4 ms·

I used to work for Apple a long time ago and this was one of their 10 "core" values (and I'm sure they intended the pun). For whatever reason, this one value re

I used to work for Apple a long time ago and this was one of their 10 "core" values (and I'm sure they intended the pun). For whatever reason, this one value really stuck with me because I'd find that people tend to be more honest with you when you assume positive intent. Instead of trying to defend their actions, they explain what their thought process was in making decisions and taking action and are much more likely to admit when something fails. Between "assume positive intent" and "failure is an option and, sometimes, it's the best option", I find that interactions with people are much smoother and far more genuine.

andyfleming 9y ago
I think assuming positive intent actually often aligns with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor . Unless you are seeing reasons to assume any negative intent, it often makes sense to assume positive intent.
anotherbrownguy 9y ago
This doesn't work for me. I assume so much positive intent that I give people a lot of chances without criticizing them. Even when their story makes no sense, I try to give everyone full benefit of doubt. As a result, they seem to think that I am stupid and try to repeat the same behavior.
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Those are two different things, I think. Assuming positive intent doesn't say anything about giving people chances. It just means that, when someone does something, you should assume that they didn't do it to be malicious. Multiple instances of something means that they're either incapable of doing what's been asked or they have now shown/proven that their intent wasn't actually positive and your assumption was wrong.
  - nthnclrk 9y ago
    I literally saw this headline, and immediately went to the comments to search "Apple" to see if anyone had already written this (another Apple alumni here). There's also an aphorism with a similar but different sentiment, Hanlon's Razor [1], that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

andyfleming 9y ago

I think assuming positive intent actually often aligns with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor . Unless you are seeing reasons to assume any negative intent, it often makes sense to assume positive intent.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago

This doesn't work for me. I assume so much positive intent that I give people a lot of chances without criticizing them. Even when their story makes no sense, I try to give everyone full benefit of doubt. As a result, they seem to think that I am stupid and try to repeat the same behavior.

dkonofalski 9y ago
Those are two different things, I think. Assuming positive intent doesn't say anything about giving people chances. It just means that, when someone does something, you should assume that they didn't do it to be malicious. Multiple instances of something means that they're either incapable of doing what's been asked or they have now shown/proven that their intent wasn't actually positive and your assumption was wrong.
- nthnclrk 9y ago
  I literally saw this headline, and immediately went to the comments to search "Apple" to see if anyone had already written this (another Apple alumni here). There's also an aphorism with a similar but different sentiment, Hanlon's Razor [1], that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor