
Assume positive intent - mooreds
https://rickmanelius.com/article/assume-positive-intent
======
Mz
_1) It’s 100% reasonable to have a high degree of skepticism within a low-
trust environment. For example, I would never assume positive intent and allow
my daughter to be alone with a registered sex offender just because the person
claimed they had changed. I would also never trust an alcoholic with a house
full of liquor. Once a person has violated trust against a particular metric,
it 's OK to take a different position in order not to put yourself in harm's
way._

You can only _assume positive intent_ in situations where intent is not clear
and you need to infer or assume. Once there is a proven track record of bad
acts clearly establishing intent, _assuming positive intent_ amounts to
deluding yourself.

If you don't know, then assuming positive intent and looking to situational
factors as the source of problems can be surprisingly powerful. But, once you
have affirmative evidence of bad faith, then you need to go with that.
Assumptions about motive only make sense under circumstances where motive or
intent is unclear.

~~~
ue_
A bit of a nitpick, but

>I would never assume positive intent and allow my daughter to be alone with a
registered sex offender

I don't know, prehaps that's true in the case where one doesn't know what the
sex offender has done (i.e what crime got them onto that list), but it's not
sufficient in general.

Although most people on the list are there for good reasons, there are not-
good reasons too, such as urinating in a public park at night, having a lewd
picture of your 17 year old girlfriend/boyfriend on your phone, and in some
countries possessing/writing certain pornographic comics or stories.

So I think it is too dismissive, similar to how it is also dimissive to say
the same thing about an ex-convict.

~~~
Mz
Substitute "known child molester" for "registered sex offender" and see how
you feel about that statement. I am sure he also would not want to leave his
child with a child molester who was not yet known to be a child molester, but
most people have no idea how to effectively screen out such people. So, they
use metrics like _registered sex offender._

While I agree that most parents use crappy rubrics for deciding whom to
entrust their kids with, I am not really comfortable with arguing in favor of
trying to do some kind of justice for some edge case adult over a parent
looking out for the welfare of their own child. The parent has a duty to their
child. They do not have a similar duty to some guy who took a leak in the
park, yet their dream job is babysitting. Depriving public urinators of some
right to become a babysitter seems a rather small thing in the name of
protecting our children from possible child rape.

The place to fight this battle for justice is with the system that designates
public urinators et al as sex offenders, not with parents trying to decide
whom to leave their kids with.

------
botswana99
Hanlon's Razor (‘Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by neglect.’) is better ... just assume people are not trying to
screw you right away.

The lack assumed negative intent is a positive in my book

[https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/04/mental-model-
hanlon...](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/04/mental-model-hanlons-
razor/)

~~~
fizixer
Came here to say this.

This kind of work irks me. No offense to the author, this is a widespread
trend, not a single example.

You write a whole blog-post on a topic and not mention Hanlon's razor. It is
inexcusable that you didn't know about it. It was your job to do "literature
survey" or some google search, or an intellectual discussion with a handful of
people, (ideally all three of them, and more) before you blurt out a whole
essay on a topic. And then in the essay you create an image of yourself
originally coming up with such a brilliant idea.

This is just a piece of writing (and maybe I am a bit harsh but I'm just
trying to point to a trend). We're on HN. This is way worse when it comes to
coding/github projects:

You create some kind of code, put it on github, create a blog-post in some
shiny flat/material design, grey font, maybe medium or nautil.us posting. And
put that posting on tech forums, HN, linkedin, reddit, whatever.

And you fail to mention other projects preceding you on this same exact topic,
much less discuss the pros and cons of your approach vs previous approach(es).
Who knows you might've ended up finding out your own code was a complete
reinventing of the wheel and completely redundant (maybe you're too afraid to
find that out). (As an example, look at my recent comment about 'building your
own linux' vs LFS [1]).

Creating something new and original is hard work. Part of that hard work is
searching for existing efforts, related work, doing a literature survey, and
whether or not they were successful, and how they compare/contrast with what
you did or are going to do, and so on. Short of that, you're just contributing
to the noise, the bloat, and the information overload of your content
consumers.

What's worse. Not putting in the full effort works for these people too. More
often than not, such people are looking for a quick karma-whoring to meet
their immediate objective. A github coder is looking to put something quick on
their resume, to land a job interview. It's the job of the interviewer or
potential employer to hold such people accountable, but I doubt they do.

I don't know. This irks me to no extent. I'm big on minimalism. I spend a lot
of my efforts making sure I don't say something that's already said ('say' = a
piece or writing, or a piece of code). I don't like to contribute to
information bloat. Maybe it's a self-defeating habit (i.e., if you don't say
anything most of time, people think you have no talent, you're a nobody).

edit: It also reminds of NIH (not-invented-here) syndrome, something Google is
known for. To be clear, it's worse than when it's done by noobs (e.g., for
quick karma-whoring to land a job interview, at least they're desperate). When
you're in a position of "status", you definitely can do better. It also
reminds of the website LessWrong [2]. Those self-entitled wannabes have
created a whole universe of philosophical/logical terminology for themselves
without consulting the outside world and trying to find out whether "their
ideas" originated elsewhere or not.

edit 2: In case anyone wondering, yes I am advocating the opposite of 'publish
or perish'. And 'publish or perish' is part of the reason we have so much
information bloat (on the internet, in the libraries, everywhere). And that's
part of the reason why I say my approach is self-defeating.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15030582](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15030582)

[2] [http://lesswrong.com/](http://lesswrong.com/)

