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

Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 268 posts

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#201

Post by SamBam »

thelittlenag wrote: post #196
SamBam wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The number of times I've heard that driving an electric car or a bike is "virtue signaling" is amazing. I think, if you're so focused on the "signaling" -- the notion that someone is just doing that to provoke an emotional response -- then all that's saying to me is that it's provoking guilt in you, and that's made you feel angry.

Are you contending that virtue signalling isn't real, or that what is claimed to be virtue signaling isn't and so the phrase becomes a kind of slur? My opinion is that virtue signalling is real, and, further, that "signalling" doesn't just have an effect on other people, it can change our own disposition. The use of the phrase "virtue signalling" is sometimes applied in reverse, describing someone that is insufferabl…

I am saying that doing actions that are actually pro-social -- "virtuous," if you will -- such as reducing pollution, are not "virtue signaling," or at least not with the negative connotation the term has taken on in the past decade, which generally implies hollow statements without value.

When I hear someone look at somebody doing something good in the world, and dismiss them as mere "virtue signaling," it tells me more about the person doing the labeling that the person labeled. They can't conceive of someone doing something pro-social for its own sake, and instead ascribe cynical "signaling" to justify their own lack of morals.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#202

Post by rocqua »

roenxi wrote: post #91
aeturnum wrote: post #20

I agree that framing issues in a way that allows people to avoid feeling like they have done something wrong is more effective. I also think most activists are aware of this. I also think that crafting positive, uplifting messages requires a certain level of societal support. Hard to know what one could buy to stop police brutality right now, for instance. I suspect people will come up with things. When I see a prote…

> I see the Social Justice left as being in a phase like "young atheists"[2] or young gay people go through when they first embrace their identity: loud and proud and insistent that others recognize their validity. Can this get expanded on a little bit? How does one recognise some else's validity? I get the simultaneous feeling that leaving them alone isn't what they want, and me waving my hands and pronouncing them…

Suppose you feel that you live in a society where being gay or atheist is looked down upon. Moreover, suppose at the same time that you are gay or atheist and not ashamed of that anymore. Then, it makes sense that you'd want your 'validity recognized' from people close to you. Besides that, I can see many such people making a wider argument to others that they should accept that being gay or atheist is a valid choice.

I personally think that, besides the above, a lot of the loudness comes from a feeling of freedom. Where all of a sudden you no longer need to hide who you are, which leads to a stronger expression of a part of you that was pent-up.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#203

Post by throwaway0a5e »

njsubedi wrote: post #31
sundvor wrote: post #27

You want all people to do the right thing? Fine them if they don't. It's the only thing that's helped us get the virus under control. Greetings from Melbourne, Victoria, currently on stage 4 lockdown because enough people are selfish and don't care (unless threatened). EDIT: (Leaving my original text unmodified above) Agree that this sounds crass, and probably not very cultivated by HN's standards, but it's from the…

Yes, same goes for following traffic rules. You cannot just fix the traffic problems by patting people on the back for stopping at the red light. You need to fine people as much as possible; the higher the fines, the lower the cases of traffic rules violation.

Sure you might get the traffic on I95 to actually go the posted limit of 55 with North Korea-esque enforcement but if your goal is to prevent traffic from having an absurd differential it's probably better for everyone to increase the number on the sign.

Same goes for intersections that violate people's expectations of what should be a stop vs a yield.

Traffic is all about making interactions predictable so people know what to do and how to do it right. Reducing variance in behavior is far more important than what the speed is or how any given traffic control device is treated.

Traffic rules are all about dumbing down these complex fuzzy patterns into something we can codify, enforce and build consistent signage/markings for.

With the number of un-legislated edge cases ratcheting up fines is a recipe for resentment among the populace (possibly leading to different voting patterns not in favor of whoever driving the push for fines). Strict enforcement usually comes with the nasty side effect of being regressive and having demographically uneven outcomes. Lax enforcement results in variable behavior. For example some people stop religiously at a certain sign, some people don't, body language indicating someone is going to do one and then they do the other can lead to unpredictability in the eyes of the other road participants (e.g. pedestrian trying to cross there) and bad outcomes.

