
Reasonable Person Principle - Tomte
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~weigand/staff/
======
rrggrr
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/Reasonable_person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person)

~~~
Arizhel
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.

~~~
jnordwick
I'd say you just exemplified the problem. While you view the election as proof
of unreasonableness of half the voters, I see your outright dismissal as a
clear inability to see an opposing view and hence unreasonable.

~~~
enraged_camel
Maybe he didn't dismiss them outright. Maybe he looked at things from their
perspective first, analyzed their beliefs and arguments and concluded that
they did not make their decision based on facts[1] and rationality.

[1]Unless you count "alternative facts" of course, in which case their
viewpoint is just as valid as yours!

~~~
espeed
In the words of Harlan Ellison, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are
entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."

------
6stringmerc
A very clear and cogent overview of a structure. Simple to cite. Pragmatic and
practical - I think it's quite a positive to have for an organization.

> _Not all people share the same model of reasonableness, so disagreements
> inevitably occur. Under the reasonable person principle, the first thing to
> do is work it out privately (perhaps in person, since e-mail is known to
> amplify feelings). Indeed, many people would find it unreasonable to bring
> in third parties before trying personal discussion._

As true as this is, holistically, I do think the trend in "modern USA" is a
bit less personal. Trending more towards the "easier to tattle anonymously"
than have personal interactions. This creates more friction down the line as
the third party will, inevitably, disappoint at least one faction if not both.

I do think making the statement is important though, and I do not disagree
it's in line with what Reasonable People should do in working out differences.

~~~
Mithaldu
Agreed, i've observed both personally and with others that americans tend to
get upset when someone tries to move a disagreement into private chat, rather
than having a public battle about it; and also tend to follow it up by actions
that ensure the disagreement is never resolved.

~~~
skybrian
I think it's sometimes interpreted as a kind of shadiness.

One thing that might help is a promise to summarize to the group after the
discussion is over.

------
SapphireSun
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 roughly agree
on what it means. If someone doesn't agree with your definition of
reasonableness, it becomes a bludgeon wielded by both sides that can't be
affixed to a definitive state of the world and the winner will necessarily be
side that can exert more political force.

Element three is more concrete. "[3)] No one is special."This is the classic
statement that all are equal before the law regardless of position in the
department, which is the only way to grant popular legitimacy to rules.

"[4)] Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I
feel this rule is a symptom of the lax definition of reasonableness. The
reason people become offended when someone accuses them of being unreasonable,
is because the standard is so loosely defined that someone can (reasonably,
ha!) believe themselves reasonable when others do not.

I read an interesting article the other day where the author took a moral
position and reasoned it through [0], showing how it was legally reasoned
through in high profile situations. This kind of cooperative principle is
harder to state, but more easily defended on grounds that are still require
agreement, but in principle can reference an objective reality (e.g. from the
article, elements like "proportionality"). Obviously, the referenced article
is not a scholarly work, so there is more that can be done, but

I guess this is the kind of thing political science majors learn about in
school that I didn't get exposed to as much except through my own reading.

[0] [https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-
precept-1...](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-
precept-1af7007d6376)

~~~
dahart
> ... 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.

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

~~~
dahart
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'...

------
rdtsc
Makes sense. Good summary. I've heard it mentioned as "don't be a jerk",
"don't first assume when others act like jerks they always meant to". The last
part, avoids quick escalations of misunderstandings.

Interestingly just last year I remember someone posted the syllabus to the
Advanced Database Systems:
[http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/](http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/)
(latest version). Really good stuff there.

But one thing I noticed there was plenty of red triangles. Apparently those
are trigger warnings. So I opened some of those papers, for example:
[http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/papers/04-occ/tu-...](http://15721.courses.cs.cmu.edu/spring2017/papers/04-occ/tu-
sosp2013.pdf) , expecting to see some horrible things, but I couldn't see what
would be triggering there. There are transaction ids, commit phases, reads,
writes, B+trees ...

So given that it is coming from same school, shouldn't the same "reasonable-
ness" apply. Is it reasonable to sprinkle trigger warnings onto distributed
database readings? I understand history, psychology, anthropology, literature,
art might have disturbing contexts, but computer science?

~~~
kiscica
That _is_ odd. Maybe it's an in-joke alluding to database triggers or
something?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_trigger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_trigger)

~~~
rdtsc
Oh you may be right. I couldn't see the pattern right away though. Is it
memory resident databases, and it is a pun on them not really being considered
"databases"...?

------
DonaldFisk
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." \-- George Bernard Shaw

~~~
geebee
It's a clever quote, but I've always thought this turned a bit on an ambiguity
in the word "unreasonable" in the first and second half of the sentence.

------
wrs
FYI: The RPP has been the way at CMU-CS since before I was there in the
mid-80's.

