Reasonable Person Principle

Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you.

The successful operation of a principle like "reasonableness" requires an intake filter to suss out whether people joining the department roughly agree on what it means. If someone doesn't agree with your definition of reasonableness, it becomes a bludgeon wielded by both sides that can't be affixed to a definitive state of the world and the winner will necessarily be side that can exert more political force.

Element three is more concrete. "[3)] No one is special."This is the classic statement that all are equal before the law regardless of position in the department, which is the only way to grant popular legitimacy to rules.

"[4)] Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I feel this rule is a symptom of the lax definition of reasonableness. The reason people become offended when someone accuses them of being unreasonable, is because the standard is so loosely defined that someone can (reasonably, ha!) believe themselves reasonable when others do not.

I read an interesting article the other day where the author took a moral position and reasoned it through [0], showing how it was legally reasoned through in high profile situations. This kind of cooperative principle is harder to state, but more easily defended on grounds that are still require agreement, but in principle can reference an objective reality (e.g. from the article, elements like "proportionality"). Obviously, the referenced article is not a scholarly work, so there is more that can be done, but

I guess this is the kind of thing political science majors learn about in school that I didn't get exposed to as much except through my own reading.

[0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

It's a clever quote, but I've always thought this turned a bit on an ambiguity in the word "unreasonable" in the first and second half of the sentence.

Would you please stop posting like this? We've already asked you several times.

Unsubstantive, drive-by ventings add no value to others and tend to provoke much worse. We're hoping for a higher level of quality than that here.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13671888 and marked it off-topic.

Empathy and perspective.

To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right [1]:

  When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show
  another that he errs, we must notice from what side he  
  views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and
  admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on
  which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees
  that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see
  all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing
  everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that
  perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see
  everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side
  he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are 
  always true.

  People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which
  they have themselves discovered than by those which have
  come into the mind of others.

  — Blaise Pascal

Empathy [2] (cognitive empathy) is the ability to put yourself in someone's shoes and see things from their perspective. Not everyone has the ability to empathize -- we often believe our level of empathy is like that of everyone else, but this is not the case. Cluster B personality types [3], those with Asperger's [4] or on the autistic spectrum, and some with ADHD lack the ability to empathize. Recent research out of Berkeley has shown than medication can help those with ADHD access their Executive Function and gain their ability to empathize [5].

In one of the comments on [5], Dr Charles Parker describes empathy as a two-step process:

"Empathy is a higher order function, more evolved with effective PFC [prefrontal cortex] activity than sympathy. Why? Sympathy indicates a certain subjective, feeling level, ability to emotionally reach across the room and identify with the pain of another. The only problem for those practicing sympathy is that, more often than not, they only take that first identification step, and too often get stuck in the other person’s pain. They can’t leave, and become emotionally lost over there. Empathy, on the other hand, requires good PFC Executive Function, with a metacognitively active two step process: 1. Trial identification with the other, and 2. Return to one’s full self for objective management of the other’s challenges. Good next-step advice doesn’t often arise from sympathy, but does often arise from empathetic considerations more objectively managed outside of a purely emotional reaction."

[1] https://qz.com/778767/to-tell-someone-theyre-wrong-first-tel...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B_personality_disorder...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

[5] http://adhdrollercoaster.org/adhd-and-relationships/adhd-imp...