10 ms·

>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from T

by mrtksn 3y ago

>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too small or that the government is incompetent and can't enforce the fines. I disagree, I think Turkey is a chaotic society because rules are not built around intent. Did you know that up until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures? For the first few months until I got my white collar job, I did some part time jobs in London as a waiter etc. and worked at some high end venues and hotels. In these places there are some equipments(like climate control of the wine cellar) which are operated through control panels which are accessible to everyone and they didn't put signs that say "don't touch", instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this". They were able to keep curious hands away from buttons that shouldn't be pushed by those who don't know what they are doing by simply emphasising the intent. Intent is extremely important, in fact everything is about intent. Every human action is with an intent. Great UX is built by designing around intent.

hkt 3y ago
This is exactly why criminal law requires two things: the actus reus and the mens rea. Act and intent. So, great point. I guess the only problem on the internet is it is very hard to determine intent, see Poe's law.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Agree. IMHO, the problem can be solved with enhanced bandwidth(that is, to use things beyond text, IRL we have mimics and voice tone so emojis are a start) of the communication.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced. Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Well, the consensus is that the no music after midnight rule was an attempt to squash the western lifestyle(it had serious impact on the livelihood of the musicians and the venues). At places where the rule was enforced people simply continue their night somewhere without live music. It made no sense in the context of Covid, it made sense in the context of islamist trying to destroy the non-islamists. Anyway, what's the difference between a rule and a guideline? Is a red light a rule or guide? IMHO Guideline is a literature, rules are arrangements with an intent(i.e. let's agree to stop on red light with the intent of organising the flow so we don't crash into each other).
  - ilyt 3y ago
    > Anyway, what's the difference between a rule and a guideline? Is a red light a rule or guide? Guideline: don't bother neighbours after 20:00 Rule: Loud noises not allowed after 20:00 If you make sure to steer clear from guideline ("hey neighbour, we want to have a party, will it be okay if we be loud till 00:00","thanks"), the rules will not need to be enforced (neighbour calling the police to complain)
    - tsukikage 3y ago
      Now imagine you are not, in fact, on good terms with your neighbour, as sometimes happens. How should you behave in order to not spend every single evening arguing over the meaning of "bother neighbour" with the police? A more rigid definition serves to protect you, not just your neighbour.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      Rule: Loud noises not allowed after 20:00 unless permission have been given from neighbours. No loud noises after 23. Much better than a guideline in my opinion.
      - nikau 3y ago
        And how do you confirm all neighbours have agreed? What's the radius for neighbours? What about extortion to get neighbors to agree? Status quo is much simpler - it's banned but if neighbours all agree have a late party and police aren't called
olau 3y ago
You might be interested in reading the classical book about cultural difference by Geert Hofstede as it provides another perspective on this. He describes what he calls uncertainty avoidance cultures that try to reduce uncertainty by making lots of rules. These end up being impossible to follow, so it's generally expected that you don't. He contrasts this with cultures that are low on uncertainty avoidance that have fewer rules, but on the other hand it's expected that they are followed. This is probably to some degree a caricature.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Thanks, I should check it out. How do they explain Germany though?
  - vertis 3y ago
    In a park in Stuttgart a man approached us as we were walking the dog, and after realising we spoke English politely said "You must not be aware, dogs must be on lead here".
    - heavenlyblue 3y ago
      So would a person from any country who supports that specific law would do...
      - vertis 3y ago
        I don't think so. Often I see people in the UK breaking rules like that and it's almost never mentioned. But it wasn't just that he mentioned it. It was the way he mentioned it. That the only possible reason for us to not be following the rules was that we must not know them.
        Leherenn 3y ago
        Wasn't it just being polite?
ilyt 3y ago
> That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Right but overly generic rules make that worse. And overly specific make a lot of work and allow stuff to still go thru cracks. It's hard problem to make following rules with intent but without rule-enforcers using it for their own whims > Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too small or that the government is incompetent and can't enforce the fines. I disagree, I think Turkey is a chaotic society because rules are not built around intent. Did you know that up until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures If the culture of the country teaches you to follow the rules, people follow the rules If the culture of the country teaches you rules are annoyance to go around or bribe around, well that happens. I live in post soviet country (Poland) and got on the end of the slow and painful transformation from the latter to the former. For example ~15 years ago it was common knowledge that you need to bribe examiner if you want to pass driving license the first time. At the time it was somewhat probable, I passed at 3rd time with 2nd time failure being my arrogance but 1st being something absolutely minor that could be summed up as "I looked at right mirror with my eyes instead of theatrically moving my head right to signal to examiner I really looked at right side'. And my step-mother, which is a terrible driver did pass via bribe at around same time. Similar thing happens with MOT tests, usually bribed to ignore lack of working cat. And the single out cases of bribing still happened, just government invested a lot of effort to fight it so it is no longer "the norm" accepted by the people as the way to live. Which on top of being a lot of effort takes generational change to really root in, back in my parent's young days you couldn't even have a car if you weren't either well connected (grandpa had Wartburg with sunroof option purely because he was in military and won few contests) or bribed the right people.
- pastage 3y ago
  That sounds fantastic actually fighting everyday bribery is such a nice feeling. I spent some time in a country with corrupt officers it was a real life drain for me, it was why I could not live abroad. The Wikipedia article is a little bit light on the bribery aspect, but there seems to have been considerable efforts made before 2012. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Poland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Poland
noduerme 3y ago