~~~
gavman
Recent grad here (technically ECE not CS, but obviously lots of
overlap)--still very much a thing people take very seriously.

------
TTPrograms
Side point, but am I to understand from this that there is an email list
"cs.opinion" which is "no-holds barred and often both agressive and personal"?
That seems like a terrible idea in a professional environment.

~~~
diet_mtn_dew
From the name, it is more likely to refer to a local newsgroup. I would assume
it is/was also for students, not just staff.

------
purple-again
What an excellent concise framework for handling interactions in a diverse
undivided culture. I'm surprised I've never seen this before.

There WILL be disagreements and conflict because so many things are not
objective and there is no rational right answer. Guns, abortion, gender,
rights everything has a gambit of perfectly reasonable and acceptable
positions along its spectrum. Many of which are contrarian by nature.

We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are gone
or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures.

~~~
Arizhel
>We solve this dilemma in one of two ways. Blood and fire until 'they' are
gone or learning to live together despite having differing moral structures.

The first method is the only workable one. The second is impossible: many
peoples' morality absolutely requires that they impose their moral values on
everyone around them. So "learning to live together" would require living by
the moral codes of people you fundamentally disagree with.

Just as an example from your list: abortion. The pro-choice people would be
perfectly happy to have legal access to abortions, and for anti-abortion
people to simply not get any. That won't work for anti-abortion people, who
will insist on legislatively banning all abortions (to varying degrees, to be
fair). The only way to live peacefully with anti-abortion people is to simply
give up and let them ban abortion. This obviously is unacceptable to pro-
choice people. I can make similar arguments about many other moral positions,
such as whether women should be allowed to drive or not.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
Arizhel
Isn't that still the same as "blood and fire"?

Sure, you can just ignore the moralists you don't like, but what if they don't
go quietly? Then you have to use something stronger against them. With the
abortion issue for example, it's been a never-ending tug-of-war in politics,
with each side constantly working to change the makeup of the SCOTUS to either
maintain the status quo or to overturn it. While not an actual, physical
battle, it's been a constant political one, for decades now. It's never been
settled. And with the latest election, the "let's wait for them to die off"
idea obviously isn't working so well: the anti-abortion people are winning
politically (at least for now), so I reject the idea that the people with
strict religious moral codes are dying out. (Notice that, in the US at least,
it's religious people who typically have far more kids than non-religious
people.)

~~~
anigbrowl
No. Not everything has to be adversarial all the time. I'm trying to make a
general point, not comment on US politics in particular.

------
webnrrd2k
Its sounds more like the definition of a prosocial person, not reasonable. I
think there needs to be something in there about, say, enlightened self-
interest as it relates to the community, rather than simply asserting that
reasonable people think about the common good.

In the economic sense, a common approach is to model reasonable people as
trying to maximize their gain or utility, without much regard to the common
good.

~~~
matt4077
Sure... And Ayn Rand will therefore tell you let that child drown if it isn't
yours, you don't expect a reward, and rescuing it may get your shoes wet.

Which is why "the economic sense" must not be applied _unreasonably_.

There could be a better term maybe. "Average" may actually work, or "well-
adjusted". Maybe even "what would Benjamin Franklin Pierce (gen 50+) / Ted
Mosby (others) do"

~~~
oh_sigh
Would Ayn Rand really tell you that, or are you just making a caricature of
her beliefs?

If you are just making a caricature of her beliefs, is that what a reasonable
person would do?

------
danielvinson
This just feels to me like one of those things that seems great on paper, then
in practice requires a lot of things to line up to work as intended (like
Communism?).

I also really dislike the fact that the language used would be very hard to a
non-native English speaker, which makes me question how useful it is at
solving the problems it is obviously addressing (cultural differences, social
norms, etc.).

~~~
kbenson
I take a slightly different view of it, with mostly the same conclusion. When
something seems to require people be able to identify and self-regulate some
of the baser elements of human psychology, it's unlikely to to work in
practice. I contend that even the most reasonable and rational person will
have periods where they enter a state of unreasonableness and/or irrationality
that is impossible to identify while within said period.

~~~
maxander
I think it's precisely for those times that they have the fourth bullet-point;

> Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable.

------
Isamu
"The Reasonable Person Principle is part of the unwritten culture of CMU
computer science"

Hmmmm.

~~~
libria
How apt. Here is a principle that tries to define sane communication within a
community and espouses flexibility and understanding. A hyperliteral reading
of a statement that has a very reasonable interpretation (i.e., that it _has
been_ implicitly understood up to the point it was put to writing) is
precisely why things like this exist.

