I have the same problem with your comment that I have with the article. What you're doing is a kind of kitschy psuedo-honesty that I think the author is engaging in to some extent. None of the author's admissions were that risky. They were refreshing to read and perhaps a little courageous, but it's stuff you might have guessed was there already. If, hypothetically, his wife left him because of a sexual fetish, that would be no more or less of a non-sequitur than anything else he admitted to, but much more potentially damaging to his reputation. (Again, the preceding was a hypothetical.)
It's not that A.J. Jacobs should have to hold himself to that standard of the subject he's reporting on, but that he's purporting-to-do-so-but-not-really, which is irritating. For some reason his (and your) version of "radical honesty" becomes a game where you just craft a succession of start-and-stop sentences with cute, largely forgivable admissions of self-interest. I'm not against humor but I'm suspicious that for some it functions as a coping mechanism that substitutes for sincere engagement with an uncomfortable idea.
I did not discover this article by browsing Esquire. It was part of Luke Muelhauser's list of favorite articles.
For me, there's definitely an attention-getting side to the "radical honesty" as presented in the article. I'm more inclined to believe people value the truth when they are:
a) good listeners
b) rigorous with facts
c) possessed of humility and respect for others
One can display such traits and thereby signal valuing the truth in a more substantive way than the behavior presented in the article, which I suspect could be easily faked (at least at first) by someone with borderline personality disorder.
You described that beautifully. I've known people who use that sort of flashy pseudo-honesty who intend to be shocking and get a reaction out of people, and while it does work for some, I'm usually inclined to point out what they're doing in hopes that they'd stop and I could never find which words to say. It irritates me.
It's not that A.J. Jacobs should have to hold himself to that standard of the subject he's reporting on, but that he's purporting-to-do-so-but-not-really, which is irritating. For some reason his (and your) version of "radical honesty" becomes a game where you just craft a succession of start-and-stop sentences with cute, largely forgivable admissions of self-interest. I'm not against humor but I'm suspicious that for some it functions as a coping mechanism that substitutes for sincere engagement with an uncomfortable idea.
I did not discover this article by browsing Esquire. It was part of Luke Muelhauser's list of favorite articles.