5 ms·

When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them of their own agency. You may not even be wrong, but people have a right to choose how they fee

When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them of their own agency. You may not even be wrong, but people have a right to choose how they feel about something, how something affects them, and the only way to know is to talk to them about it. Attributing to someone a feeling or thought they themselves did not actually have is among the worst things you can reasonably do to someone on a daily basis without interacting with them at all. I worry people don't quite realize how harmful this behavior is, or how often people do it. The solution, as always, is to communicate. Just speak, using words, to the person you're inventing thoughts and feelings for. Often you've successfully detected something (we are social creatures, after all), but rarely are you right on the specifics.

baryphonic 5y ago
I agree, with the caveat that it doesn't work with people acting in bad faith (e.g. liars, manipulators, narcissists). In those cases, communication often makes situations worse. Of course bad faith should never be assumed, but once it has been demonstrated, it's hard to forget—if someone was willing to lie once to get what he wanted, how do I know he'd be unwilling to lie again? For the vast majority of people, though, communication is better.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mooreds 5y ago
> When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them of their own agency. Yes! I've done that too often, tiptoeing around things trying to game out all the possible ramifications. It's far better to simply try to: * know your needs/desires * communicate them * ask about theirs * handle the consequences Even though it is straightforward, it may not be easy.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  This is pretty close to the basic tenets of Nonviolent Communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Overv...
  - nvusuvu 5y ago
    This book has and continues to change the way I communicate with others. Its sitting on my desk now. Empathy and Honesty, what a beautiful dance.
- mattcwilson 5y ago
  And I’d add - trust them to handle the consequences of your communication as well. If it turns out they’re cool about it, what wonderful feedback for you about their reliability and understanding of you. If it turns out they react badly, at least it’s feedback to ask yourself whether they’re worth that kind of trouble in the future. If they’re passive aggressive about it - well, shame on them, and be very careful.
Chris2048 5y ago
> I worry people don't quite realize how harmful this behavior is trying to predict how people feel without talking to them is baked into thousands of years of evolution, not just for humans, and a large amount of human communication is implied or non-verbal as well. It's hard to think it's that harmful given we've coevolved with it. BTW, would you only take this approach with close friends/partners, or bosses/coworkers too?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  We're not on the savanna hunting antelope anymore, so knowing that you're feeling, "scared of being eaten by the lion behind me" is no longer granular enough to be useful.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Human ancestors evolved social skills way before they descended to the savanna. Chimps kill each other all the time, maybe evolving a way to predict feelings would be useful there?
- IceMetalPunk 5y ago
  There are plenty of things we evolved to do/believe/think/perceive that are now harmful, because the world has changed and we haven't yet genetically evolved to fully adapt to it yet (and, because of medical technology, we may never do so). There are hundreds of cognitive biases that exist because they were an evolutionary benefit, but no longer are, or are no longer enough. Predicting how people feel is empathy, and that's great! But stopping there and assuming your predictions are correct without actually verifying them with the person first? That's harmful. You're not too busy anymore running from lions and hunting deer to stop and talk to a person before forming your ideas about them.
- em-bee 5y ago
  it's harmful because it when it is wrong, then it can cause a lot of damage to the relationship. what we think others are feeling is always based on our own feelings. the reason it works, because most of the time, their feelings don't actually matter. when bumping into a stranger, assume best intentions, apologize or say something else appropriate and move on. who cares what they actually think or feel. the closer the person is, the more communication is warranted.
0des 5y ago
I've encountered this before when preemptively using they/them for someone, that it was robbing them of their choice. I do my best to use a name or point until a pronoun is defined to avoid uncomfortable moments.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  This isn't the same thing: A person using they/them - when they do not know the other person's pronoun - is someone trying to be nice and not misgender someone. In other words, using neutral language unless confirmation of gender. Pointing isn't polite in all company and repeatedly using a name isn't natural speech. It isn't taking someone's choice. All someone has to do is speak up. Additionally: I use they/them when I'm speaking about friends that are not mutual friends. Usually, gender doesn't enhance the story. Same when talking about my spouse in situations where I'm talking about myself being bisexual. People do not need to know what sort of genitals my spouse has, especially when it is because they want to see "how queer I am".
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Maybe English should go the Finnish route and abandon gendered pronouns entirely.
  - zestyping 5y ago
    It's tricky. Not everybody _wants_ be called they/them. Not everybody wants to be called he or she either. The way I try to work around this is to use "they" only when it would not sound grammatically unusual or confusing to do so, and otherwise rearrange the sentence to omit the pronoun. As an example of the first, "That's their phone on the table" sounds natural because singular "their" is a lot more common than singular "they", and it's unambiguous because a phone is typically owned by an individual. As an example of the second, "I met Bill yesterday and they went to the store with me" is odd because it sounds like "they" either doesn't agree with singular "Bill" or refers to some earlier plural antecedent, so I'd rephrase it "I met Bill yesterday and we went to the store together" or something like that.
jerry1979 5y ago
What does it look like to presume a feeling for someone else? The reason I ask is because I have a hard time connecting how thinking something can rob someone. Also, when it comes to talking about things that happen in the mind, wouldn't hyperbolic assertions like "When you do X, you're actually robbing X" actually rob people of their own agency if the listener trusts the speaker as a legitimate authority?
- em-bee 5y ago
  the problem is when your presumed feeling leads to a different and possibly wrong decision.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  "Oh, they're not interested in going to this event, they probably think it's stupid." "He's always talked about working more with his hands, I probably shouldn't forward him this desk job that'd otherwise be perfect for his career progression." "She'd never date a loser like me."
  - fluoridation 5y ago
    It seems like you're confusing "robbing" and "not giving opportunities".
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      "not giving opportunities for the expression of agency" doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same...
      - jerry1979 5y ago
        I agree that robbing someone of their agency sounds very important; however, if I make assumptions about how someone feels, that could rob them of a potential opportunity, or it could also give them a new opportunity depending on the nature of my assumption. Either way, their capacity to act (agency) remains intact. The very important phrasing, in my estimation, can lead people to neurotically question their feelings less they "rob" someone of the capacity to act. In reality, a more lax quip such as "assuming makes an ass out of u-&-me" gives people more breathing room for their lapses in judgement.
cowuser666 5y ago
Seems like a fragile kind of agency if people trying to interpret you crushes it.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
> When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them of their own agency. There are unfortunately heck of a lot of people out there who (going by their actions) don't see denying people agency as a bad thing except when it is brought up as a standalone topic.