We are not debuggers and are expected to look beyond words and grasp intent.

~~~
Isamu
Hey, I didn't even get into the dissonance between "Everyone will be
reasonable" but then "Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being
reasonable."

~~~
libria
To be clear, I'm not addressing you specifically since you're clearly posting
out of humor. When someone composes a message with errors, we can engage 1)
the erroneous message or 2) the message without errors or 3) the meaning
behind the message. It's unfortunate how news aggregation boards with short-
lived posts - reddit, HN included - tend to reward slams at levels 1 & 2 when
the conversation should really start at level 3.

------
woodandsteel
I think one common reason people are not reasonable is they lack proficiency
in the needed social skills. I think books like Marshall Rosenberg's
Nonviolent Communication can be helpful here.

~~~
lliamander
Indeed. In my experience, unreasonableness in interpersonal contexts often
seems to stem from unmet emotional needs. Having the tools to deescalate the
situation and address those needs is critical to getting emotional arguments
back on to the rails of civil discussion.

------
SoylentOrange
In Canada, a lot of law is based on the "Reasonable Person Test". See
[http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Person_Test](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Person_Test)

------
shaneckel
I find this to be relatively true in my interactions here.

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

~~~
grigjd3
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.

~~~
tiglionabbit
This is about co-workers though, right?

------
grigjd3
I think a big part of the concept of a reasonable person is recognizing that
others have something to offer and giving them respect. Someone I very much
disagree with may have good points to be made and I should be open to that.
Now that said, I sometimes fail.

------
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...

------
anigbrowl
'Reasonable' doesn't mean relaxed or even nice. It means being guided by
reason, ie the application of logic to available evidence. Socrates was a
reasonable person, and his insistence on being so made him a lot of enemies.

It might be worthwhile to define this up front; this worthy advice seems to
rest on an implicit understanding of 'reasonable' as meaning 'considerate' or
'not rocking the boat.'

~~~
matt4077
The dictionary I just consulted lists your definition as "archaic".
"Reasonable" means (to a reasonable observer) a lot more than the ability to
think logically:

\- having sound judgement; fair and sensible: no reasonable person could have
objected.

\- based on good sense: it seems a reasonable enough request | the guilt of a
person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

\- archaic: able to reason logically: man is by nature reasonable.

2: as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate: a police officer may use
reasonable force to gain entry.

Thesaurus: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical,
fair, fair-minded, just, equitable, decent; intelligent, wise, level-headed,
practical, realistic; based on good sense, sound, judicious, well thought out,
well grounded, reasoned, well reasoned, valid, commonsensical, advisable, well
advised; tenable, plausible, feasible, credible, acceptable, admissible,
believable

~~~
anigbrowl
It's used every day in law courts.

------
stinkytaco
This brings to mind the Debian Code of Conduct #2. Assume good faith.

------
saycheese
Expecting everyone within a group to be reasonable is not reasonable.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
No, that's the thing, you all have to _expect_ them to be reasonable. They
know this, and its social pressure to _actually be reasonable_. That's how the
whole thing works. And then of course, you forgive someone who for whatever
emotional reason cannot be reasonable for some brief time. Because, all human.

~~~
ComodoHacker
And this expectation actually have to be _emotional_. Because, paradoxically,
human behavior is guided by emotions, not reason.

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

~~~
ryanmarsh
I don't know, does rational give way to pragmatic?

~~~
Spellman
Not necessarily depending on your priors

------
m3kw9
Reads like a blanket statement

------
kenning
I can't tell if this is satire.

~~~
metaphorm
the fact that you can't is itself an indicator as to what has happened in
American culture, in general.

~~~
benmcnelly
I can't tell if you are commenting on him being part of a clueless American
culture, in general, or that his quandary is because the aforementioned
culture problem.

~~~
metaphorm
yes

~~~
switchbak
That statement adds literally nothing to the conversation. Very much like your
parent statement.

If you're going to comment, can you at least try to inform or challenge
me/others?

~~~
metaphorm
comment I responded to asked a question in the form of "A or B". I evaluated
their question logically.

what do you think I owe you in terms of "informing or challenging" you? at
some point you'll have to actually interpret my comments yourself and figure
out what I meant. how explicit do I need to be?

we're talking about indicators that point to what has happened to American
culture and society. A comment expressing confusion as to whether or not
"behave like reasonable adults" is a satirical statement is quite revealing,
don't you think?

~~~
dwaltrip
An answer of "yes" to an A or B question is non-sensical and unproductive.

~~~
metaphorm
so what? a little non-sense is fun.

------
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.

~~~
NarcolepticFrog
I feel like you must be leaving part of the story out - you don't get arrested
for complaining...

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

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

~~~
strathmeyer
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.

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

