14 ms·

The title is clickbaity and the content a bit overboard, but this statement resonates: > If a person’s behavior doesn’t make sense to you, it is because you ar

The title is clickbaity and the content a bit overboard, but this statement resonates: > If a person’s behavior doesn’t make sense to you, it is because you are missing a part of their context. Working in a large company with lots of stakeholders pulling in different directions, I've lost count of how many times I've heard X complain that Y is an idiot and what they're doing makes no sense, and then talked to Y directly and realized that from their point of view Y's actions are entirely rational.

Cerium 5y ago
Having patience and compassion for our fellow humans is important. I often remind myself that people generally take actions that make sense to them. The fact that they don't make sense to me does not mean that they are wrong or stupid, it means I have not taken time to see their perspective.
- mwilliaams 5y ago
  But also sometimes they might just be stupid
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    Yes, but is every person you think is stupid, actually stupid? Do they actually lack intelligence? Are they reacting to something they see, that you do not? The whole point is to understand the context and look for solutions. Not just dismiss people you don’t like or don’t want to deal with by labeling them as stupid or lazy. If you’ve exhausted the other options or ways to approach the problem, perhaps stupid is the explanation.
    - kqr 5y ago
      The classic Hanlon's razor is "Don't attribute to malice what which is adequately explained by stupidity." I like the variations that take it one step further, "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance", and "Don't attribute to ignorance that which is adequately explained by bad luck."
      - Majestic121 5y ago
        Another one could be : "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance from your part" I've been bitten quite a few time making hasty harsh judgements because I was missing a piece of the puzzle
        shantnutiwari 5y ago
        >> "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance from your part +1 for this. Techy types are too quick to judge others as "idiots". And yet, the same type of people will get very outraged when others or their boss does the same to them
        ungamed 5y ago
        > Techy types are too quick to judge others as "idiots". I wouldn't say too quick, probably just quick. Have you thought about that why that is ? My running theory is that because people and skills in the tech industry have historically been discredited, they have developed a distaste for people who can't "deal with this computer shit".
  - satvikpendem 5y ago
    What seems stupid to you is usually reasonable in their reference frame. The example du jour is any type of strongly held belief, whether that be in religion or politics, or whatever else. Someone can hold a fundamental, axiomatic view such that the logical consequences of that view might seem stupid to us, but we don't hold those same axioms.
    - watwut 5y ago
      So, we had manager who systematically misinterpreted what people said. Sometimes with bad intention, other times honestly no understanding and making absurd guesses. Having to watch the consequences of that, that person was not doing something reasonable from different point of view. It was not about axioms. It was harming everyone including that manager. (That the manager got or kept position is indictment of our company. I am fully aware.)
  - npteljes 5y ago
    Or they just do something stupid. And sometimes I just want to dismiss them.
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    This is such a lazy answer to a complex problem-set. The reason why it always breaks down too this, is that we can not perceive "different". All we have is "similar" to us comparison. Not similar to us is judged by outcome - which is why stupid/godlike flickers. Genius is repeatedly not getting it, judging it stupid, but the outcome is working/superior. The sad truth is, we cant really see other people behaviour-wise. Aliens could be walking in our midst and we couldn't perceive them.
tapan_jk 5y ago
And this: > There are always barriers. Recognizing those barriers— and viewing them as legitimate — is often the first step to breaking "lazy" behavior patterns. One thing that the article encouraged me to do is view the situation from the other person's perspective. What may appear ill-intentioned may not seem that way once we gain context.
andrei_says_ 5y ago
Any action a human being ever takes is a strategy to meet a basic human need. - from Nonviolent Communication Start looking for the needs driving actions and you will gain an x-Ray vision that will give you effortless compassion. Edit: Here’s a list of basic human needs: https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory
- noduerme 5y ago
  Maybe so, but sometimes that need is grounded in a completely mistaken belief - or in a misguided search for approval of a peer group - such as being the loudest person at the ballgame, or the one who gets shot breaking into the senate chamber, or the one who straps explosives to his chest. These people do make an amazing impression on normies and institutions alike, but the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits. It's the common need of Twitter. It can be reduced to "I'll make you all shut up and listen to me." It deserves no reward - and it should probably not be countered with nonviolence.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits This depends on who's doing the analysis. For example, self-immolation is often seen as an extreme form of desperate but rational protest. The only way to understand and prevent these types of events is to understand and address the underlying needs.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      Suicide is never a rational response, and can't be taken into account on the spectrum of human needs, since it's an abnegation of all human need. It doesn't need to be considered within the spectrum of rational economic responses. Viktor Frankl made it through without committing suicide, while thousands of happily brainwashed and well-fed kamikaze pilots went to their deaths. We are then in the philosophical realm of whether this is a world you simply choose not to live in. The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version, but still falls short of doing anything for this world. We don't and shouldn't take suicidal people's thoughts seriously. They failed to make a point, and gave up. Even if they think they're going to 72 virgins (which is even more cowardly). We are discussing the people who go on living and how to arrange the living world.
Helmut10001 5y ago
Just to mention: It can also mean that the other person is missing some of the context you have (and knowing this can also be considered context information).
ironmagma 5y ago
This statement is equivalent to saying that everyone is perfectly rational though, which we know is not true. Sometimes people are different because they are different, not because we are all one identical mind cloned and put in different bodies and circumstances.
ttonkytonk 5y ago
Everybody is trying to achieve or maintain a sense of well-being. Part of well-being is understanding, so the (inevitably) missing parts of the context are rationalized?

