“I should have paid more attention to that sensation of still feels a little forced.”
The force that you would have had to counter was the impetus to be polite. In order to boldly follow your models, you would have had to tell the person on the other end of the chat that you didn’t believe his friend. You could have less boldly held your tongue, but that wouldn’t have satisfied your drive to understand what was going on. Perhaps a compromise action would have been to point out the unlikelihood, (which you did: “they’d have hauled him off if there was the tiniest chance of serious trouble”), and ask for a report on the eventual outcome.
Given the constraints of politeness, I don’t know how you can do better. If you were talking to people who knew you better, and understood your viewpoint on rationality, you might expect to be forgiven for giving your bald assessment of the unlikeliness of the report.
You can assume the paramedics did not follow the proper procedure, and that his friend aught to go to the emergency room himself to verify that he is OK. People do make mistakes.
The paramedics are potentially unreliable as well, though given the litigious nature of our society I would fully expect the paramedics to be extremely reliable in taking people to the emergency room, which would still cast doubt on the friend.
Still, if you want to be polite, just say “if you are concerned, you should go to the emergency room anyway” and keep your doubts about the man’s veracity to yourself. No doubt the truth would have come out at that point as well.
Makes an interesting point about not doubting your own models in certain circumstances I guess, but the original post leaves out relevant issues of trust and pragmatism.
Sure people probably gullibly believe untrue stories more often than they should, but biases also often cause us to discount anecdotes that are actually representative of real, lived experiences (such as the subtle experiences of those who suffer from racism and sexism). - http://ntrsctn.com/science-tech/2015/12/tech-guys-allies/
Just because a bug is unusual or difficult to locally replicate/experience doesn’t mean you should discount the bug reports.
Also (obviously) faith in even medical experts/institutions should be absolute.
Finally there’s nothing wrong with offering someone good advice even if you think they may have lied to you/are trolling… there’s still a chance they were not trolling, and arming them with good information might be good for them in the short term or long term.
That article is written as though “are you sure that was sexism” literally means “you had better prove it is sexism with 100% certainty, or I won’t believe you”.
That is not what it means. It’s not a demand for 100% certainty, it’s a demand for better evidence. You don’t have to be treating the world like a computer in order to think that you should try to rule out innocent explanations before proclaiming someone guilty.
Also, while the author claims that the standard he quotes makes it impossible to prove sexism, his own standard has the opposite problem: according to it it’s impossible to prove anyone innocent of sexism. People don’t favor uncertainty over assumption because they’re computer geeks; people favor uncertainty over assumption because there are such things as false positives, and they have enough of a cost that avoiding them is worthwhile.
Reminds me of a family dinner where the topic of the credit union my grandparents had started came up.
According to my grandmother, the state auditor was a horribly sexist fellow. He came and audited their books every single month, telling everyone who would listen that it was because he “didn’t think a woman could be a successful credit union manager.”
This, of course, got my new-agey aunts and cousins all up-in-arms about how horrible it was that that kind of sexism was allowed back in the 60s and 70s. They really wanted to make sure everyone knew they didn’t approve, so the conversation dragged on and on...
And about the time everyone was all thoroughly riled up and angry from the stories of the mean, vindictive things this auditor had done because the credit union was run by a woman my grandfather decided to get in on the ruckus and told his story about the auditor...
Seems like the very first time the auditor had come through, the auditor spent several hours going over the books and couldn’t make it all balance correctly. He was all-fired sure this brand new credit union was up to something shady. Finally, my grandfather (who was the credit union accountant) leaned over his shoulder and pointed out the rookie math mistake the auditor had been making… repeatedly… until an hour past closing time and “could we please go home now?”
The auditor was horribly embarrassed, and stormed out in a huff. And then proceeded to come back every single month for over twenty years trying to catch them in a mistake somewhere.
I don’t know if my cousins learned anything from that story. My grandfather’s a quiet fellow. They might not even have heard his side of it. But I sure did. See, in the 60s and 70s, the auditor coming out and saying, “I’m harassing you because you humiliated me and I want revenge” would have been totally unacceptable and likely would have gotten him dismissed. But saying it was because he didn’t trust a female manager? That was a lie, but it was a socially acceptable reason for doing what he wanted to do for personal reasons anyway.
Makes me wonder just how much historic racism and sexism was simply people looking for a socially acceptable excuse to be jerks. And since I don’t think people’s overall level of desire to be spiteful has changed much, I wonder what the excuses are today now that the “traditional” ones are no longer acceptable.
