I assume all sweeping advice I’m given also comes with a dose of Aristotle’s “golden mean”, or the Greek maxim “nothing in excess”.

Yes, you can construct situations where the ultimatum is reasonable. Yes, you shouldn’t blindly apply this advise all the time without any consideration of the circumstances.

But still, on balance it’s good advise. We all tend to lean too far towards respecting ultimatums from people in power (even when it’s harmful for us). We should collectively shift that balance, and move our default more towards being skeptical of someone giving an ultimatum.

But, yes, when someone gives you advice that comes with a “never” or “always”, it’s usually worth assuming there’s a silent “almost” in there, unless they’re explicit that they mean no exceptions could apply.

I think it's assumed that it's within reason and in situations where the ultimatum has the purpose of pushing you into a situation you would prefer not to be in. The WoW example is an example of dysfunctional behavior and the HR example is a routine process and not unexpected from the recipient nor is the cost of filling it in extreme. Your examples don't apply and it should be obvious why.

100%

Hence "never choose the one giving you an ultimatum" is weird advice.

Maybe if you sprinkle the advice with your own bit of reasoning it becomes usable, you don't have to take it as literally as written on the page.

Well, yes. Advice given to address one circumstance often does not apply in another, wholly different circumstance.

But...the advice is about ultimatums...

Which the counter examples here are not.

> Never choose the one giving you an ultimatum

One tiny fragment of a hologram, taken in isolation, still to some extent can represent the whole.

An essay isn't a hologram, and whatever you're trying to accomplish by treating it as if it were continues, I regret to report, to escape me.

It just reads like someone who hasn’t really had to compromise much in their lives.

Or someone who compromised too much in their lives.

I think the bigger point is that corporations don't value "you" (royal "you") and these days are becoming a lot more blatant about it. Any ultimatim made by someone with power over you isn't a good one to take long term.

When you say it, it’s an ultimatum. When I say it, it’s a boundary.

Your comment is confusing; the point you are trying to make is not coming through.

Merriam Webster helpfully defines "ultimatum" as:

> a final proposition, condition, or demand especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action

This is unnecessarily pedantic. Of course there are exceptions.

It's only weird if you assume any choice or dichotomy is also an ultimatum.

An ultimatum is a my way or the highway choice. "Submit or suffer".

Negotiating how much time you invest into the relationship isn't an ultimatum. "Quit WoW entirely or I'm getting a divorce" is.

There's definitely a gray-line there, not just about how unilateral it is (which is what you are saying), but also about norms and expectations.

"Fill out this HR form or leave" is expected for the first day of work.

Similarly "Not playing WoW for 12 hours a day" is probably expected in a committed adult relationship (unless of course this was a norm during courtship).

RTO might well be a norm for people not hired remote. But forcing those hired as remote workers to relocate seems outside of the norms. It's the difference between "Do your job, or your fired" and "Switch to this different job, or your fired."

[edit]

I think there is a third leg to making something an ultimatum, and it's about the degree to which the move is (or is perceived to be) about imposing ones will on another.

"I don't want to be married to someone who plays WoW for 12 hours a day," is a different tone from "Quit WoW, or I'm leaving you," and it's natural for someone to respond differently to those two statements.

I'm looking through the responses, and this makes the most sense.

The difference between saying that '12 hours is too much', depends on how it is said and what is open to negotiation to keep both sides happy. The thing is that 12 hours may be too much, but 4 hours, for example, might keep both sides happy. Also saying '12 hours is too much' is also an opening gambit that states what the issue is, and opens the door to how two people might come to an agreement.

Ultimatums tend to come in the form of offering a binary choice, one of which is full acceptance of a proposal made by one person. Ultimatums don't come with a 'or we can negotiate something that works for us' addendum, they are usually all or nothing.

While the first type of communication / boundary may well lead to a divorce if it can't be resolved, it isn't necessarily presented as an ultimatum.

> Negotiating how much time you invest into the relationship isn't an ultimatum

It can be.

Whether something is an ultimatum is determined by the consequence not the condition.

I just assumed they were a well-oiled ~~corporate~~ [strikethroughed] marital unit