Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (68563)	11/26/2002 9:00:57 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Many people on SI confuse not having their expectations met, with being duped. They are two different things. If you are wedded to your expectations, you will be disappointed in life. Where can we lay the blame for people who are very invested in their expectations? Genetics? Nurture? Probably some of both. I should give an example. I'll use you and me. If tomorrow you, the alias CH, suddenly goes ballistic on me, and if you begin to taunt me for some reason, I could be unhappy, because my expectation was that you would not do that. Why would I cherish such expectations, of you, or anyone on SI though? Better not to. But most people DO cherish those kinds of expectations, and lots of 'em, and many of them are pretty complicated and demanding- to wit, Neo's run in with JLA when Neo didn't act in accordance with JLA's expectations. Happens all the time here. Now the question is, for me, why do people have such a need for expectations on a place like SI?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (68563)	11/26/2002 9:14:25 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have had bank tellers tell me practically their life story and be very personable. One lady, whom I had never seen before, is a decendant of Brigham Young a founder of the Mormon religion, blah blah. Other tellers at the same bank don't even make eye contact. There is lots of odd behaving people in the world. I see your point about assessing whether or not a person has been negligent in performing as a reasonably responsible person. But, that wasn't the question. We could nit pick various scenarios until the end of the world and find plenty of disagreement about what should, could, or would be the case in each.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (68563)	11/26/2002 9:33:45 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I can agree that responsibilty can be based either on informed choice or on action where there was no realistic expectation that the person should have known. OK me too, we have a starting point. on the informed deceitful actor and not on a person where there was no realistic expectation to have knowledge of the deceit. "if the dupe is NOT informed AND didn't irresponsibly close his eyes to what was going on around him,..." ooops. I sort of agree but am uncomfortable using the word "irresponsibly." Since we are trying to determine where responsibility lies in a transaction involving deceit, the word irresponsibility is kind of a redundant Duh. I prefer to say that if the person made an informed choice to avoid reasonable expectations then he has responsibility for the outcome. "...the UPS guy is innocent... Definitely. "But back to the very origins of this discussion, there is no equivalent situation on SI. Everybody on SI should be taking some care, should be wary. There are no true dupes on SI. Anybody here who gets duped is at least partly responsible for being duped." That was the origins of this? hmmm...no wander you and X have taken a defensive posture on it. I wasn't thinking of it that way. I agree that there are varying degrees of dupiness on SI and that especially on the Boxing Rings people have some responsibility for caution. I will never agree that the responsibility of a deceiver and a trusting dupe are equal. The deceiver, in fact, is usually proud of his accomplishments to the degree that he can own responsibility for the outcome (as in most interactions where deceit is employed). Some times it is two way, some times not. Kholt coined the term "reverse smoke blowing" which would put the responsibility for deceit on the person complaining about an action, event, or consequence. Smoke blowing and reverse smoke blowing are both common on this thread.