5 ms·

I’m a big fan of number 2 - people who think in hierarchies tend to think things are below them - but 7 is extremely underappreciated. If you haven’t seen it,

I’m a big fan of number 2 - people who think in hierarchies tend to think things are below them - but 7 is extremely underappreciated. If you haven’t seen it, the Al Capone theory of Sexual Harassment (<https://hypatia.ca/2017/07/18/the-al-capone-theory-of-sexual-harassment/ https://hypatia.ca/2017/07/18/the-al-capone-theory-of-sexual...>) covers this pretty well: Someone who’ll do the wrong thing in one circumstance has already displayed the moral flexibility to convince themselves it’s OK to do the wrong thing in other circumstances. We’re none of us saints, but if you don’t have the fortitude to keep to your principles (or the principles to keep to) when the stakes are small, boy, it’s a whole lot harder to convince yourself to accept the cost of doing the right thing when the stakes are higher.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
For number 2 and some of the other points it's important to get a representative sample to make a determination on. I have once complained about food to a waitress when I was having an otherwise bad day. I have once held back anger when demanding a refund from a customer service rep - because the company pissed me off so much, not the rep, and it was really really hard to hold back the anger toward the company when talking to the rep, and I know that the anger bled through, I could hear it in my own voice. But usually I tip very well (75% for a haircut, at least 20% for food) and try to be both polite and considerate. People have bad days. For any given interaction a person loses very little by writing another person off because of that other person's bad day. But, of course, that reflects on you making the judgement to write them off based on a singular incident. And I cheated once on a test by taking an extra few seconds because I just couldn't leave a test question unanswered (I've since matured).
- roughly 4y ago
  Yeah, for what it's worth, none of this is absolutist. You're looking for patterns over time. Everyone has good days and bad days (and that's worth remembering on both sides of the exchange), but someone with a pattern of either treating people they consider subordinate badly or cheating those around them is telling you something about how they view the world outside themselves, which includes you.
- stavros 4y ago
  I don't think the common wisdom on treating service people is about when you have a legitimate complaint, I take it to mean more "on average".
  - The_Colonel 4y ago
    Yes, possibly even (rare) illegitimate anger is excusable, people are emotional beings and can blow up. What this is IMHO truly about is when people more or less intentionally abuse the power inequality in such situations. Like you could manage your anger, but why bother, it's just a service worker who can't fight back.
candiodari 4y ago
This only benefits the rich, and that's why it will lead you totally astray. It simply leads you to people who've never had to make difficult choices in their life and THAT is why they have never chosen "wrong". Without pressure, making the right choice is not just easy, it destroys your character. If you think these people will react well in high stakes situations, or under prolonged pressure/stress ... well, go consult for a financial security department of any bank (they need data analysts and programmers, so no problem). Or get some stories from a police officer. There is no shortage of very reputable people who beat up or abandon their family, financially and for real (and while majority male, in reality it's like 60-40 male-female, not that big a difference). If you think you as an employer will get better treatment ... that's delusional. It does not speak against someone if they've, say, stolen as a teenager and regret it. If they've gotten into a serious fight and accepted responsibility that should speak to their character. Of course this means that there are circumstances, limits where they will ignore the law. These people simply know what their limits are, and won't snap without warning, lashing out. Unfortunately these sort of absolutist morals seem to be on the rise. You're merely selecting for people who were born rich, who will behave "perfect", until, suddenly and without warning, without even seeing it coming themselves, do something completely reprehensible, then hide it. A good number of them see themselves as inherently better than people who had and dealt with actual problems in their lives. Of course, the opposite is true: they're much worse. Absolutist morals like this attitude means one has to behave like those rich "never did anything wrong" people (despite getting arrested for beating up their girlfriend drunk). That behavior is, of course, to lie about it. Techniques like this will also give a massive advantage to people with psychological problems like narcissism or antisocial disorders. They lie, but they have decades of experience lying about themselves. You cannot seriously hope to see through that without applying pressure. Perhaps the "how they treat serving staff" thing, but only if they're idiots. Of course management is famous for admitting loads of people with such disorders. Perhaps this is why ...
- roughly 4y ago
  I forget that every single time I comment on this site I need to include the caveat that if you were born a blind diabetic in Monrovia in the middle of a gunfight in which both your parents died and left you with a debt to the mafia, I don't begrudge you your choices, moral or otherwise. However, if what you got from either my or the author's take is that we believe rich people are inherently more virtuous by dint of having not been tested, I'm not sure the problem is in either my writing or that in the article.
makeitdouble 4y ago
From the “Al Capone theory of Sexual Harassment” > often people who engage in sexually predatory behavior also faked expense reports, plagiarized writing, or stole credit for other people’s work. > Mark Hurd, the former CEO of HP, was accused of sexual harassment by a contractor, but resigned for falsifying expense reports to cover up the contractor’s unnecessary presence on his business trips. Jacob Appelbaum, the former Tor evangelist, left the Tor Foundation after he was accused of both sexual misconduct and plagiarism. And Randy Komisar, a general partner at venture capital firm KPCB, gave a book of erotic poetry to another partner at the firm, and accepted a board seat (and the credit for a successful IPO) at RPX that would ordinarily have gone to her. I get the feeling they are rediscovering white collar crime, and how CEO of powerful organizations engage in a variety of unethical behaviors that come out in troves if you start investigating them. Sure some of them also engage in sexual harrasment. But drawing the conclusion from there is just backward.
- CaptainZapp 4y ago
  > but resigned for falsifying expense reports to cover up the contractor’s unnecessary presence on his business trips. I never got why people fib their expenses. First of all it's a form of stealing and not a morally defensible form of stealing (like stealing a loaf of bread, because you're hungry). Moreover, it gives your employer ammunition in case it's needed. And all for a 20$ here or there. That "everybody does it" seems like a really bad argument to me.
- cvalka 4y ago
  >And Randy Komisar, a general partner at venture capital firm KPCB, gave a book of erotic poetry to another partner at the firm, and accepted a board seat (and the credit for a successful IPO) at RPX that would ordinarily have gone to her. You don't mind revealing who "her" is, don't you?

