4 ms·

> society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior Wow, t

> society has lost a critical social regulatory mechanism, in the form of being able to physically beat up people who repeatedly exhibit scummy behavior Wow, that's the most poorly-thought out idea I've read in recent memory. A few more seconds of consideration should be enough to come up with all the reasons this is such a terrible idea. But one that I can contribute from a slightly unusual perspective (working adjacent to financial fraud detection): The aggrieved customer is very often completely wrong about whom to blame for a problem. They are working with incomplete information (we all are), they're in a heightened state of stress (money is at risk), they're grappling with bad models of confusing systems (finance is complicated), and at least half of them are less smart than average (by definition). I would say that about 10% of customer service requests start out hostile and accusatory. Some are literally threatening violence. And about 99% of the time, the aggressive customer is wrong. So how many innocent noses do you think should be improperly punched, for your social regulatory mechanism instincts to be satisfied?

wyager 5y ago
I'm obviously not proposing it as a solution - just pointing out that this used to be part of the social regulatory calculus and now it's gone.
- quesera 5y ago
  It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. Most obvious consequence: the physically-strong can get more justice than the weak. Which leads inevitably to: the physically-strong make the rules. And social regulation has failed.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    I wouldn't say that it's gone because it worked so poorly. It's gone for other reasons such as technological advances shifting so much business online where this behavior is no longer possible. I don't think it worked poorly. While we didn't have a constant epidemic of customers fighting with customer service people, the possibility of it served as an effective deterrent for overly scummy behavior (from both sides actually) and the system self-regulated. You can compare this to the amount of verbal abuse and harassment being published on the internet. Before the internet and social media people weren't constantly punching each other in the face, because the possibility of it successfully deterred abusive behavior that would prompt such reactions. With that possibility gone, abuse increased significantly given the lack of consequences. It's kind of like mutually-assured destruction. Nobody uses it, but the possibility of it being used keeps everyone in check.
    - quesera 5y ago
      This is such a confusing take on human nature. Do you think the implied-but-never-actualized threat of physical violence is the thing that makes in-person customer service succeed? I think it's exactly the opposite. In-person service is typically better because communication is higher-fidelity, and people are much more empathetic when their counterpart is physically present. When communication and empathy fail, the threat of physical violence is still not a motivator because (in my little corner of the world), there is basically no threat. The shopkeeper isn't going to jump over the counter and throttle the customer, nor vice versa. Because society built laws and norms that prevent that from being a viable solution, and guarantee that choosing that path will lead to much more serious problems. It's entirely rational, and we don't need a vague passive-aggressive quasi-threat of a punch in the nose to make it work. No system works all the time, and there are always Poor Impulse Control people who leave the store and come back with a shotgun. But I'd argue that those extremely rare cases are further proof that the in-person "threat of physical violence" does not play a part in making customer service work well.
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        > the implied-but-never-actualized threat of physical violence is the thing that makes in-person customer service succeed? [emphasis mine] It's not the thing, but I think it's one of the things, among others such as the ones you listed. > there is basically no threat Recent events such as shopkeepers or security guards being assaulted for requiring people to wear masks suggests otherwise. The threat is still very small, but I'd argue it exists and humans aren't always reasonable when it comes to evaluating risk probabilities and will probably overestimate the actual risk and adjust their behavior. > society built laws and norms that prevent that from being a viable solution People don't always act reasonably and the perpetrator being punished down the line doesn't change the fact you got your face smashed and needed to get stitches. > But I'd argue that those extremely rare cases are further proof that the in-person "threat of physical violence" does not play a part in making customer service work well. The other advantages of in-person communication (which you raised) is that both sides can "read the room" and adjust their behavior before the situation escalates to violence. A customer service person might be more likely to bend the rules when they are in front of a person that's visibly angry or violent so that the situation does not actually escalate that far.
  - wyager 5y ago
    > It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. No it’s not. It’s gone because it only works on kulaks and the kulak class is very small now.
ebiester 5y ago
If things are so complex that someone can lose their money through an intricate set of rules, that's exactly the type of scummy behavior that we are talking about. It's not a matter of "whose" fault it is, but rather that a faceless group benefit from this type of behavior, and it is so complex that it is nearly impossible to avoid. And there are no consequences. Sometimes, it's a computer responsible for the decision. These would not be so lightly regarded if someone had true consequences for this behavior. It turns into a complete lack of societal trust, something that people in turn are taken advantage by.
- quesera 5y ago
  Yes, some groups leverage that complexity for their own benefit. Absolutely true. See also: every complex system ever. But some systems are complex because they're complicated. And the net of, say, regulated banking, is socially beneficial. So punish the scummy behavior with the avid prosecution of just laws, obviously.
Nextgrid 5y ago
The customer being able to cause a scene in your premises (in view of other customers), let alone being able to physically threaten and or hurt you is a good incentive to make sure customers have no reason to resort to such means. You're less likely to ignore a potential bug if a customer can cause damage to your business (by causing a scene in the store or physically hurting employees) as opposed to being "contained" within endless bureaucracy and phone queues.
rpmisms 5y ago
I don't think you're responding to an advocate for violence. I think the mere possibility of violence that comes with face-to-face interactions modifies people's behavior.
- quesera 5y ago
  The "possibility" of violence which is known to never occur is an empty threat and will be ignored just as quickly.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    Exactly. Which is why threatening a telemarketer is absurd.

