Personally, I think it’s correct to update somewhat, but in situations like this where only one side has shared their perspective, I’m much more likely to overupdate (“those monsters!”) so I have to guard against that.
I did hear your side for 3 hours and you changed my mind very little and admitted to a bunch of the dynamics (“our intention wasn’t just to have employees, but also to have members of our family unit”) and you said my summary was pretty good. You mostly laughed at every single accusation I brought up and IMO took nothing morally seriously and the only ex ante mistake you admitted to was “not firing Alice earlier”. You didn’t seem to understand the gravity of my accusations, or at least had no space for honestly considering that you’d seriously hurt and intimidated some people.
I think I would have been much more sympathetic to you if you had told me that you’d been actively letting people know about how terrible an experience your former employees had, and had encouraged people to speak with them, and if you at literally any point had explicitly considered the notion that you were morally culpable for their experiences.
Thinking about “situations like this” does sound like it could be helpful. Some come to mind, and caveat that it’s hard to remember how I felt at different points in time but:
Case one: if the accused ever gave their perspective, I don’t remember it.
Case two: the accused sharing their perspective initially made me more sympathetic to them, but that that was a mistake on my part because it turned out to be full of lies.
Case three: the accused sharing their perspective made me less sympathetic to them.
Case four: I dismissed the accusations offhand and think I was right to do so.
So this is weak evidence, but I don’t feel like I personally have a history of overupdating in the direction of “those monsters”.
Personally, I think it’s correct to update somewhat, but in situations like this where only one side has shared their perspective, I’m much more likely to overupdate (“those monsters!”) so I have to guard against that.
I did hear your side for 3 hours and you changed my mind very little and admitted to a bunch of the dynamics (“our intention wasn’t just to have employees, but also to have members of our family unit”) and you said my summary was pretty good. You mostly laughed at every single accusation I brought up and IMO took nothing morally seriously and the only ex ante mistake you admitted to was “not firing Alice earlier”. You didn’t seem to understand the gravity of my accusations, or at least had no space for honestly considering that you’d seriously hurt and intimidated some people.
I think I would have been much more sympathetic to you if you had told me that you’d been actively letting people know about how terrible an experience your former employees had, and had encouraged people to speak with them, and if you at literally any point had explicitly considered the notion that you were morally culpable for their experiences.
Are there any good examples of this, because this would be pretty important for us to know.
Thinking about “situations like this” does sound like it could be helpful. Some come to mind, and caveat that it’s hard to remember how I felt at different points in time but:
Case one: if the accused ever gave their perspective, I don’t remember it.
Case two: the accused sharing their perspective initially made me more sympathetic to them, but that that was a mistake on my part because it turned out to be full of lies.
Case three: the accused sharing their perspective made me less sympathetic to them.
Case four: I dismissed the accusations offhand and think I was right to do so.
So this is weak evidence, but I don’t feel like I personally have a history of overupdating in the direction of “those monsters”.