Assume positive intent
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...
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.
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...):
> 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.”
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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 :).
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...
> 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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One of Wikipedia's main behavior guidelines is a fairly similar idea, "Assume good faith": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
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:
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...
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.
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.
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.
> 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 :)
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.
Looks to me, the winning strategy. Various strategies around trust have been very nicely gamified here: http://ncase.me/trust/
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.
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.
This is also known as the principle of charity:
OK, so I am guessing they stopped arguing during that meeting, but what was the resolution for the project? Did it get completed?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
...said the Wolf to the Three Little Pigs.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.