Two things really jump out at me.. I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines. Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. On the plus side, I lived in Argentina and Spain for a long time where basically there is no enforcement of anything. I will say I am proud of people there (in the Latin world) for being humans. mostly ... usually... trying not to make dumb decisions, but... well, having to make decisions, and making them. You see if you live in England or the US or Commonwealth for awhile, people have forgotten how to make any decisions if there isn't a rule for it. And yet the freest society I ever lived in, judged on the day to day freedom of individuals violating petty laws, was Vietnam. At the same time, it was the most totalitarian place I ever lived as far as what information you could access or what you could say. Still, if you wanted to drive the wrong way down a highway with an child on the back of your motorcycle, you can do that in Vietnam. Personally I don't like the UK / Australia model where everyone obeys some stupid rule written on the wall over their own intelligence. Of course, I also don't love the Argentinian model where everyone thinks they're smart enough to bang on the button that says "don't touch". Also, it's not cool to wantonly endanger your child while being terrified of mentioning the name of the dictator. But I am a fan of man... and I would definitely take the Turkish way of shrugging off rules when they don't suit you over the British way of following them to the point of worship. I think I was going to get to some great conclusion here, but I don't have one. I like when no one is watching me, but I also like when someone is watching other people. [edit] my conclusion! privacy and freedom come at the cost of people ignoring rules. People from rule-bound countries experience a burst of freedom when going somewhere that lives as people live, not by the rule-book. People from "chaotic societies" as you said, who have a mind for all the corruption they see around them, find some relief in escaping to ordered societies. Neither is good or bad, they are both modes of existence; both modes are necessary. If either were to disappear, we would have far too much chaos or far too much order, and no one would be able to escape to where they belong.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  > Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. I don't understand this. I live near Munich, people cross against a red light all the time. Maybe you were doing it near children? That's a real social faux-pas, because they're not supposed to normalize jaywalking.
tsukikage 3y ago
The intent of moderation is "don't be horrible to each other and/or the space". Unfortunately, people who are horrible to other people and/or spaces generally refuse to accept this, and therefore either need more specific examples of what being horrible entails to compare their behaviours against - leading to proliferation of edges, epicycles and rule-gaming - or you have a codicil along the lines of "the decision of what is horrible is up to the moderator and is final", leading to, at best, everyone whining about how unfair, arbitrary and partial the policy is now they can't be horrible to each other any more, all at once.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > leading to, at best, everyone whining about how unfair, arbitrary and partial the policy is now they can't be horrible to each other any more, all at once. I don’t think that is the only possible outcome. Where moderation is done well lot of people, in fact most people, simply don’t notice it. They just have a pleasant time with other pleasant people. So no, “everyone whining“ is not the best possible outcome. “Most people having a good time, a minority whining” is the best possible outcome. And of course it takes hard work, and maybe even a little bit of luck with the initial conditions.
  - tsukikage 3y ago
    These communities are lovely when they occur, but they tend to be small and ephemeral; it takes one single persistent troll who is good at gaming community mores and calmly wrapping complaints about any pushback in reasonable-sounding phrases to completely destroy such a space. I've seen this happen entirely too often :(
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Only if the moderators are idiots. Which most moderators are not: if one person is the bulk of complaints, then that person is the problem not everybody else.
      - tsukikage 3y ago
sokoloff 3y ago
> until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures? That contains its own embedded example. “This music is not being performed 1 hour after midnight; it is being performed 23 hours before midnight.”
- mrtksn 3y ago
  It was a range
throwaway2037 3y ago
Hong Kong has a million written rules with harsh penalties that are never policed. It was bizarre to me but spoke volumes about the local culture!
- throw383632 3y ago
  [flagged]
ozgune 3y ago
(I'm Turkish living in the US.) I think that's part of it. Another part is Turkey's legal system is based on Swiss law. From ChatGPT: The legal systems of the United States and Continental Europe differ in several ways. One major difference is that the US follows a common law system, which is based on the precedent set by previous court rulings, while Continental Europe follows a civil law system, which is based on a comprehensive legal code. In other words, the US legal system is based on intent with laws providing guidance to courts to assess intent. In Turkey, the legal system writes everything down and courts assess if you followed the code. I think even this conversation itself demonstrates how hard it's to moderate content in the internet. Maybe we need lawyers? :)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- humanistbot 3y ago
  > From ChatGPT: Please do not use a hallucinating LLM as a source for any substantive issue.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
> Every human action is with an intent. Not true, see sleepwalkers.
8ytecoder 3y ago
Defining rules based on intent works when there’s less corruption. Otherwise the rule will be vague enough to extract a bribe or a blackmail by the enforcing authority. Once corruption is under control you can have things like prosecutorial discretion. On the other hand, having so many rules that no one can reasonably know, understand and follow will also lead to bribes and extortion by law enforcement if corruption is common. Essentially, corruption can take advantage of either scenario and make the life of general mostly law-abiding citizens’ life much harder. So, corruption is the issue and not necessarily the laws.
- snickerer 3y ago
  Well, I had similar thoughts. I am reading the comments about laws and rules here and I am thinking: You people have never been in Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan.
itronitron 3y ago
>> instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this" I'm going to assume that those buttons were placed out of the reach of most three year-olds.
bandyaboot 3y ago
> For the first few months until I got my white collar job, I did some part time jobs in London as a waiter etc. and worked at some high end venues and hotels. In these places there are some equipments(like climate control of the wine cellar) which are operated through control panels which are accessible to everyone and they didn't put signs that say "don't touch", instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this". They were able to keep curious hands away from buttons that shouldn't be pushed by those who don't know what they are doing by simply emphasising the intent. Do you actually know that the latter sign is more effective than “don’t touch”? If it actually is, there are other possible explanations. The fact that it’s personally addressed to “you” could make it more effective. The fact that it’s simply a more unique/unexpected way to convey the message may cause people to be less likely to reflexively dismiss the more common directive of “don’t touch”.