The modern thinking (borne out by studies) regarding traffic is that the best approach is to make it easy and natural for people to do the right thing. Want people to take a stop sign seriously instead of mostly yielding, turn your Y intersection into a T. Want to slow people down without reducing visibility? Paint narrower lanes.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#204

Post by TeaDrunk »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #186
bartread wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doing it is evil and makes you evil. Whoa: hold on just a second there. I don't necessarily disagree with your wider point but we need to step away from this inflammatory and accusatory language. You said that you used to guilt-trip people constantly when you were younger, and then you stopped when you realised how sick it was. Doing it didn't make you evil: it made you immature, and then you grew out of it. Except…

Branding some behavior as evil isn't guilt tripping, it's just branding the behavior as evil. I agree with the person you replied to that guilt tripping is an evil behavior. People do all sorts of evil behaviors without realizing it, their lack of awareness doesn't make it any less evil.

Is it evil as in intentionally malicious? It's possible to harm people without intending to harm them, in the way one can accidentally step on another's foot, or an eager arm hits someone's face- neither of these are assault per se. I've always taken guilt tripping as a consequence of unhealthy mindset when approaching a concern.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#205

Post by throwaway894345 »

SamBam wrote: post #201
thelittlenag wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you contending that virtue signalling isn't real, or that what is claimed to be virtue signaling isn't and so the phrase becomes a kind of slur? My opinion is that virtue signalling is real, and, further, that "signalling" doesn't just have an effect on other people, it can change our own disposition. The use of the phrase "virtue signalling" is sometimes applied in reverse, describing someone that is insufferabl…

I am saying that doing actions that are actually pro-social -- "virtuous," if you will -- such as reducing pollution, are not "virtue signaling," or at least not with the negative connotation the term has taken on in the past decade, which generally implies hollow statements without value. When I hear someone look at somebody doing something good in the world, and dismiss them as mere "virtue signaling," it tells me…

It’s entirely possible that a person is riding their electric scooter to advertise their virtuous concern for the environment (ignoring how likely this is to be true for any given scooterist) AND that someone else is being a shitty person for being dismissive. Note that the dismissive person is specifically shitty for doing their own virtue signaling—hollowly criticizing someone else to signal their own virtue. Of course, it’s easy to mistake an earnest scooterist or critic for a virtue signaler (ultimately motive is hard to assess) so we should take care about these accusations as with any accusation of motivation (in the same way that no decent person would loosely sling accusations of racism, sexism, etc).

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#206

Post by throwaway894345 »

dalore wrote: post #193
cousin_it wrote: post #116

Guilt-tripping isn't morally neutral. It's manipulation, exploitation, getting people to do what you want without giving them what they want. Doing it is evil and makes you evil. In my late teens and early twenties I constantly guilt-tripped people close to me. It was my "thing". It hurt everyone a lot. Then one day I realized how sick it was, and stopped completely. Now I never do it to anyone for any reason, and pu…

Are you not now guilt-tripping people who guilt-trip other people? > Doing it is evil and makes you evil.

There’s a motivational difference between persuasion and coercion/manipulation. Pointing out that an act is evil isn’t inherently manipulative, but implying shame and guilt in order to coerce someone into changing their behavior is. It’s a fine line and it’s hard to litigate because the distinction is motivational.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#207

Post by adnzzzzZ »

TeaDrunk wrote: post #204
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branding some behavior as evil isn't guilt tripping, it's just branding the behavior as evil. I agree with the person you replied to that guilt tripping is an evil behavior. People do all sorts of evil behaviors without realizing it, their lack of awareness doesn't make it any less evil.

Is it evil as in intentionally malicious? It's possible to harm people without intending to harm them, in the way one can accidentally step on another's foot, or an eager arm hits someone's face- neither of these are assault per se. I've always taken guilt tripping as a consequence of unhealthy mindset when approaching a concern.