baryphonic 5y ago

I agree, with the caveat that it doesn't work with people acting in bad faith (e.g. liars, manipulators, narcissists). In those cases, communication often makes situations worse. Of course bad faith should never be assumed, but once it has been demonstrated, it's hard to forget—if someone was willing to lie once to get what he wanted, how do I know he'd be unwilling to lie again? For the vast majority of people, though, communication is better.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mooreds 5y ago

> When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them of their own agency. Yes! I've done that too often, tiptoeing around things trying to game out all the possible ramifications. It's far better to simply try to: * know your needs/desires * communicate them * ask about theirs * handle the consequences Even though it is straightforward, it may not be easy.

jdmichal 5y ago
This is pretty close to the basic tenets of Nonviolent Communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication#Overv...
- nvusuvu 5y ago
  This book has and continues to change the way I communicate with others. Its sitting on my desk now. Empathy and Honesty, what a beautiful dance.
mattcwilson 5y ago
And I’d add - trust them to handle the consequences of your communication as well. If it turns out they’re cool about it, what wonderful feedback for you about their reliability and understanding of you. If it turns out they react badly, at least it’s feedback to ask yourself whether they’re worth that kind of trouble in the future. If they’re passive aggressive about it - well, shame on them, and be very careful.

Chris2048 5y ago

> I worry people don't quite realize how harmful this behavior is trying to predict how people feel without talking to them is baked into thousands of years of evolution, not just for humans, and a large amount of human communication is implied or non-verbal as well. It's hard to think it's that harmful given we've coevolved with it. BTW, would you only take this approach with close friends/partners, or bosses/coworkers too?