~~~
PeanutCurry
That's a very low bar for an essay... at least in terms of length. I'd be
surprised if this took long to write which isn't a criticism so much an
expression of confusion as to why you called it an essay. It's also a little
weird to call it inexcusable they didn't acknowledge Hanlon's Razor because
it's hardly a common reference. Even the wikipedia page only gives two
instances of Hanlon's razor being used and one of them is an acknowledgement
that the general idea is very likely much older than the Jargon File glossary
entry.

~~~
fizixer
As I said, I admit I might be a bit harsh. I took a slightly bad example of
what I had in mind and went ahead and said what I wanted to say.

The bulk of my comment is about the general trend, as well as the coding
community.

~~~
moccachino
I feel you, I do this so often :/

------
nsb1
I used to think this way, and then I built a house. Try keeping an open mind
about that process sometime and see how many supposedly top-notch and
reputable contractors fess up to mistakes they've made. By my count, the
numbers are reversed - maybe 1 in 25 will come forward and say, "I damaged
this and I'm going to have to buy a replacement part. Sorry about that." If
you discover a problem and then call them on it, I'd give it 50-50 odds that
they will claim innocence and balk at correcting the issue.

It would not have been my first instinct to put professional tradesmen in some
sort of low trust category, but that has been my experience, and I don't think
I'm alone.

Are they being malicious? No, I don't think so. Just lazy and/or careless -
but the aftermath is largely the same.

~~~
piker
Not to disagree, but once the price on the contract is set and a mistake is
either covered by you or them, I think you've entered the realm of a "low-
trust environment" which is addressed by the author.

~~~
nsb1
I think that just furthers my argument - mistakes get made all the time since
we're all humans around here as far as I know. I honestly don't have any
problem with people ( tradesmen or otherwise ) making mistakes as long as they
own up to them and/or fix them. To say that "once a mistake has been made and
a solution negotiated, we're now in a low-trust environment" flies in the face
of "Always approach people with optimism".

------
cardamomo
The author discusses some caveats to this approach. We might also take a
critical lens toward trust as a default stance by applying an understanding of
systems of oppression. I love the way this is discussed in AORTA's
facilitation guide ([http://aorta.coop/portfolio_page/anti-oppressive-
facilitatio...](http://aorta.coop/portfolio_page/anti-oppressive-
facilitation/)):

> There are a few community agreements that participants often bring up that
> we don’t tend to use or bring with us. Two of the most common ones are
> “assume best intentions” and “default to trust.” The reason we don’t use
> these is because when someone is unable to do this (say they’re feeling
> untrusting of someone, or unsafe), having a community agreement telling them
> to do so isn’t going to change anything. These agreements aren’t always
> realistic, especially when we take into consideration that when people have
> been harmed by sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, they/we
> build up necessary tools to care for and protect themselves/ourselves.
> Agreements we offer instead that capture the spirit of these are “we can’t
> be articulate all the time,” “be generous with each other,” or “this is a
> space for learning.”

