Hanlon’s Razor is a good thing to keep in mind to keep from becoming cynical about the whole of humanity.
I think its terrible precisely because of that. It has people make excuses for other people doing terrible things.
If you try to apply it as a general rule that doesnt apply to anything in particular, what good is it doing? Is it not then only clouding your judgement of groups?
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not, I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky.
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not
I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.
I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky
What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.
I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify”, I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me. I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be. Please don’t take any of this to imply blind trust.
I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify"
Isn’t that already what cynicism prescribes?
Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others.
Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness.
Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity.
Skeptical of the integrity, sincerity, or motives of others.
It would seem, at least to me, we might not be disagreeing much but instead at a point of not quite getting our ideas across to each other, which is fair because words can have multiple meanings even within the same context.
I would say my point of contention are these 2 sentences
I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me.
I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be.
As to me, they seem somewhat contradictory, as the first with the benefit of the doubt seems contrary to the second with looking for the signs that they might not be worthy.
Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others.
I’d characterize my view as understanding that people may be motivated by selfish concerns, but not assuming that any given person I’m interacting with is. As far as “skeptical” in this context, I’d say it’s a little too strong to describe my process/viewpoint. In the purest, binary form of “skeptical” vs. “unquestioning”, sure, skeptical. But in the sense of “eying suspiciously”, not so much.
“Extend[ing] the benefit of the doubt” and “keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me”, for me, both describe what I’ll try to describe more deeply:
Barring prior contrary experience with or knowledge of a person, I begin with the assumption that they are honest and not intend to take advantage of me. Any simple statements or requests they make that don’t seem costly or detrimental to anyone, I’ll generally accept at face value. If they present a statement contrasting with my current understanding, or if they request something of me that could potentially cause myself or someone else harm (bodily, reputation, resources, whatever), I start more consciously evaluating what they say/do to ensure as best as I can that I’m not being convinced of something out of line with my interests. I still don’t assume here that their motives are malign, just that they may have too different of a worldview for me to risk not carefully considering what is presented to me.
In the event that I have or gain reason to think the person’s interests may be against my own, I stay on much higher alert to avoid being conned or convinced of anything. Generally I’ll also try to increase the physical and/or social distance between us, because my natural state is not suspicious and it’s exhausting to keep that much guard up.
I think its terrible precisely because of that. It has people make excuses for other people doing terrible things.
If you try to apply it as a general rule that doesnt apply to anything in particular, what good is it doing? Is it not then only clouding your judgement of groups?
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not, I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky.
I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.
What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.
I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify”, I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me. I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be. Please don’t take any of this to imply blind trust.
Isn’t that already what cynicism prescribes?
It would seem, at least to me, we might not be disagreeing much but instead at a point of not quite getting our ideas across to each other, which is fair because words can have multiple meanings even within the same context.
I would say my point of contention are these 2 sentences
As to me, they seem somewhat contradictory, as the first with the benefit of the doubt seems contrary to the second with looking for the signs that they might not be worthy.
I’d characterize my view as understanding that people may be motivated by selfish concerns, but not assuming that any given person I’m interacting with is. As far as “skeptical” in this context, I’d say it’s a little too strong to describe my process/viewpoint. In the purest, binary form of “skeptical” vs. “unquestioning”, sure, skeptical. But in the sense of “eying suspiciously”, not so much.
“Extend[ing] the benefit of the doubt” and “keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me”, for me, both describe what I’ll try to describe more deeply:
Barring prior contrary experience with or knowledge of a person, I begin with the assumption that they are honest and not intend to take advantage of me. Any simple statements or requests they make that don’t seem costly or detrimental to anyone, I’ll generally accept at face value. If they present a statement contrasting with my current understanding, or if they request something of me that could potentially cause myself or someone else harm (bodily, reputation, resources, whatever), I start more consciously evaluating what they say/do to ensure as best as I can that I’m not being convinced of something out of line with my interests. I still don’t assume here that their motives are malign, just that they may have too different of a worldview for me to risk not carefully considering what is presented to me.
In the event that I have or gain reason to think the person’s interests may be against my own, I stay on much higher alert to avoid being conned or convinced of anything. Generally I’ll also try to increase the physical and/or social distance between us, because my natural state is not suspicious and it’s exhausting to keep that much guard up.