by mrtksn 3y ago

hkt 3y ago

This is exactly why criminal law requires two things: the actus reus and the mens rea. Act and intent. So, great point. I guess the only problem on the internet is it is very hard to determine intent, see Poe's law.

mrtksn 3y ago
Agree. IMHO, the problem can be solved with enhanced bandwidth(that is, to use things beyond text, IRL we have mimics and voice tone so emojis are a start) of the communication.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

This is why there is a difference between rules and guidelines. Guidelines are suggestions. They're all about intent. "Don't have live music after midnight" isn't a ridiculous guideline for COVID, because it usually implies a gathering. It is a ridiculous rule because rules have to be rigid and well defined, because rules are enforced. Squishy rules aren't rules, they're covert dictatorial powers.

mrtksn 3y ago
Well, the consensus is that the no music after midnight rule was an attempt to squash the western lifestyle(it had serious impact on the livelihood of the musicians and the venues). At places where the rule was enforced people simply continue their night somewhere without live music. It made no sense in the context of Covid, it made sense in the context of islamist trying to destroy the non-islamists. Anyway, what's the difference between a rule and a guideline? Is a red light a rule or guide? IMHO Guideline is a literature, rules are arrangements with an intent(i.e. let's agree to stop on red light with the intent of organising the flow so we don't crash into each other).
- ilyt 3y ago
  > Anyway, what's the difference between a rule and a guideline? Is a red light a rule or guide? Guideline: don't bother neighbours after 20:00 Rule: Loud noises not allowed after 20:00 If you make sure to steer clear from guideline ("hey neighbour, we want to have a party, will it be okay if we be loud till 00:00","thanks"), the rules will not need to be enforced (neighbour calling the police to complain)
  - tsukikage 3y ago
    Now imagine you are not, in fact, on good terms with your neighbour, as sometimes happens. How should you behave in order to not spend every single evening arguing over the meaning of "bother neighbour" with the police? A more rigid definition serves to protect you, not just your neighbour.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Rule: Loud noises not allowed after 20:00 unless permission have been given from neighbours. No loud noises after 23. Much better than a guideline in my opinion.
    - nikau 3y ago
      And how do you confirm all neighbours have agreed? What's the radius for neighbours? What about extortion to get neighbors to agree? Status quo is much simpler - it's banned but if neighbours all agree have a late party and police aren't called

olau 3y ago

You might be interested in reading the classical book about cultural difference by Geert Hofstede as it provides another perspective on this. He describes what he calls uncertainty avoidance cultures that try to reduce uncertainty by making lots of rules. These end up being impossible to follow, so it's generally expected that you don't. He contrasts this with cultures that are low on uncertainty avoidance that have fewer rules, but on the other hand it's expected that they are followed. This is probably to some degree a caricature.