TameAntelope 5y ago
We're not on the savanna hunting antelope anymore, so knowing that you're feeling, "scared of being eaten by the lion behind me" is no longer granular enough to be useful.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Human ancestors evolved social skills way before they descended to the savanna. Chimps kill each other all the time, maybe evolving a way to predict feelings would be useful there?
IceMetalPunk 5y ago
There are plenty of things we evolved to do/believe/think/perceive that are now harmful, because the world has changed and we haven't yet genetically evolved to fully adapt to it yet (and, because of medical technology, we may never do so). There are hundreds of cognitive biases that exist because they were an evolutionary benefit, but no longer are, or are no longer enough. Predicting how people feel is empathy, and that's great! But stopping there and assuming your predictions are correct without actually verifying them with the person first? That's harmful. You're not too busy anymore running from lions and hunting deer to stop and talk to a person before forming your ideas about them.
em-bee 5y ago
it's harmful because it when it is wrong, then it can cause a lot of damage to the relationship. what we think others are feeling is always based on our own feelings. the reason it works, because most of the time, their feelings don't actually matter. when bumping into a stranger, assume best intentions, apologize or say something else appropriate and move on. who cares what they actually think or feel. the closer the person is, the more communication is warranted.

0des 5y ago

I've encountered this before when preemptively using they/them for someone, that it was robbing them of their choice. I do my best to use a name or point until a pronoun is defined to avoid uncomfortable moments.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
This isn't the same thing: A person using they/them - when they do not know the other person's pronoun - is someone trying to be nice and not misgender someone. In other words, using neutral language unless confirmation of gender. Pointing isn't polite in all company and repeatedly using a name isn't natural speech. It isn't taking someone's choice. All someone has to do is speak up. Additionally: I use they/them when I'm speaking about friends that are not mutual friends. Usually, gender doesn't enhance the story. Same when talking about my spouse in situations where I'm talking about myself being bisexual. People do not need to know what sort of genitals my spouse has, especially when it is because they want to see "how queer I am".
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Maybe English should go the Finnish route and abandon gendered pronouns entirely.
- zestyping 5y ago
  It's tricky. Not everybody _wants_ be called they/them. Not everybody wants to be called he or she either. The way I try to work around this is to use "they" only when it would not sound grammatically unusual or confusing to do so, and otherwise rearrange the sentence to omit the pronoun. As an example of the first, "That's their phone on the table" sounds natural because singular "their" is a lot more common than singular "they", and it's unambiguous because a phone is typically owned by an individual. As an example of the second, "I met Bill yesterday and they went to the store with me" is odd because it sounds like "they" either doesn't agree with singular "Bill" or refers to some earlier plural antecedent, so I'd rephrase it "I met Bill yesterday and we went to the store together" or something like that.

jerry1979 5y ago

What does it look like to presume a feeling for someone else? The reason I ask is because I have a hard time connecting how thinking something can rob someone. Also, when it comes to talking about things that happen in the mind, wouldn't hyperbolic assertions like "When you do X, you're actually robbing X" actually rob people of their own agency if the listener trusts the speaker as a legitimate authority?

em-bee 5y ago
the problem is when your presumed feeling leads to a different and possibly wrong decision.
TameAntelope 5y ago
"Oh, they're not interested in going to this event, they probably think it's stupid." "He's always talked about working more with his hands, I probably shouldn't forward him this desk job that'd otherwise be perfect for his career progression." "She'd never date a loser like me."
- fluoridation 5y ago
  It seems like you're confusing "robbing" and "not giving opportunities".
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    "not giving opportunities for the expression of agency" doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same...
    - jerry1979 5y ago
      I agree that robbing someone of their agency sounds very important; however, if I make assumptions about how someone feels, that could rob them of a potential opportunity, or it could also give them a new opportunity depending on the nature of my assumption. Either way, their capacity to act (agency) remains intact. The very important phrasing, in my estimation, can lead people to neurotically question their feelings less they "rob" someone of the capacity to act. In reality, a more lax quip such as "assuming makes an ass out of u-&-me" gives people more breathing room for their lapses in judgement.

cowuser666 5y ago

Seems like a fragile kind of agency if people trying to interpret you crushes it.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

> When you presume a feeling for someone else, you're robbing them of their own agency. There are unfortunately heck of a lot of people out there who (going by their actions) don't see denying people agency as a bad thing except when it is brought up as a standalone topic.