wyager 5y ago

I'm obviously not proposing it as a solution - just pointing out that this used to be part of the social regulatory calculus and now it's gone.

quesera 5y ago
It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. Most obvious consequence: the physically-strong can get more justice than the weak. Which leads inevitably to: the physically-strong make the rules. And social regulation has failed.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I wouldn't say that it's gone because it worked so poorly. It's gone for other reasons such as technological advances shifting so much business online where this behavior is no longer possible. I don't think it worked poorly. While we didn't have a constant epidemic of customers fighting with customer service people, the possibility of it served as an effective deterrent for overly scummy behavior (from both sides actually) and the system self-regulated. You can compare this to the amount of verbal abuse and harassment being published on the internet. Before the internet and social media people weren't constantly punching each other in the face, because the possibility of it successfully deterred abusive behavior that would prompt such reactions. With that possibility gone, abuse increased significantly given the lack of consequences. It's kind of like mutually-assured destruction. Nobody uses it, but the possibility of it being used keeps everyone in check.
  - quesera 5y ago
    This is such a confusing take on human nature. Do you think the implied-but-never-actualized threat of physical violence is the thing that makes in-person customer service succeed? I think it's exactly the opposite. In-person service is typically better because communication is higher-fidelity, and people are much more empathetic when their counterpart is physically present. When communication and empathy fail, the threat of physical violence is still not a motivator because (in my little corner of the world), there is basically no threat. The shopkeeper isn't going to jump over the counter and throttle the customer, nor vice versa. Because society built laws and norms that prevent that from being a viable solution, and guarantee that choosing that path will lead to much more serious problems. It's entirely rational, and we don't need a vague passive-aggressive quasi-threat of a punch in the nose to make it work. No system works all the time, and there are always Poor Impulse Control people who leave the store and come back with a shotgun. But I'd argue that those extremely rare cases are further proof that the in-person "threat of physical violence" does not play a part in making customer service work well.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      > the implied-but-never-actualized threat of physical violence is the thing that makes in-person customer service succeed? [emphasis mine] It's not the thing, but I think it's one of the things, among others such as the ones you listed. > there is basically no threat Recent events such as shopkeepers or security guards being assaulted for requiring people to wear masks suggests otherwise. The threat is still very small, but I'd argue it exists and humans aren't always reasonable when it comes to evaluating risk probabilities and will probably overestimate the actual risk and adjust their behavior. > society built laws and norms that prevent that from being a viable solution People don't always act reasonably and the perpetrator being punished down the line doesn't change the fact you got your face smashed and needed to get stitches. > But I'd argue that those extremely rare cases are further proof that the in-person "threat of physical violence" does not play a part in making customer service work well. The other advantages of in-person communication (which you raised) is that both sides can "read the room" and adjust their behavior before the situation escalates to violence. A customer service person might be more likely to bend the rules when they are in front of a person that's visibly angry or violent so that the situation does not actually escalate that far.
- wyager 5y ago
  > It's gone because it worked so poorly for society. No it’s not. It’s gone because it only works on kulaks and the kulak class is very small now.

ebiester 5y ago

If things are so complex that someone can lose their money through an intricate set of rules, that's exactly the type of scummy behavior that we are talking about. It's not a matter of "whose" fault it is, but rather that a faceless group benefit from this type of behavior, and it is so complex that it is nearly impossible to avoid. And there are no consequences. Sometimes, it's a computer responsible for the decision. These would not be so lightly regarded if someone had true consequences for this behavior. It turns into a complete lack of societal trust, something that people in turn are taken advantage by.

quesera 5y ago
Yes, some groups leverage that complexity for their own benefit. Absolutely true. See also: every complex system ever. But some systems are complex because they're complicated. And the net of, say, regulated banking, is socially beneficial. So punish the scummy behavior with the avid prosecution of just laws, obviously.

Nextgrid 5y ago

The customer being able to cause a scene in your premises (in view of other customers), let alone being able to physically threaten and or hurt you is a good incentive to make sure customers have no reason to resort to such means. You're less likely to ignore a potential bug if a customer can cause damage to your business (by causing a scene in the store or physically hurting employees) as opposed to being "contained" within endless bureaucracy and phone queues.

rpmisms 5y ago

I don't think you're responding to an advocate for violence. I think the mere possibility of violence that comes with face-to-face interactions modifies people's behavior.

quesera 5y ago
The "possibility" of violence which is known to never occur is an empty threat and will be ignored just as quickly.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  Exactly. Which is why threatening a telemarketer is absurd.