4 ms·

I was a fairly disruptive kid in school. It was all boyswillbeboys stuf. Drinking and smoking with friends in abandoned sections of the school. The kind of stuf

I was a fairly disruptive kid in school. It was all boyswillbeboys stuf. Drinking and smoking with friends in abandoned sections of the school. The kind of stuff that seems really serious then, and inconsequential now. I was brought in front of the board for expulsion after a litany of these types of things, and questioned about anything and everything for about two hours. We took the case to the board of education and got copies of all of the board members notes, one of which enraged me then and now. Scrawled in the margins of this members notes - random physiological and psychological phrases. "R.E.M?" for rapid eye movement, "no empathy", "slouching" etc. Some armchair psychologist that thinks a kid in a high pressure situation, looking around at a board of nine people, is displaying sociopathic traits. That somehow my seating posture related to my character. They expelled me, and it was ultimately overturned by the state. Still bothers me that people try to apply these dogshit cues to make real life major decisions. "Vindictive" and "spiteful" were some other good ones. They'd convinced themselves I was doing it to get them or something. The truth is, I was a bored unstimulated kid and the only consideration they got, was how I could avoid them as much as possible. Absolutely zero interest in sticking it to them or making their lives more difficult.

darkerside 6y ago
It is pretty shitty of them to write those things about a kid, but they were asked to make a judgement. They weren't using these observations to figure out if you were lying, and when you say they thought you were "out to get them", you're actually playing into the same armchair psychology they were. I don't mean to give you grief because I've been in similar situations. But I hope you've learned from it that people will hold you responsible for behaviors they observe, and not for your intentions behind them (e.g. acting sullen because you are actually terrified inside).
- roflc0ptic 6y ago
  If they wrote that he was being vindictive and spiteful, then I don’t think it quite qualifies as armchair psychology on GP’s part
  - darkerside 6y ago
    They were assessing character and yes, making a judgement on it, which was their role. I find it likely that OPs behavior came off as seeming vindictive and spiteful, even if not intended that way. They would have done better to observe specific behaviors (which they did fairly with "slouching"), but their intent was likely to judge character and fit for the school, based on the evidence in front of them. Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way. This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. Especially so when the system and punishment is arbitrary and capricious rather than rooted in first principles. We should focus on outcomes and shared goals, not easily faked attitudes.
      - darkerside 6y ago
        Why do you assume it's a lie? I'd say it's at worst uncorrelated to the truth. And, apart from whether you mean it or not, I believe there's value in learning how to tell people that you do. It's up to you then to decide whether you want to use that power to lie.
        theelous3 6y ago
        GP isn't saying it's a lie, they are saying it rewards liars. That's an important distinction.
        darkerside 6y ago
        > This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. The presence of the word "only" clearly makes an assumption that it is a lie.
everdrive 6y ago
This is an extreme case, but not an unusual one. People draw conclusions about people with very little information. They then carry on to believe that their conclusions have real weight, and are based in fact. It's part of why there were always be socially fluid types and con artists.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  It's as if directly when they draw some random conclusion about someone, they stop thinking, stop evaluating that person any more. And they go on believing forever that that weird first random idea they got, was right. (I might be exaggerating a bit.)
- oceanghost 6y ago
  I know this isn't quite your point, but I can't tell you how many jobs I've not been offered due to missing some trivia question and the interviewer deciding my fate based on that.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    I have a lot of anxiety about getting my next job, due to this and other reasons. "But you're well-qualified," my friends will say. Yes, but interviewers are capricious and irrational.

darkerside 6y ago

It is pretty shitty of them to write those things about a kid, but they were asked to make a judgement. They weren't using these observations to figure out if you were lying, and when you say they thought you were "out to get them", you're actually playing into the same armchair psychology they were. I don't mean to give you grief because I've been in similar situations. But I hope you've learned from it that people will hold you responsible for behaviors they observe, and not for your intentions behind them (e.g. acting sullen because you are actually terrified inside).

roflc0ptic 6y ago
If they wrote that he was being vindictive and spiteful, then I don’t think it quite qualifies as armchair psychology on GP’s part
- darkerside 6y ago
  They were assessing character and yes, making a judgement on it, which was their role. I find it likely that OPs behavior came off as seeming vindictive and spiteful, even if not intended that way. They would have done better to observe specific behaviors (which they did fairly with "slouching"), but their intent was likely to judge character and fit for the school, based on the evidence in front of them. Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way. This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. Especially so when the system and punishment is arbitrary and capricious rather than rooted in first principles. We should focus on outcomes and shared goals, not easily faked attitudes.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      Why do you assume it's a lie? I'd say it's at worst uncorrelated to the truth. And, apart from whether you mean it or not, I believe there's value in learning how to tell people that you do. It's up to you then to decide whether you want to use that power to lie.
      - theelous3 6y ago
        GP isn't saying it's a lie, they are saying it rewards liars. That's an important distinction.
        darkerside 6y ago
        > This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. The presence of the word "only" clearly makes an assumption that it is a lie.

everdrive 6y ago

This is an extreme case, but not an unusual one. People draw conclusions about people with very little information. They then carry on to believe that their conclusions have real weight, and are based in fact. It's part of why there were always be socially fluid types and con artists.

cutemonster 6y ago
It's as if directly when they draw some random conclusion about someone, they stop thinking, stop evaluating that person any more. And they go on believing forever that that weird first random idea they got, was right. (I might be exaggerating a bit.)
oceanghost 6y ago
I know this isn't quite your point, but I can't tell you how many jobs I've not been offered due to missing some trivia question and the interviewer deciding my fate based on that.
- everdrive 6y ago
  I have a lot of anxiety about getting my next job, due to this and other reasons. "But you're well-qualified," my friends will say. Yes, but interviewers are capricious and irrational.