With this reputation in place, people are much less likely to try to trick you into doing what they want, and more likely to try to get you to do things with them.
You have to be a little careful though. If you don't have much social capital to begin with, it could backfire into being ignored altogether. If you overdo it, it may also be counterproductive.
There is nothing original about this. Practically everyone is doing all they can to pretend to be busy, to the point that many people actually believe that they are, and all to avoid meaningful interactions with the people around them. Meaningful interactions are risky and costly and modern people have lost their nerve. It's so much easier to watch Net Flix when you want to feel. I'm sick to death of this. I want to surround myself with people who live deeply and with meaning.
Think about it, how many people, other than your family, really give a shit if you live or die? For most people that number is close to zero and it's not going to change if you buy in to this bullshit that the solution to your problems is to guard your time or focus more on yourself. In my experience, the only people who say they need to start thinking more of their own needs are the ones who have always done so.
That is actually one of the crucial realizations that helped me change my behavior towards others. It may seem hard to believe, but once I understood that interactions were more transactional than I had previously thought (in the sense that you always have to create some form of value for others since people don't care about you otherwise), I was able to have a richer and deeper social life because people fundamentally changed the way they responded to me.
I had the exact same goal you've described in your post. Like you've hinted at, the current trend in society is along the lines "however cares the least wins" and the sad truth is that you have to play the game to some extent to unlock richer interactions. People who don't respect you will rarely have meaningful interactions with you, if at all. I know this because I've been on both sides of the aisle.
>In my experience, the only people who say they need to start thinking more of their own needs are the ones who have always done so.
I agree, since I used to be this person. The only thing I'm suggesting is that for people to consider you a certain way you have to act a certain way to meet their conscious and unconscious expectations, even if the charade is irrational as a whole. Think of it as a way to get a social baseline that will in turn help you have a more meaningful existence. In fact, in my case I started to like people more and more since I ended up with fewer mental burdens and negative feelings.
It is oftentimes limiting too much - their expectations costs you. I get what you are saying and that it works that way, but it oftentimes forces you to pretend you don't like things you like or to avoid things you would like to try. I mean, yeah, they would respond to me better and I would have more meaningful social interactions, but the cost is too much.
Of course, this is only my own experience and will not be relevant for most people. However, it's certainly a counter-intuitive notion that merits investigation. At the very least, it's quite helpful to critically evaluate your most common habits and patterns.
The virtuous cycle is to learn what and who you care about. The vicious cycle is to shake your fist at the TV.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
Most of it is about research proper but he also includes a passage relating on how to respond to other people and which battles to choose.
To quote Seth Rogen - It is not binary
This is a big generalisation. Perhaps true in some specific contexts but certainly not in general. "Practically everyone" is not pretending to be busy to escape meaningful interactions. But many people are indeed pretending to be busy for the reason Bakary stated.
> Think about it, how many people, other than your family, really give a shit if you live or die?
Several tens at least. If you maintain good friendships and have a healthy work environment there is no reason why this wouldn't be the case.
To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me a hand?" you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks."
One of his good friend's used another real estate agent to buy a house.
The broker, upset that his friend had not contacted him, asked why?
The response, "we thought you were too busy."
This happened two weeks ago.
It's generally a good idea, as a rule of thumb, to avoid mixing family/friendship with business(1) - professionals should already know/understand this and respect it. Friends may have copped out with "thought you were too busy" to avoid further offending broker who clearly doesn't understand professionalism and personal boundaries.
Absolutely consult with your friends/family but tread very carefully when considering hiring them. Never, ever, question why a friend doesn't hire you or take it personally - business is business, friendship is friendship.
(1) I have a friend who learned this the hard way when they hired a mutual friend's dad to cater an event. God, that was a disaster that almost ruined a good friendship.
When looking for a real-estate agent, one of the top pieces of advice is: DO NOT use a friend or family member. Just, don't. Nothing personal, it's just not how you go about looking for a quality real-estate agent ... even if they happen to be a great one.
It's better to be a "grayman:" blend-in by being as boring, generic and forgetable as possible. Disappear, not seek to social climb, because that will only attract different sorts of "stalkers" whom also will have demands.
I essentially molded my behavior on that of people who I myself perceived to be busy and "important". In some cases, I wasn't even consciously aware that I treated some people with more respect and others with less (those who showed the same accommodating behavior I did, or worse) until I critically examined my relationship with them. It worked like a charm.
The most encouraging development was that after while I actually became a person with "things going on". Of course, this was only the natural progression of increased confidence, focus and free time.
I would say the single most effective response was to change the way I responded to people via electronic means. You have to artificially delay and shorten your responses (whether through emails or text messages/chat apps) and interact much more sporadically in some contexts (for instance, greatly decreasing the volume of your social media presence while not disappearing altogether). The first is common (even basic) knowledge for anyone younger than 35, and the second is a little less obvious but no less significant. It works in both a social and professional context, and I've seen it work for people of all ages, from my elderly boss to some of my friends in their twenties. Ironically by responding to a bunch of comments here I've clearly not followed this rule of thumb.
The most effective general trait was to conceal any trace of eagerness and idleness, while at the same time being present and in the moment. Being aloof and relaxed while at the same time not pushing people away completely. This is also common knowledge, but hard to apply consistently.
It sure looks silly and duplicitous when typed out like this (and it is!) but it works.
Delaying responses in a professional setting can hamper your actual productivity though – and appear inattentive or disrespectful, not busy.
For one, there is a general reciprocity of responsiveness, i.e., the faster you respond to them, the faster they'll respond to you. And of course, that's relative. They won't necessarily mimic your response time, but your time will affect where their responses are in their normal range of response time.
I've witnessed this firsthand numerous times. A colleague will complain Bob takes days to respond, whereas I typically get a response the same day – and the inverse too. It's not hard data, but the pattern seems true.
The other part is that I see no real benefit in delaying a response. I happen to be in a legitimately busy phase right now, but I still try to be fairly responsive. The nuance is that my quick responses are sometimes just me saying that I'll respond in depth by the end of the day/week/whatever and to please let me know if a response is needed sooner.
I can imagine scenarios where that's not appropriate, but in general, that approach makes more sense to me. It still communicates that you're busy but doesn't artificially delay things or unintentionally disrespect people.
[1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21412226-the-like-switch
Be careful with this one. It's very much possible to state a reason and still express that you won't change your mind on the matter. Although it is more effort, you won't lose people's goodwill.
If you're a family member, friend, coworker, etc.--i.e., someone who has a reasonable expectation of my putting aside whatever I'm doing to consider your request--then this response would be reasonable. (But even then you have to respect the other person's time.)
But that isn't what the author of the article was describing. He was describing people who had no valid reason to expect him to be at their beck and call, still treating him as if he were at their beck and call. Such people are not entitled to a reason, because they're not entitled to any claim on your time in the first place. A polite "no" is enough.
(I should probably also clarify that by "friend" I don't mean "someone I just met on Facebook" or "someone I have a few beers with once in a while". I mean someone you have known for a fair amount of time and with whom you have mutual trust.)
The remark in parenthesis is pretty important here. A lot of people seem to feel entitled to your full and immediate attention 24/7 just because they're family or know you for a while. I suppose GP feels that too ("what, you think you're so important that you can brush me off just like that, and I'm not even worthy being given a reason?"). There's this strange phenomenon when people in some sort of relationship start treating the other party with less respect they'd show to a stranger.
I spent a lot of my late-teen / young-adult years teaching people around me that yes, I'm always open to help, but if you want me to consider your request, please respect my time and focus - it'll be better for both of us. I even translated PG's "Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule" just so I could show it to my mom (and some other) in order to explain why I don't respond well to being asked to do trivial errands at random times during the day.
At work I simplify this - when I want to signal I'm concentrating, I just put on over-the-ear headphones.
And mind you - I'm probably one of the more accommodating person you'd met. I find it very hard to say "no" when people ask me for help nicely. What I wrote above is the result of dealing with years of frustration and eventually deciding it's too much.
I had not even thought of doing this, it's brilliant. I often run into this issue with my mother when I visit, even though I am her adult son. I will certainly try this.
Anyway, for people from Poland who might find the essay useful, here's the translation: http://esejepg.pl/eseje/makersschedule.html. There are also some others (in particular, I wanted to have "What You'll Wish You'd Known" available too, to show to my younger siblings).
(I'd also love to get some help with translating more of the essays. After some personal issues back some 4 years ago I lost the drive to continue the work; since then, however, I've been told those translations are actually being printed out and given to people in some business classes, which sounds like they're useful to someone.)