------
js8
I love Linus Torvalds quote on trust (paraphrase, not exact citation):

"People can trust me because they don't have to."

He was talking in the context of Linux kernel, but I think this applies
universally. If you are in a relationship where the other side has more power,
you cannot trust them. However, if you have equal (or greater) power, and you
can walk away, you can trust them.

And again, people intuitively know this, I think, so if you want somebody to
trust you, then you should give them enough power over yourself, expose
yourself a bit.

~~~
alethiophile
This is pretty wrong. Hierarchical relationships exist all over the place, and
it's still generally fine to trust your boss, or your teacher, or whatever.
And in fact you can't run any kind of large organization without hierarchies,
and if everyone defaults to not trusting anyone with power over them these
organizations would all fall apart.

~~~
js8
I don't think most people trust their bosses, or HR, and for a good reason.
For example:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15018007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15018007)

And I think yes, larger hierarchical (actually, authoritarian would be a
better word - you can have hierarchy with democracy too) organizations are
inefficient, so in a sense, they have already fallen apart.

I think trust implies choice in some sense, and if you don't have a choice,
then trust is meaningless.

------
dkonofalski
I used to work for Apple a long time ago and this was one of their 10 "core"
values (and I'm sure they intended the pun). For whatever reason, this one
value really stuck with me because I'd find that people tend to be more honest
with you when you assume positive intent. Instead of trying to defend their
actions, they explain what their thought process was in making decisions and
taking action and are much more likely to admit when something fails. Between
"assume positive intent" and "failure is an option and, sometimes, it's the
best option", I find that interactions with people are much smoother and far
more genuine.

~~~
anotherbrownguy
This doesn't work for me. I assume so much positive intent that I give people
a lot of chances without criticizing them. Even when their story makes no
sense, I try to give everyone full benefit of doubt. As a result, they seem to
think that I am stupid and try to repeat the same behavior.

~~~
dkonofalski
Those are two different things, I think. Assuming positive intent doesn't say
anything about giving people chances. It just means that, when someone does
something, you should assume that they didn't do it to be malicious. Multiple
instances of something means that they're either incapable of doing what's
been asked or they have now shown/proven that their intent wasn't actually
positive and your assumption was wrong.

~~~
nthnclrk
I literally saw this headline, and immediately went to the comments to search
"Apple" to see if anyone had already written this (another Apple alumni here).

There's also an aphorism with a _similar_ but different sentiment, Hanlon's
Razor [1], that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
explained by stupidity."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)

------
mooreds
I didn't write this article, though I posted it. I've found this to be true in
my life. If you assume positive intent, that engenders trust, which can
actually increase goodwill. The same is true in reverse.

That doesn't mean you should be a sucker. But assuming the best of people has
made me happier.

~~~
neltnerb
I agree in general. People act up at the level you expect them to, it is human
nature.

But I also think that evidence comes far before being screwed. Watch how
people talk about others. Watch how people treat others. Especially people
they don't like. And always remember that you might be one of those people
they don't like someday.

Focus on building relationships with people who treat people they disagree
with or dislike well. Trust _those_ people. Plus, encourage that culture -- no
matter how much power you have you should always treat others with respect and
fairness.

------
markovchains
> Marth Stout claims 4% of the population falls into this category. In short,
> if you start from a place of positive intent, you are going to get screwed
> over by at least one out of 1 out of every 25 people you encounter because
> they literally have no moral compass.

