“I’m Only Thinking of What’s Best for You”—Did You Ask Them?
- Eat Well Feel Well Live Well
- Aug 23
- 7 min read
Author: Eat Well · Feel Well · Live Well Editorial Team
“I’m only saying this because I want what’s best for you.”
When someone says this to us, it can be difficult to disagree.
They are worried about us. They do not mean any harm. If anything, they are offering advice out of genuine care. When we see it that way, we may feel that we have no choice but to say “thank you”, even when something about it does not feel right.
But this is precisely where we should pause and ask a question.
Was their idea of “what is best for you” based on first asking what you actually wanted?
Or did they decide what they believed was best and call it “for your own good” without ever checking with you?
Good Intentions Are Not the Same as Respecting What Someone Wants
Their concern may be entirely genuine. They do not want the other person to fail, get hurt, or take an unnecessarily difficult path when a better choice appears to be available.
There is no need to doubt the sincerity of that concern.
But genuine goodwill and sound judgment about what is right for someone else are two different things.
We all see the world through the lens of our own experience.
Someone who values stability may view taking a risk as dangerous. Someone who has always prioritised family time may worry about a life devoted to work. By contrast, someone who built a career by continuing to push forward may see the decision to pause as a wasted opportunity.
Each approach may have been right in that person’s own life.
But what was right for us is not automatically right for someone else.
We therefore need to look carefully at what may be hidden inside the words “I only want what is best for you”. Are they shaped solely by concern for the other person—or also by our own values, anxieties, past regrets, and concern about how things may appear to others?
If “What Is Best” Was Decided Without Them, Who Is It Really Best For?
Choosing a good school for someone. Recommending a promising career. Hoping they will marry a suitable partner. Making arrangements in advance so that they will not encounter difficulties.
At first glance, all of these things appear thoughtful.
But if we have not asked what the person values, which burdens they are willing to carry, or what kind of life they want to live, whose standards are being used to define what is “best”?
Some people consider a higher income the best outcome, while others would choose more freedom over their time. Some want to avoid failure; others would rather try and fail than never try at all. What looks like an unnecessary detour from the outside may be an experience that person genuinely needs.
Life choices involve more than their final outcomes. They also involve the process of reaching them.
It is not only a question of what someone will gain, but also what they will have to give up, how much time and effort the choice will require, and whether they can live with its reality every day. The person making the choice carries circumstances that may be invisible to everyone else.
We may look only at the finished result and decide that one option is clearly better. But it is the other person who must bear the process and the cost of getting there.
So if we genuinely care about what is best for them, there is one question we must ask first:
“What do you want?”
Did You Never Ask—or Did You Refuse to Accept Their Answer?
We also need to be careful about situations in which we appear to ask what someone wants but are not prepared to accept their answer.
We ask, “What do you want to do?” yet continue persuading them until they give the answer we expected. If they refuse, we complain that they do not understand how worried we are. If they choose a different path, we warn them not to come to us when things go wrong.
That is not an attempt to understand their wishes.
It is a question designed to secure their agreement.
Asking what someone wants means accepting the possibility that their answer may differ from what we hoped to hear.
They may hold values different from our own. They may reject the path we believe is best. They may fully understand our advice and still reach another conclusion.
If we cannot accept those possibilities, then we were never truly asking what they wanted in the first place.
Respect does not mean persuading someone to give us the answer we wanted.
If It Is Truly for Their Benefit, Do It Without Announcing It
At this point, a much simpler question arises.
If we genuinely want to help someone, and the act is entirely within our own control, do we really need to announce that we are doing it “for their sake”?
We can quietly ease part of the burden for someone who is struggling. We can provide something they need. We can act within our own boundaries without expecting recognition, gratitude, or anything in return.
If that is the case, we can simply do it without announcing it.
An act of kindness that only seems to count once we say, “Look how much I have done for you,” may come with additional demands.
We may want our goodwill to be acknowledged. We may want to be thanked. We may want the other person to follow our judgment or refrain from disagreeing with us.
