4 ms·

It's mostly naivety. There are a lot of people who really don't understand that people are doing something without getting paid, as a side gig, just to be helpf

It's mostly naivety. There are a lot of people who really don't understand that people are doing something without getting paid, as a side gig, just to be helpful. They just don't get it. An uncle, who is a totally decent human being otherwise would complain loudly and bitterly at folks who ran kids sporting events when things didn't run smoothly. At the time I didn't think much of it, until I was an adult and saw the adults running things things in their spare time despite having families and jobs etc. Just being good people. This uncle was just a very naive person, it's like he thought these people's entire existence was to run kids sporting events.

zem 3y ago
that is a wonderful parallel - well worth expanding into a blog post, if you have a blog.
DavidPiper 3y ago
I love this framing. My experience of people like this uncle is also that they have generally never done something like running kids sporting events, and in some cases outwardly signal that such work would be beneath them. (Not saying this is true for your uncle, but it is in some of my experiences.)
Intralexical 3y ago
> It's mostly naivety. There are a lot of people who really don't understand that people are doing something without getting paid, as a side gig, just to be helpful. They just don't get it. I think calling that naïvety brings inaccurately benign connotations. It is possible to be naïve while thinking the best of people, and understanding in good faith that everybody is probably trying. Naivety alone doesn't make somebody's default cynical and bitter. > This uncle was just a very naive person, it's like he thought these people's entire existence was to run kids sporting events. If you literally cannot even conceive of other people existing in any way that doesn't directly serve your own desires, I think that's less naivety, and more arrogance and entitlement.
nitwit005 3y ago
Once you're dealing with a large group of people, you can't assume you're dealing with a basically nice person. If you interact with a thousand people, you are going to interact with multiple genuine criminals.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Aren't those somewhat orthogonal concepts? That is, I think some genuine criminals can still be basically nice people. Probably not a majority, though. And not that it detracts from your actual point; just a s(n?)ide observation.

zem 3y ago

that is a wonderful parallel - well worth expanding into a blog post, if you have a blog.

DavidPiper 3y ago

I love this framing. My experience of people like this uncle is also that they have generally never done something like running kids sporting events, and in some cases outwardly signal that such work would be beneath them. (Not saying this is true for your uncle, but it is in some of my experiences.)

Intralexical 3y ago

> It's mostly naivety. There are a lot of people who really don't understand that people are doing something without getting paid, as a side gig, just to be helpful. They just don't get it. I think calling that naïvety brings inaccurately benign connotations. It is possible to be naïve while thinking the best of people, and understanding in good faith that everybody is probably trying. Naivety alone doesn't make somebody's default cynical and bitter. > This uncle was just a very naive person, it's like he thought these people's entire existence was to run kids sporting events. If you literally cannot even conceive of other people existing in any way that doesn't directly serve your own desires, I think that's less naivety, and more arrogance and entitlement.

nitwit005 3y ago

Once you're dealing with a large group of people, you can't assume you're dealing with a basically nice person. If you interact with a thousand people, you are going to interact with multiple genuine criminals.

CRConrad 3y ago
Aren't those somewhat orthogonal concepts? That is, I think some genuine criminals can still be basically nice people. Probably not a majority, though. And not that it detracts from your actual point; just a s(n?)ide observation.