I think people will generally assume that when you’re doing a thing, that you think the thing is usually good to do, unless you say otherwise. Especially if it’s the premise of a party.
all I needed to do was help everyone safely untangle their blocks
The assumption that you could do this implies that you thought the blocks were usually unwarranted. I doubt this. I think in most cases you didn’t understand why the fence was there before tearing through it.
So, again, you did guess that you’d be able to do that for everyone, and I disagree with that.
I think most of the people who have difficulty making eye contact and want to overcome themselves on it are not in a good place to judge whether they should.
So all I needed to do was help everyone safely untangle their blocks ;)
bring those parts into dialogue with their blocks/resistance to eye contact, and watch what happens.
So, in a way, his avoiding eye contact was completely rational. (Or rather: locally optimal.) If he had crudely forced himself to make eye contact, it’s quite possible that he could’ve actually gotten hurt.
Next I asked him, “How would you like to manage those risks?”
Sorry, where in the post did I imply this? I tried to emphasize how they’re locally optimal
I think people will generally assume that when you’re doing a thing, that you think the thing is usually good to do, unless you say otherwise. Especially if it’s the premise of a party.
The assumption that you could do this implies that you thought the blocks were usually unwarranted. I doubt this. I think in most cases you didn’t understand why the fence was there before tearing through it.
i see
hm that’s why i put “safely” werp
So, again, you did guess that you’d be able to do that for everyone, and I disagree with that.
I think most of the people who have difficulty making eye contact and want to overcome themselves on it are not in a good place to judge whether they should.
I’m aware that you have a nuanced perspective on this which is part of the reason I’m raising this.