It's not rudeness, but honesty that makes me dislike giving reasons. Sometimes I give the reason "I don't want to" which seems about as correct as I can understand.
edit: I have found this especially true in family/personal matters
If somebody thinks you lazy, so be it. But you don't owe anyone a reason.
Reasons, as you see them, are often "excuses" to the other person. Mught be even worse. Now you're not just lazy, you also make excuses.
Personally I'm bad at this too. I often give reasons/excuses when there's no need and even more often I say No by not saying anything at all and waiting for the thing to pass.
If saying the reason would not lead to people taking advantage of it, I would say it. But with many people it does.
But I would not just brush you off, actually. I would attempt to find a way to help you if I would see one or attempted to redirect you to someone who can help. So even if I wont do what you want, unless I have bad experience with you personally, I would try to figure out alternative solution.
It depends on who you are in the scheme of things. If you're a friend, colleague or family member you have the expectation that you can depend on a person because of your proximity to them in a social network. No usually does need to be qualified in those cases. But if you're not closely tied to a person in a network and request something from them, to expect a reason or explanation for non-compliance is unreasonable.
Social networks often act as ledgers for who owes whom what and when you're asked by someone who is a distant node in the network to do something the risk is greater that your actions won't be reciprocated in some form, even if its simply an acknowledgement of what you did for them, because you can't appraise their character.
Caveats: Money is a shortcut through all of this social-ledger malarkey. My explanation ignores time as a cost factor. I can't back any of this up with facts.
> "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.
When I'm imposing on your time it's only normal that you get a chance to say 'no', whatever the reason for it.
There's nevertheless a psychological difference between (variations on) "sorry dude, too many things on my plate this week" and "No.". There's nothing about the former anyone one can argue with, but it shows that you value basic human mutual understanding.
If the couch-owner truly lacks self-awareness, to the point where they constantly badger you with unreasonable requests (we all know that one guy), then a "No." isn't going to enlighten them either – in that case, you do them a favour by respectfully but explicitly informing them that their request is unreasonable.
I have a friend like this and, while we get along great most of the time, he is always interrogating people who say no to him and you can just tell he's assuming 'the true reason is laziness'.
People make complex decisions and they shouldn't always have to explain why. Especially with someone you trust.
I.e. if in the way you ask you show you're expecting them to comply, you're doing it wrong. Show respect to people's need for autonomy, and they'll be more willing to help you out.
"No, I can't do that for you at 5pm on a Friday. I can have it for you by noon on Monday, you can ask X to do the work, or you can invent a time machine and go back 24-hours and give the work to me yesterday."
I have incorrectly assumed that time or money were the priorities, but with a little more information found out something else was really driving the request.
What about the laziness of not handling the matter yourself? Talk about entitlement!
And if they are the type to push people around whenever they are able, you've basically just told them they are going to win this battle, so go ahead.
Yet also, I help if I can and if it does not cost me all that much. It is not like I would be saying only no to everyone around.
This strategy is largely the answer to specific people I deal with and their strategies. It does alienates them a bit sometimes, but it is not possible to keep everyone happy all that time and I am very unhappy with that negotiation I am trying to avoid.
I.e "Can you just take on $LARGE_TASK?" -> "No, I'm currently overbooked. But I can put you in contact with X, who might be able to help"
"Can you fix dinner?" -> "No, I need to wrap this up. Maybe we can cook something together after?"
It doesn't always work - sometimes a plain no is really called for - but in many cases, it takes off the pressure of flatly declining.
See [1] "The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful Action: The Role of `Placebic` Information in Interpersonal Interaction".
> Langer had people request to break in on a line of people waiting to use a busy copy machine on a college campus. The researchers had the people use three different, carefully worded requests to break in line:
> “Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the xerox machine?” [60% compliance]
> “Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the xerox machine, because I have to make copies?” [93% compliance]
> “Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?” [94% compliance]
> Using the word “because” and giving a reason resulted in significantly more compliance. This was true even when the reason was not very compelling (“because I have to make copies"). The researchers hypothesize that people go on “automatic” behavior or “mindlessness” as a form of a heuristic, or short-cut. And hearing the word “because” followed by a reason (no matter how lame the reason is), causes us to comply.
