I don’t get how the articles “back you up” in this point
You’re almost insisting on talking to the people on a situation you know might negatively affect them and where they are stuck in the situation and that just seems odd.
That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.
Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.
Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?
If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
I’m not ignoring possibility of good things. I just don’t think it’s worth gambling that there’s a negative outcome. If you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free ro talk to you. I just wouldn’t want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.
So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?
If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.
if you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free eo talk to you
Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?
I just wouldn’t want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.
You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.
You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.
I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.
Would you care to address any of the articles with research and numbers that I claim back me up?
I see you don’t understand the mindset. I don’t believe you are trying to.
I don’t get how the articles “back you up” in this point
What do the articles have to do with that?
That’s because you haven’t read them.
They have to do with the positive outcomes, which you continue to ignore, or treat as inconsequential.
A small chance of a negative outcome does not generally outweigh a good chance of a positive outcome.
You insist on mischaracterizing my position. Asking somebody a question ir two is hardly as insisant as you keep making it out to be.
To you
So you’re just gambling on their feelings, did I understand that correctly?
I suppose so.
And you have no notion about gambling theory or risk reward whatsoever? Am I inferring that correctly?
I don’t want to make anyone’s day worse. Gambling on someone else’s feelings just seems icky to me.
That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.
Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.
Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?
If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
If you are, what about $100? What about 10$?
I’m not ignoring possibility of good things. I just don’t think it’s worth gambling that there’s a negative outcome. If you don’t do anything it won’t cause anything negative and they’re still free ro talk to you. I just wouldn’t want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.
So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?
If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.
Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?
You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.
You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.
I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.