Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasonable Person Principle

cs.cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#111

Post by branchless »

theseatoms wrote: post #85
Arizhel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I know nothing about that show (nor do I have HBO). Can someone please explain the Danson reference?

Ted Danson plays himself on 'Curb Your Enthusiasm', a Larry David production (which has actually been renewed for at least one more season). Ted Danson plays a lighthearted, even-keeled man, whereas Larry is petty and seems to bear the weight of the world on his shoulders. At least that's my take on the grandfather comment.

Correct. That's why curb your is so funny. Larry david is so right he's wrong.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#112

Post by nurettin »

rrggrr wrote: post #37

Reasonableness requires self-awareness and an appreciation for the common good. Its staggering how absent those qualities are in many people, and how these attributes evaporate in the face of strong emotion. Regardless, the "Reasonable Person" is a staple in litigation, used as a benchmark for conduct where the specifics are too complicated or variable to consider individually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonabl…

Rather, common good is an emergent property of personal gain. People are simply aware that the threads that hold society together benefit themselves the most.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#113

Post by SapphireSun »

obstinate wrote: post #99
SapphireSun wrote: post #72

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 rough…

Even a logically defensible moral argument is only sound given some specific premises, which may not be universally shared.

I agree, but if you can state the things you disagree on concretely, in my view, that is progress.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#114

Post by strathmeyer »

NarcolepticFrog wrote: post #96
strathmeyer wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They frequently have students and alumni arrested. The message is clear: keep your mouth shut.

No offense, but I don't believe you. Do you have some evidence?

Try Google. You want to see my arrest record? How can I prove to you the absence of evidence?

Telling someone what happened to them instead of listening to them because you don't want to believe them isn't very reasonable. You have the same reaction as most people at CMU: you don't believe what happened, so something must be wrong with me.

I'm sorry for getting a Computer Science degree at Carnegie Mellon University just because I wanted to become a programmer. Before I went to college people suggested to me that is what I should do if I wanted to get a job. People said professors would help you if you need help with schoolwork or getting a job, nobody suggested they would be rich and not care about any of the students. You can go down to CMU and ask if there's anyone to talk to or to help get a job but no professors of faculty will help you. They don't tell us what resources are available. I here about people at other schools who can get their school to help them. But when I ask at CMU everyone says they'll help me and then they ignore me. They tell me help should be available, but when I ask for it, everyone just gets angry at me.

So, yes, you are being offensive. Try figuring things out for yourself instead of insulting people with your unreasonableness.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#115

Post by Arizhel »

rrggrr wrote: post #66
Arizhel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, in the US at least, I consider this a big flaw in the legal system, since "reasonable" people really don't exist in this country. The recent election is proof of this. We need a legal standard that doesn't rely on something that's fictional.

A reasonable person understands and accepts the wildly different views in a society. They try to find common ground anyway.

There are remarkably few such people in modern American society.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#116

Post by NarcolepticFrog »

strathmeyer wrote: post #114
NarcolepticFrog wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but I don't believe you. Do you have some evidence?

Try Google. You want to see my arrest record? How can I prove to you the absence of evidence? Telling someone what happened to them instead of listening to them because you don't want to believe them isn't very reasonable. You have the same reaction as most people at CMU: you don't believe what happened, so something must be wrong with me. I'm sorry for getting a Computer Science degree at Carnegie Mellon University…

What's unreasonable and offensive here is baselessly claiming that an institution is arresting its students and alumni to keep them quiet.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#117

Post by dahart »

jdmichal wrote: post #101
dahart wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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. You are absolutely right on both points, and I think it's important to recognize (as you did) how vague language can be. It can be astounding how much miscommunication and cross expectation can happen even after parties agree on really con…

If that is what the spirit is meant to be, I think that the principle of charity [0] is a stronger (less ambiguous) approach. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Yes, you're totally right. This is a clearer description of what I had in my head with my above comment. Re-reading the Reasonable Person Principle, there is the specific guidance (emphasized more than once) to seek personal resolution over public resolution of differences. That's not covered by the Principle of Charity, but I would think for most reasonable people in most circumstances, personal resolution of differences would be a byproduct of adopting the Principle of Charity.

In any case, reducing ambiguity is always a good thing, but it does make me smile to think about trying to be crystally unambiguous about the wording of principles whose purpose is to acknowledge the existence of vagueness and ambiguity, and suggest outcomes will be improved by using the most reasonable and most charitable interpretations available.

This has me wondering if there's a meta-level principle or eponymous law around somewhere concerning the ambiguity of language itself, there must be, right? Something like, 'when someone says something you find untrue, first assume you didn't understand what they said, and seek to validate your interpretation before disagreeing'...

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#118

Post by anigbrowl »

watwut wrote: post #110
anigbrowl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always the third option of marginalizing the absolutists and ignoring their demands until they die off from old age and no longer form a powerful constituency. I'm not saying it always works or is inherently better, but it certainly has worked in some places.

What do you do with young absolutist? Do absolutists who are better at marginalization game?

That usually does end in violent conflict. I clearly phrased my original remark badly, badly; my point was not that the surrender or conflict can always be avoided, but that they are not always the inevitable outcomes. It depends on demographics, the political/historical context and so on. Peaceful realignments do occur too; I brought it up because studying where that breaks down might help identify the conditions that make conflict more likely.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#119

Post by tiglionabbit »

grigjd3 wrote: post #105
tiglionabbit wrote: post #16

So, what do you do if you find someone else unreasonable and private arguments do not resolve the conflict?

I try not to keep such people in my life. Not a strict rules. My three year old daughter is often unreasonable. Also, I hope people can forgive me at times.

This is about co-workers though, right?
Post reply on HN