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

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#81

Post by osdiab »

theseatoms wrote: post #12

How is 'reasonable' different from 'rational'? And don't both these terms beg the question of ultimate ends and/or values?

A reasonable person also may have irrational beliefs—like faith, for instance—but apply those beliefs in a reasonable way.

I think "reasonable" means people do things for "reasons", even if those reasons may be logically wrong; it takes into account the fallibility of man. I see "rationality" as more of a platonic form, under which the things people do are strictly logical—but this is often not how people behave.

The reasonable person principle doesn't ask you to assert your conception of reasonableness on everyone—it's just to trust that when you're interacting with someone, they aren't trying to actively harm you or do something that they don't think is "the right" thing to do. What you believe to be right may differ from them, but the key is not to hold grudges, feel personally attacked or angered by the things other people do. Instead, just accept that, given their point of view, conditioning, and environment, people do things for reasons that makes sense in their experience; and what may seem as "unreasonable," may just seem so because you lack the requisite information to assess their thought processes.

I remember hearing this advice from Stanford prof John Ousterhout when I was taking his classes, and I find it to be profound—it echoes the same dogma of non-reactance that many in the meditation community extol. Check out the Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz for a synopsis of what I mean, in which the author points out that when people do things that offend or hurt you, you have a couple options: either be vindictive towards them, and in turn make yourself feel angry and miserable for it; or withhold judgment, attribute any wrongdoing as a consequence of their life experience which you do not know, and don't let it interfere with your life and inner peace. In doing so, you can live a productive, happier life by not wasting time and emotional energy doting on the pain people inflict on themselves because of external stimuli, like the dysfunctional social norms we live under. That text is short, and while it has the occasional new-agey bs, it's almost entirely high quality content—if you're open-minded and ready to take it seriously.

It's interesting seeing Hacker News discuss these sorts of things, as many here seem to discount lifestyle choices like this very quickly.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#82

Post by Arizhel »

theseatoms wrote: post #57
Arizhel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Ted Danson? (genuinely curious; all I remember about him is his role on Cheers)

What's wrong with reasonableness? (Check out the HBO show Bored to Death.)

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?

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#84

Post by dahart »

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…

> ... 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 concretely elaborated terms.

But - in part I wonder if this misses the spirit of the Reasonable Person Principle. My interpretation is not that "reasonable" is (or even should be) a concrete criteria under which to judge people, I think the point of the principle is to default to giving benefit of the doubt. I think it's a suggestion that when one finds a disagreement, one should assume that the opponent has legitimate reasons for their position before one tries to argue with them. In other words, try harder to not argue at all, but instead to understand.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#85

Post by theseatoms »

Arizhel wrote: post #82
theseatoms wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with reasonableness? (Check out the HBO show Bored to Death.)

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.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#86

Post by espeed »

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…

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.

Backfire Effect: "The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

Possible solution -- first tell them how they're right, and then show them how each of your perspectives overlap/align (connect the overlapping truth), like discovering the missing piece to a puzzle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672763

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#87

Post by Arizhel »

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.

I see, thanks!

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#88

Post by espeed »

dahart wrote: post #84
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…

> ... 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…

Yes, fallacies of definition are one of the primary reasons for misunderstanding, e.g. we both are using the same word, we both have an idea of what the word means and/or are using it in a specific way; however, we both think the word means something different, and we both assume the other person is using the word in the way we are. Piles of disagreements have been built on this one simple fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition

That's one of the reasons why I like how Rich Hickey begins all of his talks with precise deconstructions of the definitions for the words that are integral to the theme of his talk, as he does in "Simple Made Easy":

https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

Once you establish a common understanding for the meaning of the words you are using, you have not only cleared up any potential misunderstandings, but you have also implicitly established points of agreement and have established a solid foundation to build on.

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#89

Post by ouid »

I'm having trouble drawing conclusions of any sort from the statements listed here. Am I alone in finding this indecipherable? Perhaps I'm being unreasonable...

Re: Reasonable Person Principle

#90

Post by strathmeyer »

CMU had me arrested and held in jail for a week though I had paid my bail because I complained too much about not being able to find an job opportunities with a CS degree. Everyone just says to go to the career center. Career center says they have nothing for me. Couldn't find anyone in the entire University who would act reasonably to anything that didn't benefit them directly.
Post reply on HN