Just a pet peeve of mine: If p% of the population has a certain trait it means
that of 100 people, p will have the certain trait _on average_ \-- and not _at
least_ p of 100 will have the trait.

~~~
incompatible
True. I'd also point out that bad but rare events can potentially have more
impact than frequent good events. It all depends on how the expected value
turns out, as many gamblers and traders have discovered the hard way.

------
blunte
I believe this is good advice, but I think it's just a subset of positive
thinking in general.

(Most) humans have very well developed subconscious human attitude detectors.
We respond to body language, tone, vocal tension, etc., and we often do it
without realizing it.

As an actor in a situation, if you can keep your thoughts focused on the
positive outcomes - especially when a lot is unknown and your chance of being
wrong is not obviously very low - you will express positive signals. Other
people are likely to pick up on these and (perhaps subconsciously) respond in
kind.

The reverse is very true, and much easier to observe. If you pay attention to
other people having conversations, it's fascinating to see how one's initial
approach is often met in kind by the other - whether positive/positive, or
negative/negative.

Salespeople learn this, perhaps mechanically, very early. Approach a potential
client with an expectation of success and an expectation that the client will
want and need what is offered. The prospect picks up on this and responds with
more interest, or at least a bit more consideration. Likewise, approaching
expecting rejection is more likely to get rejection.

I don't have sources for these "facts", but they are echoed in many books I've
read and in my human interactions I've witnessed or been involved in.

Lastly, it's just nicer for yourself if you believe people are good and of
good intent. You carry less stress, you smile more (and frown less), and you
are less likely to die of heart disease. This is clinically proven :).

------
yla92
I love the concept of positive intent since the day I found out about positive
intent through another blog post: The power of positive intent[0]. I was
always defensive whenever I have to confront with a situation or a person.
After I read the article about positive intent, I have been trying not to be
defensive and instead, listen to another person first. I think this article
"Assume positive intent" really complements the one that I read before.

[0] : [https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-power-of-positive-
intent-5d5d...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-power-of-positive-
intent-5d5d321a1f83)

------
grx
> It’s 100% reasonable to have a high degree of skepticism within a low-trust
> environment.

And this IMO kills it in an increasing amount of work places. I might be
seeing it more pessimistic as it is, but the increased people turnover, team
fluctuation, miscommunication and related factors produce a massive drop in
trust between co-workers.

> Or we can start from a place of positive intent right from the beginning and
> keep it there until they violate that trust.

Additionally, I would search for a way to tell people I work with about this
principle. Some people begin to distrust you if they think you are kinda odd

~~~
thrownaway
Well-said. I worked at a place that had layoffs awhile back and it was a real
bummer, in part because of the layoffs, but also because management lied about
the reasons for them and the health of the company at the subsequent all-
hands. Once management switches to "lie openly and often" mode all the
interpersonal behavior incentives change. Like you said, it becomes reasonable
to be skeptical and distrustful...

------
jancsika
> 1) It’s 100% reasonable to have a high degree of skepticism within a low-
> trust environment.

The problem is that people aren't able to accurately judge when they are
inside a low-trust environment when using one of their many digital devices.

People are watching their neighbors return from the mysterious Facebook fog
spouting fake-news bullshit like it's gospel. Then they themselves blithely
enter the fog with the reasoning that they would never get taken in by
something so crude and obvious.

If you've ever watched a shell game in a big city that fallacy will be
familiar. You watch a frustrated victim keep losing and notice a subtle thing
the scammer is doing to cheat. You then place your own bet and choose the
shell where the cheating scammer inconspicuously tried to move the ball.

Then you lose, too, because you didn't consider the possibility that the
scammer had yet another trick prepared just for people like you who think
you're smart enough to figure out the game.

~~~
gasof
What do you mean by "fake news"?

Is it yellow journalism? Right propaganda, left propaganda? Articles from the
perspective of the skeptics, from the alt-right, Neo-Nazi's, communists,
cultural Marxists or from radical feminists? Something else?

------
wpietri
This is terrible math: [...] con artists and sociopaths out there [...] 4% of
the population [...] you are going to get screwed over by at least one out of
1 out of every 25 people [...]

On the positive side, we try to put con artists in jail, so that moves the
odds a bit in your favor. But con artists and sociopaths continually have to
find new people to exploit as they are discovered by and/or burn out the old
ones. And the skilled ones can gain disproportionate control of resources,
further increasing the odds you'll be dealing with them. As an example, 99.7%
of my unfiltered mail is spam, not 4%.

I think you should almost always act as if you're assuming positive intent,
because that's how you build good relationships. But in practice, you should
always be keeping an eye out for signs you're dealing with one of the many
exploiters of the world.

