3 ms·

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 cust

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.

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.