this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
70 points (100.0% liked)
[Migrated, see pinned post] Casual Conversation
3408 readers
12 users here now
We moved to [email protected] please look for https://lemm.ee/post/66060114 in your instance search bar
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible.
- Avoid controversial topics (e.g. politics or societal debates).
- Stay calm: Don’t post angry or to vent or complain. We are a place where everyone can forget about their everyday or not so everyday worries for a moment. Venting, complaining, or posting from a place of anger or resentment doesn't fit the atmosphere we try to foster at all. Feel free to post those on [email protected]
- Keep it clean and SFW
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In overwhelming majority of practical cases you can’t look under every nook and cranny. You must use the gut feeling in some way or another.
For example you can only tell if someone is sane and a good fit for you in relationship after like a year of living together yes? But you don’t get to have some kind of trial year or something you must use your gut feeling to tell if someone seems okay.
It’s very important thing in society as else nothing could ever be done in a reasonable amount of time. It fails sometimes though but that doesn’t mean it should be rejected as we literally cannot function without approximations and first glance judgments
It must suck to be at the anomaly end of this social heuristics and I sympathise but otherwise social algorithm would be of exponential complexity. Way too much for a limited lifespan of 80 years and even shorter kids making and dating window.
We cannot replace the heuristics but we can strive to make them better by education and knowledge.
In a typical trial of some kind, if I didn't have proof or couldn't get it, I would refuse to act in a way that had negative ramifications for everyone, not just use intuition as a tiebreaker. The last time I was consulted over a conflict, one person said another person scammed them via an art scam and the second person denied it. Knowing that, somehow, the first person did indeed lose what she said she lost, whether or not at the hands of a scam, I was more than glad to refill what they had lost out of my own pocket, especially as an alternative to interpreting what actually went on between them.
I think that is also a decision. In your ruling you punished yourself out of three options. That was viable then because the amount of money was small but if the money in question was millions of dollars it wouldn’t be feasible for the judge to pay out of pocket.
If it was millions of dollars, I would take no action whatsoever. It would still be preferable over purely intuitive decision-making.