~~~
izhak
> we try to put con artists in jail

or elect them into high offices

~~~
wpietri
I guess the upside is that we can keep an eye on them.

------
anigbrowl
Ironically enough, the very next headline on HN at the time of writing is 'the
incredible shrinking airline seat.'

You should certainly assume positive intent (or one of the many variations
discussed here) when you first encounter a problem or conflict of views. On
the other hand, you shouldn't cling to this idea in the face of accumulating
evidence to the contrary. Some people are in fact assholes and exploit the
kindness, patience, and general good nature of others in pursuit of their own
selfish ends.

The sad fact is that dealing with assholes is tiring at best, stressful in
general, and can be scary at worst. If the cost of accommodation seems less
than the cost of confrontation, making excuses and allowances for bad behavior
can become a habit. Unfortunately, so too will the bad behavior under those
circumstances.

------
vxxzy
There is something to be said when you are the recipient of the assumption.
For me, I would make every attempt to fulfill that assumption. This is my
experience when extending the assumption of positive intent. It is implicit
trust. When you start from a good point, it is more likely to continue.
Especially in business dealings. There is a time and place to keep a distance,
but on new encounters and dealings, it is best to move forward.

------
southpawflo
call me an asshole but instead of trusting or not trusting people, I trust
that someone will always look out for themselves first and others second. I'm
never surprised when they act that way and pleasantly surprised when they
don't.

~~~
matt4077
The problem with that is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you
assume bad faith, you're more likely to act in such a way yourself, setting a
low standard for the foreseeable future.

A lack of trust will also restrict your options. You'll spend more time making
sure all contracts are watertight, or have to pass on opportunities if the
legal system (which is the fallback option after 'trust') isn't capable to
compensate.

It's also somewhat wrong on the facts: The idea of completely rational and
selfish behaviour is called 'homo economicus', and it's among the worst of all
the bad assumptions economics has made. Because as it turns out, it's almost
impossible to find people acting in such a way outside of mental institutions.

The only rational and selfish test subjects are usually monkeys. Humans are
willing to forgo all sorts of rewards for either altruistic or moral reasons.

------
rickmanelius
First, thank you. Whether you agreed or disagreed with what I had to say, I'm
honored that you would take the time to read what I've written and to speak up
to add your own perspective. I've never had an article get 13,000 page views
and an experience like this really helps provide a lot of motivation to
continue writing.

Second, I completely understand that I could have made this article even
better. I could have done more research into the existing literature, which
would have resulted in the Wikipedia entries and company culture documents
that were specified. When I take another pass at this article, I'll add many
of these at the end for further reading. However, I will say that I in no way
am claiming this to be a unique thought. In fact, I'm very clear that this was
an experience I had during my career that turned out to be quite
transformative. Had it been said in another way, I may not have heard it. It
was this exact phrasing that both struck a chord with me and it has resonated
with others (as it has done here as well). To that end, even if I could have
refined this further and made it 10-20% better, it achieved its end goal.

I honestly wish I had time to review and respond to each and every one of your
comments, and I will probably get to it here and there as time permits. I've
made some life choices where I prioritize time with my wife and daughter after
work hours, which is why I need to sneak in my writing when and where I can!
That said, this is encouraging, and I thank you all once again.

------
Deimorz
One of Wikipedia's main behavior guidelines is a fairly similar idea, "Assume
good faith":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith)

~~~
matt4077
Yeah–I was trying to find out what the difference to "good faith" is, and from
a bit of googling, it appears to be an attempt to sell the old concept with a
new name?

I somehow prefer "good faith", even though it's meaning is harder to parse
when you first hear it. The 'faith' does a better job of hinting at the
emotional component of the concept.