mrtksn 3y ago
Thanks, I should check it out. How do they explain Germany though?
- vertis 3y ago
  In a park in Stuttgart a man approached us as we were walking the dog, and after realising we spoke English politely said "You must not be aware, dogs must be on lead here".
  - heavenlyblue 3y ago
    So would a person from any country who supports that specific law would do...
    - vertis 3y ago
      I don't think so. Often I see people in the UK breaking rules like that and it's almost never mentioned. But it wasn't just that he mentioned it. It was the way he mentioned it. That the only possible reason for us to not be following the rules was that we must not know them.
      - Leherenn 3y ago
        Wasn't it just being polite?

ilyt 3y ago

> That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Right but overly generic rules make that worse. And overly specific make a lot of work and allow stuff to still go thru cracks. It's hard problem to make following rules with intent but without rule-enforcers using it for their own whims > Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too small or that the government is incompetent and can't enforce the fines. I disagree, I think Turkey is a chaotic society because rules are not built around intent. Did you know that up until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures If the culture of the country teaches you to follow the rules, people follow the rules If the culture of the country teaches you rules are annoyance to go around or bribe around, well that happens. I live in post soviet country (Poland) and got on the end of the slow and painful transformation from the latter to the former. For example ~15 years ago it was common knowledge that you need to bribe examiner if you want to pass driving license the first time. At the time it was somewhat probable, I passed at 3rd time with 2nd time failure being my arrogance but 1st being something absolutely minor that could be summed up as "I looked at right mirror with my eyes instead of theatrically moving my head right to signal to examiner I really looked at right side'. And my step-mother, which is a terrible driver did pass via bribe at around same time. Similar thing happens with MOT tests, usually bribed to ignore lack of working cat. And the single out cases of bribing still happened, just government invested a lot of effort to fight it so it is no longer "the norm" accepted by the people as the way to live. Which on top of being a lot of effort takes generational change to really root in, back in my parent's young days you couldn't even have a car if you weren't either well connected (grandpa had Wartburg with sunroof option purely because he was in military and won few contests) or bribed the right people.

pastage 3y ago
That sounds fantastic actually fighting everyday bribery is such a nice feeling. I spent some time in a country with corrupt officers it was a real life drain for me, it was why I could not live abroad. The Wikipedia article is a little bit light on the bribery aspect, but there seems to have been considerable efforts made before 2012. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Poland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Poland

noduerme 3y ago

Two things really jump out at me.. I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines. Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. On the plus side, I lived in Argentina and Spain for a long time where basically there is no enforcement of anything. I will say I am proud of people there (in the Latin world) for being humans. mostly ... usually... trying not to make dumb decisions, but... well, having to make decisions, and making them. You see if you live in England or the US or Commonwealth for awhile, people have forgotten how to make any decisions if there isn't a rule for it. And yet the freest society I ever lived in, judged on the day to day freedom of individuals violating petty laws, was Vietnam. At the same time, it was the most totalitarian place I ever lived as far as what information you could access or what you could say. Still, if you wanted to drive the wrong way down a highway with an child on the back of your motorcycle, you can do that in Vietnam. Personally I don't like the UK / Australia model where everyone obeys some stupid rule written on the wall over their own intelligence. Of course, I also don't love the Argentinian model where everyone thinks they're smart enough to bang on the button that says "don't touch". Also, it's not cool to wantonly endanger your child while being terrified of mentioning the name of the dictator. But I am a fan of man... and I would definitely take the Turkish way of shrugging off rules when they don't suit you over the British way of following them to the point of worship. I think I was going to get to some great conclusion here, but I don't have one. I like when no one is watching me, but I also like when someone is watching other people. [edit] my conclusion! privacy and freedom come at the cost of people ignoring rules. People from rule-bound countries experience a burst of freedom when going somewhere that lives as people live, not by the rule-book. People from "chaotic societies" as you said, who have a mind for all the corruption they see around them, find some relief in escaping to ordered societies. Neither is good or bad, they are both modes of existence; both modes are necessary. If either were to disappear, we would have far too much chaos or far too much order, and no one would be able to escape to where they belong.

