Ah, an avalanche of thoughts that apply to heuristics in general...
yes, it is also my experience that this is a useful heuristics
but there are exceptions
and when this becomes widely known, of course the bad actors will adapt and say the right things
The most useful example for this heuristics is when people say things like “everyone is selfish” etc. For example:
Brent promoted a cynical version of the world, in which humans were inherently bad, selfish, and engaged in constant deception of themselves and others. He taught that people make all their choices for hidden reasons: men, mostly to get sex; women, mostly to get resources for their children. Whenever someone outside Black Lotus made a choice, Brent would dissect it to reveal the hidden selfish motivations. Whenever someone outside Black Lotus was well-respected or popular, Brent would point out (or make up) ways that they were exploiting those weaker than them for their own benefit. This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. One interviewee identified this ideology as the worst harm of Black Lotus, more than sexual boundary violations or being coerced into taking drugs. It took a long time to rebuild their ability to trust and have faith in other people.
The opposite extreme is naive people who assume that everyone is trying their best, and if there is a dysfunction somewhere, it must be because somehow no one has ever approached those people and told them “uhm, could you please do the right thing?”. If we do that, certainly the problems will get fixed! (Similar pattern: naive religious people who assume that others are atheists simply because they have never heard of this book called Bible.)
Problem is, sometimes people happen to be surrounded by a statistically unrepresentative sample of population. Young people may overgeneralize examples from their family, rather than from themselves. I suspect that there are many kids who e.g. happen to have an abusive father, so they generalize “all men are abusive”, because (1) they have no idea how it works in other families, and it makes sense to assume that all other families also keep secret about what happens at home, and (2) it is too painful to admit that it’s your family that happens to suck.
One thing that I hate about this heuristics is that it discourages learning. Like, suppose that you start like the naive kind of person who assumes that everyone always tries their best to help others. Then you get burned, because you happen to meet a predator who specializes on this kind of victims. Afterwards you try to share your lesson with other people in a similar situation… but they incorrectly apply this heuristics to you and conclude that you are the bad guy. (Incorrectly: you say “some people are evil”, not “all people are evil”. But to them it sounds similar.)
Then there is the usual thing about bad actors being anti-inductive. As soon as it becomes known that good people assume the best and bad people assume the worst, smart scammers will adapt their stories, and will weaponize this heuristics against anyone who suspects them or just advises caution in general. (Just like they have already adapted to heuristics such as “sincere people will look in your eyes, the insincere will avoid looking at you because they feel ashamed” by taking care to look straight in your eyes when they are trying to scam you.)
...and despite all objections that I just made, it is a useful heuristics (as long as you remember the exceptions).
Ah, an avalanche of thoughts that apply to heuristics in general...
yes, it is also my experience that this is a useful heuristics
but there are exceptions
and when this becomes widely known, of course the bad actors will adapt and say the right things
The most useful example for this heuristics is when people say things like “everyone is selfish” etc. For example:
The opposite extreme is naive people who assume that everyone is trying their best, and if there is a dysfunction somewhere, it must be because somehow no one has ever approached those people and told them “uhm, could you please do the right thing?”. If we do that, certainly the problems will get fixed! (Similar pattern: naive religious people who assume that others are atheists simply because they have never heard of this book called Bible.)
Problem is, sometimes people happen to be surrounded by a statistically unrepresentative sample of population. Young people may overgeneralize examples from their family, rather than from themselves. I suspect that there are many kids who e.g. happen to have an abusive father, so they generalize “all men are abusive”, because (1) they have no idea how it works in other families, and it makes sense to assume that all other families also keep secret about what happens at home, and (2) it is too painful to admit that it’s your family that happens to suck.
One thing that I hate about this heuristics is that it discourages learning. Like, suppose that you start like the naive kind of person who assumes that everyone always tries their best to help others. Then you get burned, because you happen to meet a predator who specializes on this kind of victims. Afterwards you try to share your lesson with other people in a similar situation… but they incorrectly apply this heuristics to you and conclude that you are the bad guy. (Incorrectly: you say “some people are evil”, not “all people are evil”. But to them it sounds similar.)
Then there is the usual thing about bad actors being anti-inductive. As soon as it becomes known that good people assume the best and bad people assume the worst, smart scammers will adapt their stories, and will weaponize this heuristics against anyone who suspects them or just advises caution in general. (Just like they have already adapted to heuristics such as “sincere people will look in your eyes, the insincere will avoid looking at you because they feel ashamed” by taking care to look straight in your eyes when they are trying to scam you.)
...and despite all objections that I just made, it is a useful heuristics (as long as you remember the exceptions).