A really nice assessment and description. Periodically I fall into "give advice because you are deeply desperate for validation". I'd like build on your words and summarize what I learned from still another person Dr. William Schutz, and deal best I can on honest communication v. perception. It's an interesting dilemma to me.

First, assume that all I can do is observe behavior: what I see, hear, read. I cannot figure out why a person is exhibiting a behavior; guess sure. But know? No way. What's between the ears is between their ears and inaccessible to me.

Second, assume the PCA (principle component analysis) of behavior is control, inclusion, openness. Read "Human Element" or get an old copy of FIRO from him or his son Ethan Schutz --- excellent stuff and perfect for the office: it's like healthcare on the battle field: pointed, focused, can-do, common sense, but not so simplistic and removed for the bigger world of medicine that it's silly or merely palliative. With that setup in mind:

1) you cannot resolve significance issues through control. More generally you cannot fix a problem along PCA axis 1 by doing something along another orthogonal axis 2. Often makes it worse. Giving advice is control behavior, which the writer says, was really about significance. Yep, that's me sometimes. It's helpful to know when I misuse one skill to badly fix something else.

2) Behaviors are goal seeking and directly connect right into feelings which hits right into self-esteem. See the book or smarter people here. This is feature rich location of being human.

3) I've worked 30+ years and spent the last 14 years working for large companies. As posters here have said, behavior comes with a zillion motivations. But from time to time I have dealt with programmers, managers, young, and, old who strongly point out they should --- more: it'd be dumb not to try! --- to manage perception on the other side because perception is reality.

Now in some artificially distorted way, it does capture a truth but at the expense of omitting a lot of relevant context. But:

-- As Schutz says, we know we ought to be open but in the fact that's the last thing we'll ever do because it's not safe. Openness requires safety. If I start being open I might say something to get myself fired. If my boss talks openly I might get yelled at. That's anxiety making. If a co-worker talks openly about me I might get fired. Better to keep quiet about that co-worker so he'll be quiet about me. Fear is a lot of what prevents openness.

-- While words are pouring out one should not assume the speaker is open in two facets. First, the speaker may have low self awareness. If so, trying to make sense of that is doubly impossible. Two, the implied success of getting one over me by having the counterparty play to my perception requires low self-awareness my side. And among other things implies lack of choice/agency my side which is along the control axis to respond appropriately. So ... really where does the cause start and effect end. It's more nuanced.

-- The insistence on perception as reality is seated, I feel, either in trauma or in that shadow of maladaptive behavior some people come with. But it's the insistence that to me, indicates the perpetrator is the most insecure of all: they don't believe they have control, or are significant, or would want to be included ... and so in the absence of choice through control ... lie to themselves and the world to get by. They're fragile and they cast the world in a fragile light too.

https://thehumanelement.com/pages/firo-theory/
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Estee...