5 ms·
Sounds like a place to thrive for the unreasonable. Everyone accommodates you!
by hoseja 5y ago
Sounds like a place to thrive for the unreasonable. Everyone accommodates you!
- darkerside 5y agoI actually struggle with this a bit. I tend to assume positive intent, which means I suffer fools, and sometimes assholes. It's probably as simple as setting boundaries and standing up for myself, but anyone have more helpful suggestions?
- afarrell 5y agoAssuming positive intent is generally good, but it is not very specific. So it can be wise to follow it with a step of clarifying intent. If I assume you intend to make me a delicious soup, that is still quite dangerous to me if your intent is to make me a delicious shrimp gumbo -- You do not generally intend me harm, but to achieve that intent we need to communicate about my specific allergy to shrimp.
- grasshopperpurp 5y agoAssume positive intent until someone proves your assumption wrong. One of the good things about assuming positive intent is that you should treat people well. If you do, and the other person does not reciprocate, you should no longer assume positive intent. Maybe they're just having a bad day? You can, and should, still leave room to change your mind again, but I would recommend basketing people who show signs of foolishness, selfishness, and general unkindness apart from people who reward your optimism. It's not your job to find the good person beneath the layers of trash. Generally speaking, our faults don't dwindle upon closer inspection, and even if they did, life is short, and you probably have other things to do.
- PennRobotics 5y agoForgiving tit-for-tat :)
- naasking 5y agoIt has been the best strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma for years.
- enominezerum 5y agoI say look for trends. I assume the best of people, but I am also on the lookout for trends that show the worst of people. If this is someone that you encounter a lot, there is nothing wrong with being wary and observing their trends.
- Applejinx 5y agoDon't always suffer fools and assholes :) You don't always have to have boundaries, but it's okay to sometimes decide that you have some. If you try to define your boundaries perfectly so they can never be argued with, that's a trap to be exploited by those who like arguing.
- shadowgovt 5y agoTake notes and compare them with people you trust. I have the same problem. What I've found to be helpful is that I have several friends who don't gleefully suffer fools and are always willing to help serve as a second point-of-view on whether someone is just generally an asshole. It's a lot easier to tell if someone is trying to sell you a snow-job if you can get the perspective on how they are outside of your field-of-view.
- chengiz 5y agoIt's Karl Popper's tolerance paradox. > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- posterboy 5y agoHow is that even a paradox? It's simply speaking an optimization problem in two dependent variables, and it looks confusing because of an impossible premisses and the conflation of terms. Arriving at the paradox that an infinitely tolerant society can be also infinitely intolerant at the same time. Which is pretty much a given if intolerance and tolerance are axiomatically on the same scale (as the nameing of the terms would suggest). This is pretty much equivalent to this thread's topic, that a arbitrarily reasonable person may tell somebody they were not reasonable, not just slightly less reasonable or actually, reasonably bad, but just approachung zero reasonable, or infinite un-reasonable. But no, there's no logic in this.
- burnished 5y agoIts a paradox because a perfectly tolerant society would cease to function due to attacks from intolerant people subverting social mechanisms, that very tolerance of view point is what would enable it. Thus a completely tolerant society would need to violate its core principle in order to protect that principle.
- shadowgovt 5y agoInitially. In the long term, the CMU computer science culture starts interpreting unreasonableness as damage and stops inviting it to parties and collaborations and recommending it forward to peers outside the institution. You'll graduate, and your degree will take you where it will take you. No more and no less.