So, maybe:
"Can you just take on $LARGE_TASK?" -> "No, because $RANDOM. But I can put you in contact with X, because $RANDOM"
"Can you fix dinner?" -> "No, because $RANDOM. Maybe we can cook something together after?"
---
[1] https://jamesclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/copy-machi...
At what point is using this kind of method just clever, and at what point is it highly manipulative and antisocial?
In the "no, but" approach, I see no harm in it - compliance does not result in a negative result for the other person. You're not going to do it anyway, but they're going to feel better about it than just a simple "no".
In "because I have to make copies"... your call. I wouldn't, because I'd consider this improving my result at the expense of yours.
You don't actually always have to be 100% truthful with everyone. (That will also serve you badly in other social situations, BTW.)
[1] Point being that even if people eventually find out that you did tell them a "white lie", they'll actually usually be very understanding because that's the societal norm and they realize that you were just trying to "spare them" from embarassment/awkwardness/losing face/whatever.
The white lie would be "Sorry my foot hurts, I had an accident yesterday, so I cannot help you. I really wish I could, but you know..."
Regarding your addition about white lies - I personally very seldomly lie in a detectable way, because I am very embarrassed if the other one finds out. You are certainly correct that white lies are easily forgiven, but IMO the perception of a "white liar" changes if you find out about the lie - I look at them as cowards, because they are too weak to just say no - does that make sense?
Why would I want to come off as reliable for things I don't want to be doing in the first place? That's a great way to get to do even more of the things you don't want to do. Sounds terrible.
Align your interests with mine, then we can talk about reliable.
In the words of one Richard Feynman : http://www.deliberate.rest/?p=685
> So I have invented another myth for myself—that I’m irresponsible. I tell everybody, I don’t do anything. If anybody asks me to be on a committee to take care of admissions, no, I’m irresponsible, I don’t give a damn about the students—of course I give a damn about the students but I know that somebody else’ll do it—and I take the view, “Let George do it,” a view which you’re not supposed to take, okay, because that’s not right to do, but I do that because I like to do physics and I want to see if I can still do it, and so I’m selfish, okay? I want to do my physics.
90% of the time, being "reliable" goes against my best interests in terms of career and goals. My value is that I can hunker down and make stuff. My value is not "tasks".
Anecdote: It only goes so far. There are quite a lot of people who will be quite pissed off with you (passively) if you're unreliable. I mean, friends will tolerate it, but let me tell you, as someone who's quite "reliable" (punctual, do what I promise, etc.) it's quite stressful to have to rely on someone who isn't. So stressful, in fact, that I wouldn't actually interact very much with this particular person I'm thinking of right now if I wasn't forced to (via circumstances beyond my control).
> [Snip Feynman] anecdote.
Feynman could get away with a lot of shit that almost nobody else would have done because he was a genius (and was recognized as such by his contemporaries).
Are you at "Feynman"-level?
> 90% of the time, being "reliable" goes against my best interests in terms of career and goals.
^ I don't see what the above...
> My value is that I can hunker down and make stuff. My value is not "tasks".
... has to do with this. Can you explain?
It boils down to finding enough courage to focus on your priorities in life and not feeling guilty about it. Respect yourself (your time) and people will respect you.
I think we might be talking about two different kinds of unreliable.
When you hire me to do a job, or I agree to build something for you, or something along those lines. When that happens, I will stop at nothing until it's done. I might be off in my estimate of how long it takes, and I might come back to you and suggest a revised plan if I think new information significantly changes the scope/cost of the project. But in the end, it will be done.
You can rely on me to take things to completion.
But you'd be a fool to rely on me to answer your email within 1 hour, or a day, sometimes at all. You wouldn't want to rely on me to pick up the phone when you call. And you definitely don't want to rely on me to make it to drinks or dinner exactly on time. Unless there's a very hard external deadline (like theatre tickets), I'm probably going to be a few minutes late.
And you wouldn't want to rely on me to, say, buy your airplane tickets. Or random little things like that. I'll get around to doing "Random low priority task" at some point maybe. Don't rely on me for those.
The whole point of this unreliableness is so that you won't even ask. If I say I'm gonna do it, I'll do it, probably riiiight before the external deadline. But I'd prefer you don't even ask. And you'll be much less stressed about it if you don't.
Hell, I hire a VA for stuff like that because even I don't want to rely on myself to do such things.