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

For number 2 and some of the other points it's important to get a representative sample to make a determination on. I have once complained about food to a waitress when I was having an otherwise bad day. I have once held back anger when demanding a refund from a customer service rep - because the company pissed me off so much, not the rep, and it was really really hard to hold back the anger toward the company when talking to the rep, and I know that the anger bled through, I could hear it in my own voice. But usually I tip very well (75% for a haircut, at least 20% for food) and try to be both polite and considerate. People have bad days. For any given interaction a person loses very little by writing another person off because of that other person's bad day. But, of course, that reflects on you making the judgement to write them off based on a singular incident. And I cheated once on a test by taking an extra few seconds because I just couldn't leave a test question unanswered (I've since matured).

roughly 4y ago
Yeah, for what it's worth, none of this is absolutist. You're looking for patterns over time. Everyone has good days and bad days (and that's worth remembering on both sides of the exchange), but someone with a pattern of either treating people they consider subordinate badly or cheating those around them is telling you something about how they view the world outside themselves, which includes you.
stavros 4y ago
I don't think the common wisdom on treating service people is about when you have a legitimate complaint, I take it to mean more "on average".
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  Yes, possibly even (rare) illegitimate anger is excusable, people are emotional beings and can blow up. What this is IMHO truly about is when people more or less intentionally abuse the power inequality in such situations. Like you could manage your anger, but why bother, it's just a service worker who can't fight back.

candiodari 4y ago

This only benefits the rich, and that's why it will lead you totally astray. It simply leads you to people who've never had to make difficult choices in their life and THAT is why they have never chosen "wrong". Without pressure, making the right choice is not just easy, it destroys your character. If you think these people will react well in high stakes situations, or under prolonged pressure/stress ... well, go consult for a financial security department of any bank (they need data analysts and programmers, so no problem). Or get some stories from a police officer. There is no shortage of very reputable people who beat up or abandon their family, financially and for real (and while majority male, in reality it's like 60-40 male-female, not that big a difference). If you think you as an employer will get better treatment ... that's delusional. It does not speak against someone if they've, say, stolen as a teenager and regret it. If they've gotten into a serious fight and accepted responsibility that should speak to their character. Of course this means that there are circumstances, limits where they will ignore the law. These people simply know what their limits are, and won't snap without warning, lashing out. Unfortunately these sort of absolutist morals seem to be on the rise. You're merely selecting for people who were born rich, who will behave "perfect", until, suddenly and without warning, without even seeing it coming themselves, do something completely reprehensible, then hide it. A good number of them see themselves as inherently better than people who had and dealt with actual problems in their lives. Of course, the opposite is true: they're much worse. Absolutist morals like this attitude means one has to behave like those rich "never did anything wrong" people (despite getting arrested for beating up their girlfriend drunk). That behavior is, of course, to lie about it. Techniques like this will also give a massive advantage to people with psychological problems like narcissism or antisocial disorders. They lie, but they have decades of experience lying about themselves. You cannot seriously hope to see through that without applying pressure. Perhaps the "how they treat serving staff" thing, but only if they're idiots. Of course management is famous for admitting loads of people with such disorders. Perhaps this is why ...

roughly 4y ago
I forget that every single time I comment on this site I need to include the caveat that if you were born a blind diabetic in Monrovia in the middle of a gunfight in which both your parents died and left you with a debt to the mafia, I don't begrudge you your choices, moral or otherwise. However, if what you got from either my or the author's take is that we believe rich people are inherently more virtuous by dint of having not been tested, I'm not sure the problem is in either my writing or that in the article.

makeitdouble 4y ago

From the “Al Capone theory of Sexual Harassment” > often people who engage in sexually predatory behavior also faked expense reports, plagiarized writing, or stole credit for other people’s work. > Mark Hurd, the former CEO of HP, was accused of sexual harassment by a contractor, but resigned for falsifying expense reports to cover up the contractor’s unnecessary presence on his business trips. Jacob Appelbaum, the former Tor evangelist, left the Tor Foundation after he was accused of both sexual misconduct and plagiarism. And Randy Komisar, a general partner at venture capital firm KPCB, gave a book of erotic poetry to another partner at the firm, and accepted a board seat (and the credit for a successful IPO) at RPX that would ordinarily have gone to her. I get the feeling they are rediscovering white collar crime, and how CEO of powerful organizations engage in a variety of unethical behaviors that come out in troves if you start investigating them. Sure some of them also engage in sexual harrasment. But drawing the conclusion from there is just backward.

CaptainZapp 4y ago
> but resigned for falsifying expense reports to cover up the contractor’s unnecessary presence on his business trips. I never got why people fib their expenses. First of all it's a form of stealing and not a morally defensible form of stealing (like stealing a loaf of bread, because you're hungry). Moreover, it gives your employer ammunition in case it's needed. And all for a 20$ here or there. That "everybody does it" seems like a really bad argument to me.
cvalka 4y ago
>And Randy Komisar, a general partner at venture capital firm KPCB, gave a book of erotic poetry to another partner at the firm, and accepted a board seat (and the credit for a successful IPO) at RPX that would ordinarily have gone to her. You don't mind revealing who "her" is, don't you?