Cynical people like to call me naive, whenever I suggest how good or neutral intentions could have lead to a situation where they suspect malice. But naivety implies there would be no thought behind assuming best intentions, just lack of experience. And this is not the case.
Reason 1: I feel better
Would you rather live in a world where most people mean well, or in a world
where this is not the case? The same cynical people would laugh at this and
claim: you can’t just live in a fantasy world!
But here is the thing:
Reason 2: It Is Actually True
How many people do you know well enough, to actually gauge their true
intentions? Of those, how many have good intentions? I would guess the
majority. That is unfair, I carefully select my friends. The majority of
people is still bad!
But how do you know? Actually know? In fact, you don’t. Nobody does. We are all extrapolating. And I simply believe you will get a more accurate model, if you extrapolate from a (possibly biased) sample of people you actually know to the general population, than just believing in something. And most people (including me) should have plenty of margin left over to add some adjustment for the bias and still end up with a majority of good natured people.
That being said, I do not add this bias. In fact I just assume good intentions of anyone. Why? Because it is easier. A simple model is good. And…
Reason 3: It Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
If you assume malice, you tend to be combative, and if you are combative, people tend to respond in kind, which then confirm your initial assumptions. So this assumption is going to destroy your relationship with good natured people. Few people will make the effort to combat your assumptions about them to earn your respect.
If you instead start out with a high opinion of people, you are going to be nicer to them, which is going to be reciprocated. And they will also have something to lose: Your respect. Although that is the nuclear option.
There is nothing more exhausting than people who try to interpret what you say in the worst way possible. If you assume the best on the other hand, two normal people can have fearless discussions, because a small misstep is not going to result in an explosion mortally wounding your relationship.
Reason 4: Dealing With Truly Bad Actors
Assuming malice is also not helpful with truly bad actors. For example: Assume you are in a public discussion with someone who ends up using some sort of dog whistle. If you assume they are well-intentioned, you assume they did this by accident and would like to know about it, to avoid this mistake in the future. So you tell them nicely how this is a common dog-whistle and that they surely did not mean it that way, right? Right?
This way to react has multiple benefits:
- If they truly meant well, you are not offending them by assuming otherwise
- If they did not mean well, then you made the dog-whistle useless by forcing them to clarify in the end. The entire point of a dog-whistle is to cater to two audiences. You force them to choose one.
- You do not appear to be that crazy lunatic, which exploded over nothing to those people watching, which do not know that dog-whistle.
- You collect more data to accurately gauge their intentions
Of course you could be a cynic and just remember the mantra
- assume it was a mistake
- explain what is the problem
- ask to clarify
But your face and tone is going to betray you, if you do not truly believe it was a mistake. So you are not going to get the same effect.
Reason 5: It Is Making It Easier to Be Kind
It is much easier to be nice to good people, right? So assuming people are good, makes it easier to be nice. And I want to view myself as nice.
Summary
A positive image of people is not naive. It is pragmatic. And I just do not
want to be disappointed
is a really bad reason to make all your future
friends cross the razor wire of your distrust.