The lateness, that's a bad habit. It comes from losing track of time when I go into deep work mode. It happens a lot and very easily.
The dropping of small things I consider low priority and/or irrelevant. Well that's just prioritization, if I'm working on something I think is important and there's no time left over for your email or message or phone call or random little task. Tough. I have a laundry list of my own little tasks that I also didn't get to.
> Are you at "Feynman"-level?
Probably not, but the US government does say I am an alien with exceptional ability in the arts or the sciences so there's that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I definitely agree that there's a difference between "generally unreliable" and "unreliable until committed". Coincidentally the person from my anecdote is also "your type", but unfortunately it's really hard to tell from the outset if he's committed or not, so...
As long as people are very clear about when they're committed, I have absolutely no problem with "unreliable" people :).
I think that stems from an "avoiding confrontation" place. I grew up with a mother that would take it very very poorly if I said "No" for things, so I got used to saying "yeah sure uh-huh" without even hearing what I'm agreeing to.
Sometimes I still do that. It's mostly frustrating for my girlfriend tho, doesn't happen in other contexts. She'll get upset about why I didn't do something I said I would and I won't even remember what she's talking about.
Potentially something similar exists for your friend person. There's a spectrum between "uh-huh" and "Yes, this is amazing, I'm starting right now"
As you say -- as far as I can tell -- it's probably "just" about honest communication... or maybe you're just irresponsible! (That was a joke!)
Just out of curiosity when+why didn't you "do something I said I would"? Of course you mention that you don't remember her saying it, but that just leaves the question of... why don't you remember it? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm really curious about this dynamic.
My "troublesome" friend person is probably very similar to you -- not having access to your or his internal monologue, I can't be sure -- but honestly, I think maybe he's just prioritizing badly, if you know what I mean? Maybe he lacks empathy to see how much distress his procrastination sometimes causes?
I should also add that "we" have obligations to third-parties[3] which means that his procrastination sometimes means that "we" + "others"[2] have to do 24h+ shifts just because he didn't prepare/do-it-in-time. Just out of curiosity, is this this something you would do (intentionally or not)?
(I won't lie, that shit is stressful. Even if you want and are willing to get it done on time this "$X isn't quite ready" thing is extremely stressful until "you" get it done.)
[1] Because Psychoanalysis is mostly bullshit.
[2] External accountants and that sort of thing. It's absurd how far this procrastination (about fully known calendar dates) is.
[3] Think drug cartels... or the Tax Man. Take your pick! :)
To be honest, it's probably happened before. When it involves other people, I make sure it doesn't. When it's just me and I am willing to bear the risk, yeah, bureaucracy def gets done late.
As for brushing people off with "yeah sure". That happens when you bug me while I'm deep in thought on something. Like I'm in the middle of writing an article or I'm coding something that takes a lot of focus. If you bug me during such a time, I will often agree to things without even listening to you because it makes the distraction go away faster. I'm not ready to have a conversation about it or to deal with your protestation when I say "No", so I just say "uh-huh".
It's very obvious to everyone when this happens. And we all do it to an extent. Like when somebody is in the middle of furious texting and you say from across the room "Honey can you take out the trash?" they'll often say "ahuh" but then not do it becuase they don't even remember the interaction.
Almost everyone I know does that. My girlfriend included.
When it comes to important things, I should hope that adults would understand when it is and when it isn't a good time to make the ask. Like, if I'm scrambling to put my things together because the taxi is waiting downstairs to take me to the airport, don't use that exact moment to be like "Yo dude, the cartels are coming on monday, you have to get X Y and Z ready by tomorrow".
Basically, make sure I'm paying attention to you before you ask me for things that you intend to rely on.
Ya know?
I definitely understand the "yeah sure" bit, even as a "normal" :). Well, actually, I don't think I'm a "normal", I'm probably a "hyper", but... whatever.
As long as there's no mistaken signals, everything's cool. I mean, I sometimes "go rogue", I just tend to announce it a few weeks in advance ;).
No need to reply to any of this, I just found it very interesting to read this experience "from the other side" and from an "honest" perspective.
Although, it doesn't work with very close people that are expecting a concrete justification unless you want to enter in white lies' territory.
I try to be very consistent about it - they really can work out pretty much anything with me in a respectful and rational way, so the above is not a dismissal, it's enforcing communications protocol.