~~~
quadrangle
Oh come on — you are violating AGF in guessing about the "attempt to sell…".
It's far more likely that this "assume positive intent" idea and post is just
by people who were unaware of AGF as an existing principle. Follow AGF and
just help point them and everyone here to the worked out Wikipedia concept. No
need to assume bad faith of the people writing "assume positive intent"!

------
chiefalchemist
"Trust by verify" is always useful. In addition to the caveats you usually
have a buffer (of time). A well placed email or phone call can go a long way
to clear up (or confirm) any assumptions.

Fighting or fleeing without verification is typically going to end badly.

------
Theodores
I think that 'negative intent' is equivalent to 'being stupid'.

The other thing is that 'positive intent' does not necessarily appear as
'positive intent' to everyone. Today, out walking my sister's dog I/the dog
scared a Chinese tourist. There was not any malice in the dog's walnut-sized
brain, just a perception problem from one of the many (maybe 25) people I met
en-route.

There are also those with some narcissism due to childhood trauma and negative
feedback loops. These people don't have friends and don't think to do people
good turns. Unless they meet a fellow narcissist that sees the world like they
do, they can only expect negative intent from people. Of course the world of
sane people only see negative intent in those far up the narcissism scale. It
may take them a few seconds, weeks or years to realise but eventually the
'utterly selfish' conclusion is realised.

I spent a lot of time in retail, on helpdesks and other customer facing jobs
where it is commonly expected that there will be customers wanting to vent,
rant and insult you. This never happened to me, it really has been happy
customers all the way, admittedly with a few people let-down with promises not
kept.

What surprises me is how rare my 'never treated like scum' experience has
been. People with more charm and better people skills than myself have had
horrible times with customers and kind of expect it. So if your mindset is to
consider customers as 'idiots' then 'idiots' you will get. If you start from
the 'assume positive intent' and are happy to live in a world of different
abilities where you might have to teach someone 'how to use a mouse' or 'type
their own name' then all is good and there is no need to be irate with anyone
or for anyone to be irate with you.

------
justadeveloper2
I used to think this but then I was required to work with two people who have
what I understand to be Borderline Personality Disorder. No matter what you
think you can do to get along with people with this problem you can't--they
will tear you down. The only way to win is to get completely away from them
and not have to interact with them.

~~~
mratzloff
Certainly some people with BPD are as you describe, but personality disorders
exist on a continuum and painting everyone with the same brush is
counterproductive. Some people with BPD are lovely people who can be difficult
at times.

------
whipoodle
Remember, it's just as important to follow such a rule yourself, as it is to
admonish others to follow. Let's not fail to hold ourselves to the same
standard of behavior we expect from others.

~~~
mooreds
Absolutely. In fact, I'd say it is more important to follow it yourself,
because:

    
    
       1. you can exert more control over yourself
       2. it will have more direct positive impact

------
komali2
I like this rule because not only does it seem to make me and the people I
interact with happier, when it _doesn 't_ work (rare), I get to enjoy my warm
and fuzzy moral high ground feelings. Like my dad taught me, you're never
wrong to do the right thing.

------
NumberCruncher
I think you are better off if you assume self interest and you make sure that
the self interest of others serves your self interest.

~~~
quadrangle
Assuming good faith is slightly different than not assuming bad faith, but
it's related. Self-interest and good faith are compatible in many cases.
Assuming good faith is a principle worth following as a guideline, and when
you recognize that it is in conflict with someone's self-interest _then_ you
can be reasonable to at least recognize the likelihood that self-interest wins
out.

------
jMyles
> Chris could have crushed me, and yet he didn’t. In fact, he did the exact
> opposite and taught me an incredibly valuable lesson. Amidst the bickering
> on one phone call, he asked his colleagues to stop this behavior and to
> assume positive intent instead.

I think we've all had this feeling - this reassurance - from time to time. It
feels great and it's important to internalize. However, with today's economy
existing against the backdrop of the seemingly unstable sociopolitical
dynamics of the USA, it's a little hard to know when it's truly OK to operate
with this as a key assumption.

> 1) It’s 100% reasonable to have a high degree of skepticism within a low-
> trust environment. For example, I would never assume positive intent and
> allow my daughter to be alone with a registered sex offender just because
> the person claimed they had changed. I would also never trust an alcoholic
> with a house full of liquor.

This is arguably an exception large enough to swallow the rule in some very
important and timely circumstances.

The state is as likely to be violent as a registered sex offender, and as
likely to pillage as a drunk at a liquor cabinet. In our current situation in
the USA, with the state taking on a character of such ubiquity, aren't we
always in a "low-trust environment?"

On the other hand, I do always assume (and in fact, almost always find) good
intentions from the humans around me. But we are faced with a real need to
come together and address what increasingly seems like bad intent on the part
of the state, even though its actors are all humans.

How then do we move forward?

------
StanislavPetrov
This article argues that you should assume positive intent in lieu of negative
intent. I'd suggest that you remain neutral and avoid making assumptions of
any kind.

