To me, it would make most sense to declare Crocker’s Rules in certain contexts (subjects, settings, individuals) rather than in general.
So you might have one particular friend or a few who can ‘look at you from the outside’, tell you how you’re coming across or weaknesses you haven’t seen. With the added benefit that it would be easier to disagree with such a close friend—I suspect one of the tough things about Crocker’s Rules is that you’d have to disagree with people’s criticism of you more often, which is a very awkward thing with anyone but the closest friend.
Alternatively it might be at work: I know people who always frame any critique with a lot of ‘I really like the approach you’ve taken and overall this is very effective’ stuff, and then keep on returning to that during the critique. Frankly, I find that more insulting in a sense, and I definitely can see it being valuable having a work environment where people could just be very straightforward. Although it would be less personal than Crocker’s and would probably have to be agreed by a group to apply between all of them, rather than declared unilaterally.
To me, it would make most sense to declare Crocker’s Rules in certain contexts (subjects, settings, individuals) rather than in general.
More generally, the optimal social codes for different contexts are likely different. Why expect that what is optimal for random subject or setting or individual is optimal for another?
I suppose that supporters of Crockers’ might think of it in two ways
1) Crockers has a fundamental quality/benefit that means it’s always optimal (a bit utopic, but I see a little of that here)
2) While Crockers may not be always optimal, it usually is so and there is some benefit from applying it in all cases rather than picking and choosing (e.g. external consistency, impression of ‘awesomeness’, avoiding getting rid of Crockers in challenging but thus potentially very valuable cases)
I am rarely convinced by this sort of argument at an individual level, except when it comes to forming personal habits. And practically speaking, Crockers won’t even give you the habit ‘only hears the truth’ (which is an environmental situation rather than an actual habit anyway), as people won’t follow it.
To me, it would make most sense to declare Crocker’s Rules in certain contexts (subjects, settings, individuals) rather than in general.
So you might have one particular friend or a few who can ‘look at you from the outside’, tell you how you’re coming across or weaknesses you haven’t seen. With the added benefit that it would be easier to disagree with such a close friend—I suspect one of the tough things about Crocker’s Rules is that you’d have to disagree with people’s criticism of you more often, which is a very awkward thing with anyone but the closest friend.
Alternatively it might be at work: I know people who always frame any critique with a lot of ‘I really like the approach you’ve taken and overall this is very effective’ stuff, and then keep on returning to that during the critique. Frankly, I find that more insulting in a sense, and I definitely can see it being valuable having a work environment where people could just be very straightforward. Although it would be less personal than Crocker’s and would probably have to be agreed by a group to apply between all of them, rather than declared unilaterally.
More generally, the optimal social codes for different contexts are likely different. Why expect that what is optimal for random subject or setting or individual is optimal for another?
I suppose that supporters of Crockers’ might think of it in two ways 1) Crockers has a fundamental quality/benefit that means it’s always optimal (a bit utopic, but I see a little of that here) 2) While Crockers may not be always optimal, it usually is so and there is some benefit from applying it in all cases rather than picking and choosing (e.g. external consistency, impression of ‘awesomeness’, avoiding getting rid of Crockers in challenging but thus potentially very valuable cases)
I am rarely convinced by this sort of argument at an individual level, except when it comes to forming personal habits. And practically speaking, Crockers won’t even give you the habit ‘only hears the truth’ (which is an environmental situation rather than an actual habit anyway), as people won’t follow it.