101–110 of 212 posts
Also, the samples he's talking about are not really uniformly distributed over the world's population (i.e. "people"), nor even people in the USA.
In my experience people who express this kind of view (a slightly-sweeping, slightly-cynical take on the prevalence of shitty people) also tend to be epistemically overconfident of their grasp on social situations. For example, my opinion of the following quote is that it sounds contrived (Not contrived for the blog post, but contrived in the sense that the "brought the hair with her" hypothesis is itself contrived).…
While I’m sure this is a real problem, I’ve been on the other side of this equation where you’ve tried your level best to get a problem resolved, and not only haven’t had it resolved, but have been repeatedly screwed even more. For example, many years ago, I signed up for a landline phone (when that’s all there was), and signed up for a particular special service that Ameritech was offering that would allow me to hav…
You are talking about the same problem. 3-5% customers are terrible and so are the 3-5% service personnel
...unless call center support is a biased sample.
I think this is true, but the way I would put it is: While you have influence over 95% of what happens to you, you can only really survive the other 5%. Take solace in the fact that, sometimes, when it seems like there's nothing you can do - you are right! That said, often the path to self-improvement is in situations we've misunderstood as "we can't effect" and are actually caused by us.
Implications for parenting: If your kids grade is ~100 people, five parents will be absolute pieces of shit. Figure out who these are and avoid at all costs.
While I’m sure this is a real problem, I’ve been on the other side of this equation where you’ve tried your level best to get a problem resolved, and not only haven’t had it resolved, but have been repeatedly screwed even more. For example, many years ago, I signed up for a landline phone (when that’s all there was), and signed up for a particular special service that Ameritech was offering that would allow me to hav…
You are talking about the same problem. 3-5% customers are terrible and so are the 3-5% service personnel
While I’m sure this is a real problem, I’ve been on the other side of this equation where you’ve tried your level best to get a problem resolved, and not only haven’t had it resolved, but have been repeatedly screwed even more. For example, many years ago, I signed up for a landline phone (when that’s all there was), and signed up for a particular special service that Ameritech was offering that would allow me to hav…
You are talking about the same problem. 3-5% customers are terrible and so are the 3-5% service personnel
I think this is true, but the way I would put it is: While you have influence over 95% of what happens to you, you can only really survive the other 5%. Take solace in the fact that, sometimes, when it seems like there's nothing you can do - you are right! That said, often the path to self-improvement is in situations we've misunderstood as "we can't effect" and are actually caused by us.
I think it's more like 2-3% in my very subjective experience, of course.
I also think that the setting matters a lot. If you are in a very competitive environment, like the author in the article, maybe the circumstances push the number to 5%, but if you are in a relaxed, friendly setting, I think the percentage might lower to 1-2%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are talking about the same problem. 3-5% customers are terrible and so are the 3-5% service personnel
No this should not be correct (that is if you are assuming the 3-5% rules is correct and I'm not saying it is). The people who work for companies are vetted by the company so in theory the percentage of people who are bad would have to in theory be less simply because of that filter. The people a company (or someone is dealing with) is unfiltered hence the probability in theory again should be higher.