Cerium 5y ago

Having patience and compassion for our fellow humans is important. I often remind myself that people generally take actions that make sense to them. The fact that they don't make sense to me does not mean that they are wrong or stupid, it means I have not taken time to see their perspective.

mwilliaams 5y ago
But also sometimes they might just be stupid
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  Yes, but is every person you think is stupid, actually stupid? Do they actually lack intelligence? Are they reacting to something they see, that you do not? The whole point is to understand the context and look for solutions. Not just dismiss people you don’t like or don’t want to deal with by labeling them as stupid or lazy. If you’ve exhausted the other options or ways to approach the problem, perhaps stupid is the explanation.
  - kqr 5y ago
    The classic Hanlon's razor is "Don't attribute to malice what which is adequately explained by stupidity." I like the variations that take it one step further, "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance", and "Don't attribute to ignorance that which is adequately explained by bad luck."
    - Majestic121 5y ago
      Another one could be : "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance from your part" I've been bitten quite a few time making hasty harsh judgements because I was missing a piece of the puzzle
      - shantnutiwari 5y ago
        >> "Don't attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by ignorance from your part +1 for this. Techy types are too quick to judge others as "idiots". And yet, the same type of people will get very outraged when others or their boss does the same to them
        ungamed 5y ago
        > Techy types are too quick to judge others as "idiots". I wouldn't say too quick, probably just quick. Have you thought about that why that is ? My running theory is that because people and skills in the tech industry have historically been discredited, they have developed a distaste for people who can't "deal with this computer shit".
- satvikpendem 5y ago
  What seems stupid to you is usually reasonable in their reference frame. The example du jour is any type of strongly held belief, whether that be in religion or politics, or whatever else. Someone can hold a fundamental, axiomatic view such that the logical consequences of that view might seem stupid to us, but we don't hold those same axioms.
  - watwut 5y ago
    So, we had manager who systematically misinterpreted what people said. Sometimes with bad intention, other times honestly no understanding and making absurd guesses. Having to watch the consequences of that, that person was not doing something reasonable from different point of view. It was not about axioms. It was harming everyone including that manager. (That the manager got or kept position is indictment of our company. I am fully aware.)
- npteljes 5y ago
  Or they just do something stupid. And sometimes I just want to dismiss them.
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  This is such a lazy answer to a complex problem-set. The reason why it always breaks down too this, is that we can not perceive "different". All we have is "similar" to us comparison. Not similar to us is judged by outcome - which is why stupid/godlike flickers. Genius is repeatedly not getting it, judging it stupid, but the outcome is working/superior. The sad truth is, we cant really see other people behaviour-wise. Aliens could be walking in our midst and we couldn't perceive them.

tapan_jk 5y ago

And this: > There are always barriers. Recognizing those barriers— and viewing them as legitimate — is often the first step to breaking "lazy" behavior patterns. One thing that the article encouraged me to do is view the situation from the other person's perspective. What may appear ill-intentioned may not seem that way once we gain context.

andrei_says_ 5y ago

Any action a human being ever takes is a strategy to meet a basic human need. - from Nonviolent Communication Start looking for the needs driving actions and you will gain an x-Ray vision that will give you effortless compassion. Edit: Here’s a list of basic human needs: https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory https://www.cnvc.org/training/resource/needs-inventory

noduerme 5y ago
Maybe so, but sometimes that need is grounded in a completely mistaken belief - or in a misguided search for approval of a peer group - such as being the loudest person at the ballgame, or the one who gets shot breaking into the senate chamber, or the one who straps explosives to his chest. These people do make an amazing impression on normies and institutions alike, but the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits. It's the common need of Twitter. It can be reduced to "I'll make you all shut up and listen to me." It deserves no reward - and it should probably not be countered with nonviolence.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  the basic need they're trying to address is not one that reflects a deeper meaning or bears a great deal of weighty analysis as to its merits This depends on who's doing the analysis. For example, self-immolation is often seen as an extreme form of desperate but rational protest. The only way to understand and prevent these types of events is to understand and address the underlying needs.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Suicide is never a rational response, and can't be taken into account on the spectrum of human needs, since it's an abnegation of all human need. It doesn't need to be considered within the spectrum of rational economic responses. Viktor Frankl made it through without committing suicide, while thousands of happily brainwashed and well-fed kamikaze pilots went to their deaths. We are then in the philosophical realm of whether this is a world you simply choose not to live in. The living need to keep living. Who knows why people kill themselves. Lots of incoherent reasons, basically. Your self-immolating monk might be the clearest version, but still falls short of doing anything for this world. We don't and shouldn't take suicidal people's thoughts seriously. They failed to make a point, and gave up. Even if they think they're going to 72 virgins (which is even more cowardly). We are discussing the people who go on living and how to arrange the living world.

Helmut10001 5y ago

Just to mention: It can also mean that the other person is missing some of the context you have (and knowing this can also be considered context information).

ironmagma 5y ago

This statement is equivalent to saying that everyone is perfectly rational though, which we know is not true. Sometimes people are different because they are different, not because we are all one identical mind cloned and put in different bodies and circumstances.

ttonkytonk 5y ago

Everybody is trying to achieve or maintain a sense of well-being. Part of well-being is understanding, so the (inevitably) missing parts of the context are rationalized?