I guess I’d recommend viewing the situation through multiple frames. For example:
- How does the situation appear from a maximally generous point of view? - How does the situation appear from a maximally suspicious point of view? - After consideration, what is the best overall point of view? Is it one or the other or a combination of both?
Perhaps this is already what you meant, but even if it is, I think there are benefits to being explicit
In additional to multiple human/agent points of view, it’s worth going a little further down the “ignore intent” path, to consider the situation as purely environmental. It doesn’t matter that these are humans or what they want or how they appear—is this good for you? If not, go elsewhere.
Note that this is intended as an extension of “viewing through multiple lenses”, not a recommendation that this should be primary.
I guess I’d recommend viewing the situation through multiple frames. For example:
- How does the situation appear from a maximally generous point of view?
- How does the situation appear from a maximally suspicious point of view?
- After consideration, what is the best overall point of view? Is it one or the other or a combination of both?
Perhaps this is already what you meant, but even if it is, I think there are benefits to being explicit
In additional to multiple human/agent points of view, it’s worth going a little further down the “ignore intent” path, to consider the situation as purely environmental. It doesn’t matter that these are humans or what they want or how they appear—is this good for you? If not, go elsewhere.
Note that this is intended as an extension of “viewing through multiple lenses”, not a recommendation that this should be primary.
I’m imagining seeing a community that has a ‘wall of shame’ with uneditorialized communication from people who have grievances against the community.