Assumptions on Motives
In a recent post on Priorities an anonymous commenter said,
"One should never assume he knows the questioner's motive by the content of the question."
To which i replied in the next comment, "Fair enough."
After some additional thought I'm adding a bit to my response.
Fair enough. However it's good to keep in mind that Everyone Always assumes he knows the questioners motive, not matter the content of the question.
There is always an assumption. It might be more or less correct. It might be way off-base. But there is always an assumption.
We may assume the motives of someone speaking to us are benign, or we may assume that the speaker is "on our side", but there is always an assumption.
Assumptions aren't absolutely evil and neither are those who make them. We make assumptions to survive. For better or for worse, assumptions are always with us.
"One should never assume he knows the questioner's motive by the content of the question."
To which i replied in the next comment, "Fair enough."
After some additional thought I'm adding a bit to my response.
Fair enough. However it's good to keep in mind that Everyone Always assumes he knows the questioners motive, not matter the content of the question.
There is always an assumption. It might be more or less correct. It might be way off-base. But there is always an assumption.
We may assume the motives of someone speaking to us are benign, or we may assume that the speaker is "on our side", but there is always an assumption.
Assumptions aren't absolutely evil and neither are those who make them. We make assumptions to survive. For better or for worse, assumptions are always with us.
Labels: Systems Thinking
posted by mark at
6:07 PM
2 Comments:
I guess we'll just assume that you're correct about this. :)
I actually believe that assuming is hard wired into us. I was reading Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" a couple of weeks ago, and something he asserted got me thinking along these lines. Assuming someone's, (or somethings) motives in action, or by association, speech, is a necessary trait in "survival of the fittest". The example he gives is one of "assuming" the intentions of a nearby prowling tiger. His assertion was that the creature that could assume, or anticipate, the actions of the tiger was more likely to survive. If there is some truth to this, (which is pure speculation), it could go a long way to our leaning towards assuming motives in our dealings with others. Or I could be full of crap. :-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home