4 ms·
> The person invoking Crocker's Rules is saying, in effect, "your feelings about how I might receive this are your problem to manage, not mine, just give me the
by treetalker 7mo ago
> The person invoking Crocker's Rules is saying, in effect, "your feelings about how I might receive this are your problem to manage, not mine, just give me the information."
Isn't it quite the opposite? The person invoking Crocker's Rules is saying, in effect, "my feelings about the information and how I might receive it are my problem to manage, not yours, just give me the information."
- atmavatar 7mo agoI expect it's a bit of both. I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in the US, it's not uncommon for people to walk on eggshells while reporting information to coworkers (and especially managers) because there's absolutely a large cohort who will shoot the messenger. Crocker's Rules are undoubtedly a reaction to the extreme whereby managers in particular fail to receive receive crucial information because their reports are too afraid to pass it along. In other words, people fail to communicate out of fear born from an assumption on how the person they're communicating with will react. The original quote would have you ignore your own fear and hand over the information, while your modified version would indirectly address your fear by refusing to take responsibility for how the recipient might feel. Whichever way you go with it, you're largely accomplishing the same thing.
- treetalker 7mo agoFWIW, I based my version on the source of Crocker's Rules linked in the article itself.
- jerbearito 7mo agoYes, but it's also both. Everyone should manage their own feelings and exchange information both efficiently and respectfully.
- treetalker 7mo agoI don't disagree that all people should. But Crocker's Rules are specifically to give the other person permission to give it to you straight because you assume responsibility and maturity to deal with the information itself, regardless of social niceties. And those rules cannot be imposed on the other person: invoking them yourself doesn't mean you can be an asshole back — as the very description of the rules linked in this article explains.
- cindyllm 7mo ago[dead]
- comboy 7mo agoThat's your worldview. Crocker's rules is that you don't have to take receiver feelings into account you just communicate efficently.
- tasuki 7mo agoNo, abiding by Crocker's rules isn't that you don't take into account other people's feelings. It's that other people don't have to take into account your feelings.
- comboy 7mo agoApplying them to only one side of the conversation doesn't seem practical.
- tasuki 7mo agoIt perfectly is. From https://www.lesswrong.com/w/crockers-rules https://www.lesswrong.com/w/crockers-rules: > Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean one is authorized to insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.
- comboy 7mo agoAlright, my original comment was wrong (as was the parent). I still stand by my opinion that it is not practical though.
- jerbearito 7mo agoSeeing this a bit late. I take your point and yes, that's my worldview. Crocker does not say it's both. Sorry I'm so late to reply.