“I should have paid more attention to that sensation of still feels a little forced.”
The force that you would have had to counter was the impetus to be polite. In order to boldly follow your models, you would have had to tell the person on the other end of the chat that you didn’t believe his friend. You could have less boldly held your tongue, but that wouldn’t have satisfied your drive to understand what was going on. Perhaps a compromise action would have been to point out the unlikelihood, (which you did: “they’d have hauled him off if there was the tiniest chance of serious trouble”), and ask for a report on the eventual outcome.
Given the constraints of politeness, I don’t know how you can do better. If you were talking to people who knew you better, and understood your viewpoint on rationality, you might expect to be forgiven for giving your bald assessment of the unlikeliness of the report.
Not necessarily.
You can assume the paramedics did not follow the proper procedure, and that his friend aught to go to the emergency room himself to verify that he is OK. People do make mistakes.
The paramedics are potentially unreliable as well, though given the litigious nature of our society I would fully expect the paramedics to be extremely reliable in taking people to the emergency room, which would still cast doubt on the friend.
Still, if you want to be polite, just say “if you are concerned, you should go to the emergency room anyway” and keep your doubts about the man’s veracity to yourself. No doubt the truth would have come out at that point as well.
I saw someone on FB reposting this post today.
Makes an interesting point about not doubting your own models in certain circumstances I guess, but the original post leaves out relevant issues of trust and pragmatism.
Sure people probably gullibly believe untrue stories more often than they should, but biases also often cause us to discount anecdotes that are actually representative of real, lived experiences (such as the subtle experiences of those who suffer from racism and sexism). - http://ntrsctn.com/science-tech/2015/12/tech-guys-allies/
Just because a bug is unusual or difficult to locally replicate/experience doesn’t mean you should discount the bug reports.
Also (obviously) faith in even medical experts/institutions should be absolute.
Finally there’s nothing wrong with offering someone good advice even if you think they may have lied to you/are trolling… there’s still a chance they were not trolling, and arming them with good information might be good for them in the short term or long term.
That article is written as though “are you sure that was sexism” literally means “you had better prove it is sexism with 100% certainty, or I won’t believe you”.
That is not what it means. It’s not a demand for 100% certainty, it’s a demand for better evidence. You don’t have to be treating the world like a computer in order to think that you should try to rule out innocent explanations before proclaiming someone guilty.
Also, while the author claims that the standard he quotes makes it impossible to prove sexism, his own standard has the opposite problem: according to it it’s impossible to prove anyone innocent of sexism. People don’t favor uncertainty over assumption because they’re computer geeks; people favor uncertainty over assumption because there are such things as false positives, and they have enough of a cost that avoiding them is worthwhile.
Reminds me of a family dinner where the topic of the credit union my grandparents had started came up.
According to my grandmother, the state auditor was a horribly sexist fellow. He came and audited their books every single month, telling everyone who would listen that it was because he “didn’t think a woman could be a successful credit union manager.”
This, of course, got my new-agey aunts and cousins all up-in-arms about how horrible it was that that kind of sexism was allowed back in the 60s and 70s. They really wanted to make sure everyone knew they didn’t approve, so the conversation dragged on and on...
And about the time everyone was all thoroughly riled up and angry from the stories of the mean, vindictive things this auditor had done because the credit union was run by a woman my grandfather decided to get in on the ruckus and told his story about the auditor...
Seems like the very first time the auditor had come through, the auditor spent several hours going over the books and couldn’t make it all balance correctly. He was all-fired sure this brand new credit union was up to something shady. Finally, my grandfather (who was the credit union accountant) leaned over his shoulder and pointed out the rookie math mistake the auditor had been making… repeatedly… until an hour past closing time and “could we please go home now?”
The auditor was horribly embarrassed, and stormed out in a huff. And then proceeded to come back every single month for over twenty years trying to catch them in a mistake somewhere.
I don’t know if my cousins learned anything from that story. My grandfather’s a quiet fellow. They might not even have heard his side of it. But I sure did. See, in the 60s and 70s, the auditor coming out and saying, “I’m harassing you because you humiliated me and I want revenge” would have been totally unacceptable and likely would have gotten him dismissed. But saying it was because he didn’t trust a female manager? That was a lie, but it was a socially acceptable reason for doing what he wanted to do for personal reasons anyway.
Makes me wonder just how much historic racism and sexism was simply people looking for a socially acceptable excuse to be jerks. And since I don’t think people’s overall level of desire to be spiteful has changed much, I wonder what the excuses are today now that the “traditional” ones are no longer acceptable.