~~~
komali2
Why?

~~~
AstralStorm
Because:

1) your assumption biases further thinking and perception. 2) you will be less
careful (optimism bias) 3) if you're wrong there might be a big price to pay.
(Including the ultimate such as life.)

------
splitrocket
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

------
paradite
I am still waiting for "Presume good faith" to be added into HN guidelines,
and I think it would help the HN community improve in terms of quality of
discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173804](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173804)

------
Radim
The (iterated) prisoner's dilemma is a massively simplified but nevertheless
(therefore?) interesting topic. It has captured our human imagination for
decades, for better or for worse:

[https://www.wired.com/2004/10/new-tack-wins-prisoners-
dilemm...](https://www.wired.com/2004/10/new-tack-wins-prisoners-dilemma/)

I say "for worse" because as with all oversimplified models (aka all models),
there's always the risk that someone will take the results out of context and
claim "But it's a fact! Science says so!". ...As they did with the original
"tit-for-tat" IPD strategy, and as happens routinely with various
"evolutionary justification for X" arguments.

------
ThomPete
I actually think there is an extra level to this which is try to understand
what people mean rather than way they say.

Way to often discussion ends up in "well you said" instead of actually trying
to understand what people are saying.

But Hanlon's Razor already take care of the articles subject.

------
roceasta
Assume positive intent, but set boundaries. The first part sounds like wishful
thinking but it merely reflects the fact that there are no bad intentions,
only mistaken ideas about what is good. The second part reflects the fact that
some people know more than others.

~~~
AstralStorm
There are objectively bad intentions. For example extreme egoism (intent to
gain at any cost) or pathologies. (Criminal notwithstanding.)

~~~
roceasta
No I think that people with extreme egoism genuinely think that loving only
themselves is the right thing to do.

------
AceJohnny2
> _Well, there are two different ways. We can start from a place of skepticism
> until someone has proven themselves worthy to be trusted. Or we can start
> from a place of positive intent right from the beginning and keep it there
> until they violate that trust._

I've worked for years in both France and the US, and I feel like it's been a
useful simplification that the French start not trusting you until they do,
whereas Americans will start trusting you until they don't.

I've heard it described that the French have the latin attitude (shared with
Spain and Italy, not with Germany or England), and it's a fun enough
explanation that I'm holding on to it :)

------
0xbear
This only works if the confrontee assumes the same. Which is often not the
case. People usually think others can read their mind, and don't communicate
their issues sufficiently well. The natural response to that lack of
information is to make things up to have a coherent mental model. Over time
this model tends to diverge from the ground truth, sometimes exponentially. As
a result you get conflict, assumed malice, and other kinds of
misunderstanding. The frustrating thing about all this is without grounds to
unconditionally assume benevolence of the other party (i.e. without being
close friends), this is largely unavoidable.

------
rdlecler1
I first came across this phrase a decade ago in Forbes as the best piece of
advice Pepsi's CEO ever got. It's one thing that has always stuck with me. We
often let our own insecurities misrepresent other people's intentions.

------
shadykiller
Looks to me, the winning strategy. Various strategies around trust have been
very nicely gamified here: [http://ncase.me/trust/](http://ncase.me/trust/)

------
aaron-lebo
He says 1/25 people in the general population are sociopaths.

It would be interesting to know whether that ratio changes as power increases.
Maybe execs are closer to 1/10th because sociopaths would both be attracted to
control and their lack of scruples is a great advantage.

Of course, if a lot of people in power are sociopaths, than that's a huge drag
on any social system assuming positive intent.

