the honesty.
I think the strongest case against my stance is the politicians, since we need to "know" them in order to be informed as voters. Except politicians are actively campaigning, so it's impossible to know whether a politician is expressing those views because they actually believe them or just because they think it's good strategy. Therefore, when it comes to politicians, I judge them more on what they've done in the past, and I consider their public statements mostly on their tone than on their content, because it probably reflects the tone they'll continue to take once they're in office. Hypothetically, if I could instantly detect the truth in a politician's statement, maybe the information benefit would outweigh, but since I need to assume that I don't know the full story no matter what they say, I'd prefer they be kind than mean.
