
The Platinum Rule - rg81
http://robertgreiner.com/2014/04/the-platinum-rule/
======
afarrell
The Platinum rule does however require that you know someone else's
preferences, which is harder when you are not married to them.

I default to treating people how my mental model of a "normal person" wants to
be treated. For example, most people in most circumstances want minimal
interaction with strangers. I then modify that by what I can vaguely infer
about their preferences based on their background. For example, women going to
be not just annoyed, but creeped out by random strangers. I then modify that
based on setting: at a conference, people are far more interested in meeting
new people. I then try to pay attention to their body language, tone of voice,
and words to see if I can read anything about them as an individual. If a
person looks alert and open-stanced, they are probably more interested in
meeting people. And of course, if it is non-awkward, I'll just ask them about
their preferences.

~~~
cheald
The idea behind DISC (as referenced in the article) is that there are four
behavioral axes, and that by learning to understand which a person ranks
highest and lowest on (via reading body language, speech patterns, expressed
preferences, etc), you can modify your behaviors in context to them in such a
way that the way you treat them is the way they want to be treated.

The core thesis of DISC is that there is not a "normal person" (even though we
intuitively think there is). Rather, there are normal archetypes of people,
and understanding those archetypes makes it easier to interact with them. You
assert that "most people in most circumstances want minimal interaction with
strangers", but this is wholly untrue (and indicates that you are a relatively
low "I", which is fairly typical of tech types). Some people actively seek out
interactions with strangers (strangers are just friends they haven't met
yet!), and understanding that makes it much easier to interact with and
communicate with them. High-I types actively seek and crave social
interaction. They may modify their behavior to the situation, but they are
most comfortable when they're socializing; in fact, the further someone's
adapted (environmentally-imposed) behaviors are from their natural (preferred,
given a lack of other constraints) behaviors, the unhappier they tend to be.
While it may be culturally verboten to strike up a conversation with the
person next to you on the subway, the high-I would like nothing better than to
chat about their day with the person next to them (and the low-I wants nothing
more than to be left alone).

Since there are only these four major attributes to learn, you can read people
that you don't know intimately - sometimes from across the room!

For example, if you can recognize a high "D" personality (which is frequently
easy to recognize, but also relatively rare), you will make them feel most at
ease by not having to be in charge of an interaction - behaving cooperatively
and deferentially will make it much easier for them to feel comfortable with
you than if you are attempting to be in charge. This doesn't mean to be a
doormat, but simply that if you can give up some non-critical control, they
will feel that the interaction is much more "natural".

By the same token, interacting with a low "D" requires you to step up and take
the reins. Being assertive and confident with a low D will result in a
smoother experience, because their natural tendency will be to be deferential
and unassuming, and it's actually more comfortable for them to be given some
direction and to have someone else make the decisions.

Think about the age-old "where do you want to go for lunch?" question. When
interacting with a high D, make suggestions, give input, offer opinions, but
try to let them make the decision. When interacting with a low D, you might
need to be the one to define the boundaries and make a decision about where
you're going to go. The high D doesn't like other people making decisions for
her, and the low D doesn't like having to be the one on which the decision
rests. Understanding that lets you interact smoothly with both of them, even
though they require diametrically-opposed approaches.

------
jerf
The "Platinum Rule" is already implied by the Golden Rule, unless you're
saying that you would normally _want_ people to ignore your preferences.

~~~
3pt14159
The "Platinum Rule" is wrong because it is impossible to follow. Even if my
ethicals _only_ included "do unto others as they want done to themselves" how
would I resolve two fighting men each asking for assistance in subduing the
other?

The reason the golden rule works is because it places you in the position of
the other. If I accidentally killed someone due to carelessness, I would want
myself to be imprisoned for some time.

~~~
afarrell
If you intentionally killed someone due to racial hatred, you also wouldn't
want yourself to be imprisoned for some time either. Nor if you recklessly
killed someone due to tiredness and a desire to get home earlier.

~~~
asavi
You wouldn't want someone else to kill you due to racial hatred, so that
immediately doesn't follow the Golden Rule.

~~~
afarrell
Indeed. My point is that both metallic rules are insufficient to address
conflicts with serious consequences. The only rule I know of which is both
simple and sufficiently broad to deal with any conflict is the Iron Rule: "The
strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must". Yet that is
utterly amoral.

------
logfromblammo
The problem with the platinum rule is that we have no clear and unambiguous
language for advertising how we would like to be treated.

In _This Alien Shore_, by C.S. Friedman, one planetary culture, the Guerans,
is essentially a human colony, but one where gestational biochemistry has been
mutated to the extent that every adult exhibits at least one type of human
mental disorder. They adapted by adopting a system of face markings so that
people don't make simple but potentially dangerous mistakes--like hugging
someone with an autism spectrum disorder, or holding eye contact too long
against someone with a dominance disorder.

The point is that you would really have to either put extensive research into
the preferences and personalities of everyone you know, or everyone would have
to write key information across their foreheads every day.

Our society, lacking a dire need, does not care to invest in that level of
effort and openness. It is far easier to follow the silver rule (don't do
things you don't like to others) and the golden rule (do for others what you
would like them to do for you), because those do not require extraordinary
knowledge of other people's preferences.

In the age of social network oversharing and augmented reality, perhaps we can
run an application that will superimpose another person's preferences over
their faces automatically. But for now, the platinum rule is going to be
pretty hard to use outside the bounds of your own family.

~~~
jrs235
"we have no clear and unambiguous language for advertising how we would like
to be treated"

Which is why being actively assertive is a good choice to make. Not sure how
someone wants to be treated then ask them. What if the don't want you to ask
them? Then they should have been actively assertive and wore a sign/shirt that
says "Don't ask". (I realize that doesn't help the blind). Also, perhaps we
should rephrase "how someone wants to be treated" to "how someone prefers you
to act toward them"?

~~~
logfromblammo
But that wastes time in comparison to the interactions of two people who both
subscribe to the same prenegotiated etiquette.

------
cheald
I actually used to work for a company that developed tools for administrating
and interpreting DISC assessments. It's actually really interesting stuff - we
all tend to have some assumption at some level that other people think like
us, value the same things that we do, and have the same reactions to a given
situation that we do. DISC asserts otherwise - just because I want to be
treated one way doesn't mean that you want to be treated that way, and by
understanding those differences, we can eliminate friction in communication.

Once you can learn to read how others want to be treated and know how to
modify your own interactions with them accordingly, your ability to
successfully interact with a wide variety of people vastly improves. It seems
obvious and handwavey, but in my experience, the vast majority of tense
relationships or awkward interpersonal interactions are because of a failure
of two people to understand each other. Even if they're both behaving in the
way they'd want to be treated, that doesn't mean that they're treating the
other person as they'd want to be treated.

~~~
rg81
I think you might enjoy Personal Styles and Effective Performance. It's a dry
read, but reinforces the things you discussed above.

[http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Styles-Effective-
Performance-...](http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Styles-Effective-Performance-
Merrill/dp/0801968992)

~~~
cheald
Heh, I suspect it's much of the same stuff I learned on the job. My former
employer's products centered around understanding behavioral styles (natural
vs adapted) and their impact on job performance and interpersonal
relationships. Super interesting stuff.

------
corry
To me the WHOLE POINT of the Golden Rule is that there ISN'T a whole bunch of
introspection / analysis / etc of the other person.

You just use yourself as the litmus test - i.e. "would I like this?" is
waaaaaay easier to answer than "would they like this?". The former is an
immediate gut-reaction; the latter requires a certain amount of empathy and
insight.

~~~
izzydata
Which is why the golden rule makes more sense for strangers and the platinum
rule makes more sense for people you know. (to some degree)

------
protonfish
This is a poor rule and I'll explain why.

In Reciprocal altruism
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism)
there must be a way to detect "cheaters" otherwise you will spend your life
breaking your back for others and have nothing to show for it except the
feeling of being abused. Sure, if everyone did it, that would be great. But
the more people who use the "Platinum Rule" the more advantageous it is for
some to abuse the system - criticizing others for not doing enough for them
while never doing a darn thing for anyone else.

If you follow this rule, you are a total sucker, but hey you live like you
want to live. It affects everyone else, however, because it creates an
environment where unethical bullies and liars can thrive and gain power.

~~~
mightybyte
I strongly disagree. The platinum rule as stated in the OP is not the same as
reciprocal altruism. In the example, he would not be reducing his fitness by
treating his wife like she wanted to be treated. Not all interpersonal
relations are a zero-sum game. Your position assumes that your preferences are
unambiguously best in all situations. I'm sure we all would like to think that
is the case, but that's a pretty arrogant attitude.

You can respect people and treat them the way they want to be treated without
being a sucker.

~~~
protonfish
I didn't want you to disagree with me!

~~~
mightybyte
Precisely my point! :)

~~~
protonfish
So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that
it represents a 0 sum game. A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but
means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or
she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she
thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated.

Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's
relationship.

~~~
mightybyte
> So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that
> it represents a 0 sum game.

The position is not hypocritical. It just doesn't expect that one should
mindlessly apply one rule in all situations. Life isn't that simple. People
aren't that simple. Also, hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether something
is zero-sum.

> A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above
> him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors
> wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat
> him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated.

This is a straw man. Proponents of this rule can easily apply it equally to
everyone regardless of authority or power. Doing so doesn't make one a sucker
because they can easily decide to stop applying the rule to a particular
relationship if it becomes apparent that the other party is using it to
bully/manipulate. Just because it's not a black and white thing doesn't mean
it's not egalitarian.

> Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's
> relationship.

Funny how you pay lip service to egalitarianism while revealing your actual
view of relationships to be far from equitable.

~~~
protonfish
That fact that people are mired in a constant struggle of dominance and
submission has very little to do with my own opinion of how things should be,
it simply reflects my observations of human social interaction. Honestly if
you see all human relations through the filter of pecking order, little of it
seems mysterious or complex. War, inequality, charity, abuse, politeness,
castes, genocide - they are all just displays of dominance and submission.

Hypocrisy is not required for something to be zero-sum, but it is a common
symptom. I said it was evidence, not proof. Zero-sum games always require a
winner and loser and therefore a double standard - what is good for one is not
good for the other. It's a stretch, I know. It's probably too weak to make a
good case for.

I don't think my argument is a straw man - I do believe that there is inherent
inequality (and therefore hierarchical jockeying) when one moves from the
treatment like oneself in the golden rule to the "special treatment" of the
platinum rule. Again, I can't think of a way to make a strong case for it at
this time.

I vehemently disagree with your claim that it is simple to stop this policy if
it is clear a person is abusing it. Because the test depends on the desires of
another person, and that cannot be measured, it is not easy to know if they
are being sincere or manipulative. Only after a many experiences could one
make that assessment and by then you have lost so much or worse, married them.

~~~
mightybyte
> I vehemently disagree with your claim that it is simple to stop this policy
> if it is clear a person is abusing it.

Ok, I'll give you that, having been in situations like that myself. Remove the
word easily from my above statement. So it's not always easy to stop applying
the policy, but I believe (at least in my life experience) that the benefits
of intelligent application of the platinum rule outweigh the costs imposed by
those who abuse it.

> Because the test depends on the desires of another person, and that cannot
> be measured, it is not easy to know if they are being sincere or
> manipulative. Only after a many experiences could one make that assessment
> and by then you have lost so much or worse, married them.

The test only depends on you. Applying the platinum rule depends on the
desires of the other person. But deciding when to stop applying it does not. I
firmly believe that you cannot effectively help other people unless you
yourself are healthy (not in just the medical sense, but the whole life
sense). So it's your job to decide on the application of the platinum rule
based on the dynamics of each relationship in question.

------
auggierose
I really hate putting people into these quadrants. As if that would be
possible. It is certainly not possible for me, so why should it be possible
for most other humans?

~~~
rg81
Interesting perspective. There is quite a bit of research on the subject and
most people typically have a dominant trait. Although, everyone can express
behaviors in any of the types at any time, we typically "default" to a single
one (sometimes two).

Have you taken a DiSC assessment? I find they are accurate for me and the
people I work with who have taken them - anecdotal I know.

~~~
chongli
The problem with these traits is that they're so broad and vague as to be
almost meaningless. Might as well use a horoscope!

------
davidw
Another way to look at the two types of behavior is "maximizing" vs
"satisficing":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing)

This is covered here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice)

------
vkjv
"Do unto others as they would like done unto them." Is a pretty common
restatement of the Golden Rule. While I agree with your premise, there's no
reason to rename it.

~~~
rg81
I think you have a point here. I was just using what Tony Alessandra already
made popular:
[http://www.alessandra.com/abouttony/aboutpr.asp](http://www.alessandra.com/abouttony/aboutpr.asp).

------
sneak
I don't like this because, as a massive weirdo with an above-average level of
control over my own emotions, the golden rule basically gives me a free pass.

------
ASneakyFox
Myers briggs, this dcis thing, astrology, meh. All gobly gook. People dont fit
in to easy clearly definable categories. People dont make decisions based off
of clearly definable categories (even if they did exist, they're not
relevant). So its all silly to even talk about.

------
peteretep
Massive apologies in advance for my immature nature, but who on earth let a
quadrant for describing human behaviour that spells out "dicks" get past copy
editing? I can it describe all people? If so, I guess that means all people
are...

~~~
herge
It's supposed to be read in a clockwise fashion. Also, in the theory, the
archetypes have the hardest time working with the archetype that is directly
across from it, so there is a reason for the graphical representation.