There is nothing inherently unnatural about wanting our kindness to be appreciated.
But when a desire for recognition or compliance is wrapped in the words “I did it for you”, it becomes much harder for the other person to refuse.
By contrast, we must not act silently when our actions affect someone else’s time, daily life, work, relationships, or future choices. Those actions do not end with us; the other person will have to live with the consequences.
The boundary is surprisingly clear:
If the kindness begins and ends with you, do it without announcing it. If it touches someone else’s life, ask them first.
Confirming what the other person wants must come before explaining our good intentions.
Where Advice Ends and Direction or Intervention Begins
Does this mean we should say nothing, even when we are worried about someone?
Of course not.
When there is an immediate danger, or when the person does not have enough information, we may need to speak up. If they ask for help, we can offer our knowledge and experience. There are also situations that cannot be left entirely to personal preference, such as when someone’s ability to make decisions is seriously impaired or when a child’s safety is at risk.
But the same level of intervention is not justified in ordinary life choices when there is no urgency or safety concern.
Advice provides information that helps someone make their own decision.
Direction asks someone to take the action we want them to take.
Intervention changes an action or decision on someone else’s behalf.
When we blur these distinctions and describe all three as being “for your own good”, we can end up taking away someone’s decision-making power while believing that we are simply being kind.
The boundary often becomes clearer if we ask before offering anything:
“Would you like to hear my opinion?”
“Is there anything I can do to help?”
“Would you like me simply to listen, or would you like us to think through possible solutions together?”
By first finding out what the other person needs, we can offer our goodwill without imposing it on them.
When Choice Is Taken Away, People Focus on Defending Their Freedom
Psychology offers a concept known as psychological reactance. The theory suggests that when people feel their freedom of choice is being threatened, they may resist or even move in the opposite direction in an attempt to restore that freedom.
In other words, regardless of whether the advice itself is sound, it can provoke resistance if it is delivered in a way that takes away the other person’s sense of choice.
“I’m saying this for your own good, so do as I say.”
“This is what any sensible person would do.”
“Don’t come to me when you regret it later.”
Statements like these leave little room for the other person to think. As a result, their need to say “Let me decide for myself” may become stronger than their ability to consider what we were trying to tell them.
Resistance does not necessarily mean that someone is immature. They may be responding not to the content of the advice, but to the possibility that their right to make the decision is being taken away.
Self-determination theory also identifies autonomy as one of the basic psychological needs involved in healthy motivation and functioning. Autonomy does not mean doing everything alone. It means experiencing our actions as choices made of our own volition.
Supporting someone does not mean deciding for them.
It means protecting their ability to think, choose, and—when necessary—choose again.
If You Truly Want What Is Best for Them
If we truly want what is best for someone, we should listen to them before explaining why we believe we are right.
What do they want? What are they struggling with? What are they afraid of? How much help do they actually want from us?
And if their answer differs from what we expected, we should resist the urge to correct it immediately.
If necessary, we can express our view by keeping ourselves as the subject: “This is what I think.” Rather than justifying it with the words “I’m saying this for your sake”, we can offer it simply as one perspective.
The other person remains free to accept it or reject it.
Supporting someone does not mean leading them towards the answer we believe is correct.
It means treating the life they choose as their own.
Return the Right to Decide to the Person Whose Life It Is
Good intentions are not a licence to bypass someone else’s wishes.
We can worry about them, offer advice, and extend a helping hand. But we must not forget who will ultimately have to live that life.
A choice we do not understand may be grounded in reasons that matter deeply to them.
What looks like a detour to us may be a process they are willing—and perhaps need—to experience for themselves.
If we truly respect someone, we will begin by asking a question before offering an answer.
That act of kindness. That advice. That attempt to arrange everything in advance.
Was it really “for their own good”?
Did you ask them?
References
Jack W. Brehm, A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, 1966.
Benjamin D. Rosenberg & Jason T. Siegel, “A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory: Do Not Read This Article,” Motivation Science, 2018.
Richard M. Ryan & Edward L. Deci, “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,” American Psychologist, 2000.