People's mistakes happen in the most offhanded ways. Swept along from moment to moment, they fall into evil. Without reason, consideration or dedication, the next thing they know they're on the wrong path as if it were the only one.

Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The next thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I helped someone". You never hear those things and you surely never will. Righteousness cannot exist without intent and righteous action requires righteous intent. You can't do the right thing unless you consciously try to.

Under this view, unintentionally malicious actions, such as abusing guilt trips without being aware or caring about their harm, are still evil because by default, to prevent them, you have to be aware and paying attention, and if you aren't that's your failure to act righteously.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#208

Post by orestarod »

dalore wrote: post #193
cousin_it wrote: post #116

Guilt-tripping isn't morally neutral. It's manipulation, exploitation, getting people to do what you want without giving them what they want. Doing it is evil and makes you evil. In my late teens and early twenties I constantly guilt-tripped people close to me. It was my "thing". It hurt everyone a lot. Then one day I realized how sick it was, and stopped completely. Now I never do it to anyone for any reason, and pu…

Are you not now guilt-tripping people who guilt-trip other people? > Doing it is evil and makes you evil.

The thing with guilt tripping is that it tries to bypass the will and judgement of the victim and coerce them to do something against these self properties through the guilt. Calling out someone to better their behavior is an open criticism, not guilt tripping.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#209

Post by lhorie »

DFHippie wrote: post #171
cousin_it wrote: post #116

Guilt-tripping isn't morally neutral. It's manipulation, exploitation, getting people to do what you want without giving them what they want. Doing it is evil and makes you evil. In my late teens and early twenties I constantly guilt-tripped people close to me. It was my "thing". It hurt everyone a lot. Then one day I realized how sick it was, and stopped completely. Now I never do it to anyone for any reason, and pu…

Calling guilt tripping manipulation is a little dramatic given that people use the expression to encompass anything that makes them feel guilty whether it's intended to or not. If you drive an efficient car, ride a bike, or walk, some people, varying numbers according to where you are, will be righteously outraged that you're guilt-tripping them. Also, "manipulation" suggests unfair trickery. If you're guilt-tripped…

> given that people use the expression to encompass anything that makes them feel guilty whether it's intended to or not

This argument feels like splitting hairs. My understanding is that we're talking about guilt-tripping in the sense of actively engaging with someone in order to produce a desired outcome from that someone. Merely seeing someone biking to work doesn't really pass that litmus test, as the cyclist isn't immediately interested in what you do based on your opinion of his commuting choice.

Re: Want people to do the right thing? Save them the guilt trip

#210

Post by TeaDrunk »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #207
TeaDrunk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it evil as in intentionally malicious? It's possible to harm people without intending to harm them, in the way one can accidentally step on another's foot, or an eager arm hits someone's face- neither of these are assault per se. I've always taken guilt tripping as a consequence of unhealthy mindset when approaching a concern.

People's mistakes happen in the most offhanded ways. Swept along from moment to moment, they fall into evil. Without reason, consideration or dedication, the next thing they know they're on the wrong path as if it were the only one. Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The next thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I helped someone". You never hear those…

> Yet by contrast, "I was doing the right thing without realizing it", "The next thing I knew, I was doing good deeds", "In a moment of carelessness, I helped someone". You never hear those things and you surely never will.

I disagree with this statement. I carelessly do things and people tend to thank me for my kindness and helpfulness, even though I was never intending to do it. People will do the right things without realizing it all the time, in a thousand little ways. I can talk to a friend just to talk, but to my friend, it may have been a sudden, unexpected, and welcome reprieve from a dark and lonely mental space. I can share an otter video because I think otter youtube is great, and in doing so adjust someone else's viewing algorithm away from so much unhealthy/addictive/extremist stuff on that site.

People's actions are rarely with real justice or malice in intention. Most of the time it is nuances of grey, thoughtlessly. Humans don't have the mental capacity that would be required of thinking otherwise.

Post reply on HN