What's the effect of you marking me as unreliable? Will you stop considering me for certain tasks, or will you cease any relationship with me?
Most people don't get it, but they're confused long enough for me to escape.
I have no idea where I got that line from, but it's stuck because of it's absurdist hilarity.
I don't say this as a serious reply of course. It's intended to communicate that the nature of the request is such that I feel I shouldn't even have to decline it. In practice usually it just generates friendly confusion, which benefits all parties.
disclaimer: I don't have a cat. Nor would I wax one if I did.
The truth is usually along the lines of "Sorry, I would like to be able to help, but I have too much on my plate right now and more keeps being added to it every day."
It's basically plausible deniability (or "denial", if you will) for social interactions... which is at the basis of most of human interaction, if you think about it.
EDIT: Of course, if you're laboring under "Depressive Realism"[1] then all of this is pretty transparent, but if you buy the DR hypothesis then most people actually don't notice this type of thing going on (at the meta level, obviously sometimes they'll discover they've been lied to, etc.).
I think the key there is "assuming that they both take the hint. Which is that the other person needs to get the message that it's no, is it's not really allowing them to avoid unpleasant interactions, because they're still getting a no no matter what. It's really just allowing us to save face and avoid unpleasant interactions.
Wouldn't it be much more pleasant to say something like "I'm sorry I don't think of you in that way," or "I'm sorry you're not my type" or better yet"I'm sorry but I'm not interested in going out on a date."
For the other party these are not much more hurtful than "I have to attend dull party" and they eliminate the ambigiousness that might have the other party second guessing or thinking there is a chance if you lie and tell them you have other arrangements. Worse yet it will create a worse situation if they see or hear about you hanging around town on the date of your dull party.
EDIT: There's also the whole "Oh, I've been rebuffed, but thank $DEITY that $OBJECT_OF_MY_DESIRE didn't really know what I was asking". That is, people think that they've got the "secret code" to get away with asking X (by saying "innocuous" Y) thinking that the other person doesn't realize what they're really being asked.
Of course there's the more transparent ones like "Do you want to come up to see my etchings?", but also the rather more ambiguous "Would you like to come up for some coffee?".
(There's a lot of instances of people just not getting the hint. For loads of examples see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6d53vz/ladies_wh...
... but that is kind of the reverse of what I'm talking about, I guess, so YMMV.)
Personally, I think it's still rude, but it works for her in ways that being bluntly rude don't.
I had a manager who told me for about a year straight that I had to stop telling people "no" so bluntly, but instead offer other suggestions for their problem. She said I was just shutting them down, and they ... felt bad or something. I forget what she said. The point was that I shouldn't just shut them down, but I should try to help them with their problem.
This was so hard for me to learn because when I ask a question, I really do want the answer to that question, and it infuriates me when they dance around it or try to guess what question I really want to ask and answer that. Newsflash: That was it. I'm very literal.
Instead, what was happening was that after they asked their question and I answered, "no," they'd walk away and not attempt to get my help again with it afterwards.
For the longest time, I thought they were like me and that they were looking to have their question answered. They weren't. They were trying (clumsily) to get help with their problem.
Depends. Are we assuming you can't draw in seven dimensional Hilbert space?
This formula is a great way of saying no in a positive way, and the whole book is spent explaining the formula and how to apply it. There are many examples throughout the book, and William Ury does a great job teaching the reader how to say no in the best possible way. Even if you don’t normally have a hard time saying no, it is still valuable to read, because the system he lays out is so well thought out. It’s a quick read, and all the examples make it even easier to understand.
In those cases I may still turn it down but often I find that I can make a compromise at that point that satisfies both parties.
Be careful with that, friend :)
Watching other people (esp my fiance) saying "no" ever so gently has me wondering how easy life could be if I were able to do the same. I'm practicing it, and I think I'm getting better at it. Telling the other person the root cause why you say "no" helps a lot to instill empathy for your situation. The root cause always stems from a need or necessity that you currently have, like need for rest/food/time to think/time to finish this or that task properly/... Even if you are lazy and simply don't want to help right now, remember that this laziness also fulfils one of your needs - probably you need to rest or think.
ADDED: Telling people that you just cannot help _right now_ also softens the blow. Also, if it's a customer then delaying might even be more beneficial than just declining - you might need the billable hours in the following week.