FeepingCreature 3y ago
> Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light. I don't understand this. I live near Munich, people cross against a red light all the time. Maybe you were doing it near children? That's a real social faux-pas, because they're not supposed to normalize jaywalking.

tsukikage 3y ago

The intent of moderation is "don't be horrible to each other and/or the space". Unfortunately, people who are horrible to other people and/or spaces generally refuse to accept this, and therefore either need more specific examples of what being horrible entails to compare their behaviours against - leading to proliferation of edges, epicycles and rule-gaming - or you have a codicil along the lines of "the decision of what is horrible is up to the moderator and is final", leading to, at best, everyone whining about how unfair, arbitrary and partial the policy is now they can't be horrible to each other any more, all at once.

krisoft 3y ago
> leading to, at best, everyone whining about how unfair, arbitrary and partial the policy is now they can't be horrible to each other any more, all at once. I don’t think that is the only possible outcome. Where moderation is done well lot of people, in fact most people, simply don’t notice it. They just have a pleasant time with other pleasant people. So no, “everyone whining“ is not the best possible outcome. “Most people having a good time, a minority whining” is the best possible outcome. And of course it takes hard work, and maybe even a little bit of luck with the initial conditions.
- tsukikage 3y ago
  These communities are lovely when they occur, but they tend to be small and ephemeral; it takes one single persistent troll who is good at gaming community mores and calmly wrapping complaints about any pushback in reasonable-sounding phrases to completely destroy such a space. I've seen this happen entirely too often :(
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Only if the moderators are idiots. Which most moderators are not: if one person is the bulk of complaints, then that person is the problem not everybody else.
    - tsukikage 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

> until (literally)yesterday live music after midnight was banned in Turkey as part of Covid-19 measures? That contains its own embedded example. “This music is not being performed 1 hour after midnight; it is being performed 23 hours before midnight.”

mrtksn 3y ago
It was a range

throwaway2037 3y ago

Hong Kong has a million written rules with harsh penalties that are never policed. It was bizarre to me but spoke volumes about the local culture!

throw383632 3y ago
[flagged]

ozgune 3y ago

(I'm Turkish living in the US.) I think that's part of it. Another part is Turkey's legal system is based on Swiss law. From ChatGPT: The legal systems of the United States and Continental Europe differ in several ways. One major difference is that the US follows a common law system, which is based on the precedent set by previous court rulings, while Continental Europe follows a civil law system, which is based on a comprehensive legal code. In other words, the US legal system is based on intent with laws providing guidance to courts to assess intent. In Turkey, the legal system writes everything down and courts assess if you followed the code. I think even this conversation itself demonstrates how hard it's to moderate content in the internet. Maybe we need lawyers? :)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
humanistbot 3y ago
> From ChatGPT: Please do not use a hallucinating LLM as a source for any substantive issue.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

> Every human action is with an intent. Not true, see sleepwalkers.

8ytecoder 3y ago

Defining rules based on intent works when there’s less corruption. Otherwise the rule will be vague enough to extract a bribe or a blackmail by the enforcing authority. Once corruption is under control you can have things like prosecutorial discretion. On the other hand, having so many rules that no one can reasonably know, understand and follow will also lead to bribes and extortion by law enforcement if corruption is common. Essentially, corruption can take advantage of either scenario and make the life of general mostly law-abiding citizens’ life much harder. So, corruption is the issue and not necessarily the laws.

snickerer 3y ago
Well, I had similar thoughts. I am reading the comments about laws and rules here and I am thinking: You people have never been in Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan.

itronitron 3y ago

>> instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this" I'm going to assume that those buttons were placed out of the reach of most three year-olds.

bandyaboot 3y ago

> For the first few months until I got my white collar job, I did some part time jobs in London as a waiter etc. and worked at some high end venues and hotels. In these places there are some equipments(like climate control of the wine cellar) which are operated through control panels which are accessible to everyone and they didn't put signs that say "don't touch", instead the signs said "you have no reason to touch this". They were able to keep curious hands away from buttons that shouldn't be pushed by those who don't know what they are doing by simply emphasising the intent. Do you actually know that the latter sign is more effective than “don’t touch”? If it actually is, there are other possible explanations. The fact that it’s personally addressed to “you” could make it more effective. The fact that it’s simply a more unique/unexpected way to convey the message may cause people to be less likely to reflexively dismiss the more common directive of “don’t touch”.