~~~
sbinthree
Sociopaths are violent, the coloquial use is actually reversed from the
clinical use. Psychopaths are what most people who use "sociopath" mean.
Sociopath != social psychopath. Sociopaths are 100% always violent and zero
empathy. Terrifying people. Stab you for your cell phone scary, not
politically outmanuever you or work in sales as a profession scary.
Psychopathy is the spectrum in question, and it does increase as you get
higher power jobs. The recipe for psychopathy would be high cognitive empathy,
low emotional empathy, high need to control environment. A low IQ person with
those characteristics might be violent or not, and probably adapts to those
traits pretty poorly socially speaking. A high IQ person with those
characteristics would figure out how to use them to their advantage. It isn't
that you have to be a genius psychopath to be successful, it is just that
being a genius and removing the constraint of caring about harm to others
certainly helps.

~~~
jrochkind1
Interesting, in the colloquial use, I kind of thought it was exactly the
reverse, maybe it's the colloqiual 'psycho' in 'psychopath.' I think most
people use this colloquially in the reverse, thinking the 'psychopaths' are
the dangerous ones.

Hmm, this article suggests that neither one is a technical DSM term _and_ that
it's the reverse of what you say, psychopath is "worse".

[http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-
psycho...](http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-
difference#1)

------
barking
By nature I assume negative intent and over the course of my life it's
probably cost me and possibly others, a lot. But then a small percentage of
people think the best of everyone and end up paying for it with their lives.

------
stiff
This is also known as the principle of charity:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

------
ilaksh
OK, so I am guessing they stopped arguing during that meeting, but what was
the resolution for the project? Did it get completed?

------
jasonkostempski
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

------
jessaustin
...said the Wolf to the Three Little Pigs.

~~~
quadrangle
…except in nearly every case there was no Wolf, it was just the Boy Who Cried
Wolf.

~~~
jessaustin
...in which case it would be folly to "assume positive intent" on the part of
the Boy.

Stipulated: undue suspicion is as much a failure mode as insufficient
suspicion. _Both_ hazards might be implicated in any particular situation.
That's why it's a mistake to make hard and fast rules. A sense of proportion
is valuable.

~~~
quadrangle
Assume Good Faith (I'm not going to go with the "positive intent" version, I'm
sticking to the known, better formulated Wikipedia principle) doesn't mean you
should blindly truly _assume_ it literally, it means that when you interact
with people, you should _consider_ how they could be saying what they are
saying with good faith and engage in the discourse with that assumption.

AGF is a rule in the sense that if you don't _know_ someone's bad faith, you
must _act_ as thought they have good faith as a rule for maintaining healthy
discourse. It does _not_ mean you assume good faith to the point of allowing
yourself to be vulnerable or agree to anything based on that good-faith
assumption.

In short: Assume Good Faith in how you _communicate_ , but _verify_ good faith
with certainty if your decisions rely on it.

------
77pt77
The comments disturb me:

> Surprising you didn't talk about trusting your gut.

>> I will admit that I struggle with finding a balance between brevity and
comprehensiveness. You're suggestion is absolutely right in that I could have
put some additional guidance on using common sense and/or trusting one's
guts/instincts when something doesn't feel right and it makes more sense to be
more cautious.

This seems to be a disturbing trend recently. Inflating people's sense that
their biases are not only valuable inputs but actually accurate. This flies in
the face of all quantitative studies that show exactly the opposite.

I think the most egregious thing I've seen recently along these lines was a
Sam Harris podcast about "the gift of fear"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh9OpbJXOHA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh9OpbJXOHA)

~~~
AstralStorm
Somme thoughts are stereotypes and not biases. As opposed to biases
stereotypes are widespread averages of observations and likely to be on
average accurate... Which is course does not mean they will be accurate for
any specific case. There is such a thing as prior knowledge.

