少点错误 14小时前
Stop and check! The parable of the prince and the dog
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

本文针对John Wentsworth关于愤怒的讨论,强调在愤怒情绪下做出判断的风险。文章通过一个关于威尔士王子和忠犬的故事,说明了在没有核实事实之前就采取行动的危险性。作者提醒读者在面对愤怒时要停下来思考,避免因冲动而犯错。文章还提到了社会黑暗物质的概念,敦促读者在对有污名化特征的人表达愤怒之前,先进行理性的思考和核实。文章的目的是提供一个清晰的框架,帮助读者培养理性的行为习惯,避免不公正的判断。

🐶故事启示:威尔士王子因愤怒错杀忠犬,源于未查证事实。这故事警示我们在愤怒时,要先核实真相,再做行动,避免误判。

🤔社会黑暗物质:文章呼吁读者在面对被污名化的人时,要停下来思考。例如,在1950年代,家长不应立即谴责同性恋教师,而是应先核实是否存在犯罪行为。

🗣️自我辩护能力:在处理争议时,要考虑被指控者是否有自我辩护的能力。例如,自闭症患者、不熟悉当地语言的外国人,或弱势员工,都可能难以有效为自己辩护。避免因权力差异或沟通障碍而导致的不公正。

Published on July 12, 2025 5:45 PM GMT

This post is a response to John Wentsworth's recent post on Generalized Hangriness specifically as it applies outrage, an emotion that is especially likely to make false claims. I expect that some readers will find it obvious, but I hope others will find it useful to have the concept laid out clearly. My aim is to offer a reminder of why you should stop and check before acting on outrage, and also to provide a useful parable to explain to non-rationalists:

Once upon a time, a prince was exiled without attendants. He went to live in a cottage in the forest, alone except for his infant son and loyal dog[1]. One day, as he had on other days before, he left his dog to guard the baby and went alone into the forest to hunt for food. When he returned he found a horrifying scene: the child's crib had been overturned. Blood splattered the tangled bedclothes. The dog rushed to greet the prince, blood still dripping from its muzzle. The prince wailed in horror. The dog had eaten his son! The prince drew his sword and cut the dog's head from its neck with a single blow.

As the prince stood alone and horrified in the wreckage of the room the silence was broken by a baby's cry. The prince rushed to search. Under the overturned crib he found his son, alive and unharmed. Beside the crib was the body of a wolf, which had been hidden under the sheets. The prince's loyal dog had fought a wolf, all by itself, to defend the baby. And the prince had killed the dog for its loyalty.

The moral of the story[2] is that, no matter what crime someone has committed, no matter how outraged you feel, even if someone has eaten a baby, you check if they actually committed that crime before doing anything to them. 

As such, this is also a response to the post on Social Dark Matter: Duncan asks readers to stop and think before launching into socially-approved outrage against someone with a stigmatized trait. One of his examples is: what if you're a concerned parent in the 1950s who discovers that your child's teacher is actually gay. If you have already internalised the view that, whatever crime someone has apparently committed, you stop and check before punishing them for it, then it's not difficult to add an extra mental step where you consider whether the person has in fact committed a crime, or if you are making the same mistake as a 1950s parent who thought that gay = paedophile.

I am not an expert on installing new mental habits, and will defer to the CFAR handbook for techniques to do so. I remember that simply hearing the parable was enough to make me radically update my understanding of how to act skilfully; and I hope that at least some readers will have similar reactions.

 

  1. ^

    This is the legend of the Welsh Prince Llewelyn and his hound Gelert, and it's usually set in the prince's castle, but when I first heard it as a child, it was set in a lonely cottage, which makes more sense.

  2. ^

    The original moral. There is a second, much subtler, moral that emerges if you think about it: dogs can't talk. That is: the dog is incapable of defending himself against the prince's suspicion. The onus is on the prince to check. 

    Even when dealing with humans, if you want to behave justly, you should ask yourself to what extent the accused person is capable of defending themself. (I mean this in the widest context here: not just people investigating actual crimes but parents of naughty children, employers of allegedly bullying/harassing employees, etc.) 

    Maybe you have a situation where someone loudly outraged is accusing an autist who is too emotionally overwhelmed to defend themself. Maybe the 'villain' is a foreigner who doesn't even speak the local language. Maybe there's a power differential: a senior executive vs a shy junior employee. Whatever it is, if you have some responsibility for dealing with the situation, ask yourself if the person could defend themself even if innocent. Otherwise you are likely to end up perpetrating one of society's many miscarriages of justice.



Discuss

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

愤怒 真相 误判 理性 公正
相关文章