1309
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
1309 points (97.6% liked)
Greentext
4437 readers
874 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well the discussion started off ok before ending in a rabies infested rant against humanity! Talk about going off the rails!
Anyhow, many people return the trolley so they don't look bad/feel guilty. That doesn't necessarily make them 'good' or 'civilised' and therefore fit into the 'being forced' category through peer pressure. Does that make them 'animals' and 'savages' too?
Here's the thing - most of the people who don't return their shopping carts don't even know that this is a test. If they did, their behavior would change. If you know about the test, it fundamentally voids the test. And that is what makes it valid. If there is no pressure, what do they do?
But the 'test' is peer pressure, no? Which exists permanently in real life so there will always be a portion of people only returning the cart because of that.
Goodharts law in action
Or you could just not judge strangers who are in a rush.
As God, I temporarily relieve the souls who are currently in a rush from the consequences of failing the shopping cart test. They will be tested again, however, using seemingly innocuous daily items to prove if they belong in the good place.
You can typically tell when someone is in the kind of rush that'd excuse being a jerk to others
Theres lots of reasons someone might feel or be incapable of following all of the social norms. Good and bad reasons. Since we can't know which is which at a glance its best to withhold judgment.
Although some cases are like 99% sure and you can totally judge their pants off all you want.
I feel like this was chosen specifically because it's one of those cases where it's easy to tell.
For instance, there was a Walmart next to a bus stop I used to take. People had to take their groceries to the bus, but Walmart didn't put a shopping cart corral within like 200 meters of it. I don't really blame people too harshly for leaving their carts there, if they're taking a big load of groceries on the bus.
Fwiw it's not that it's a social norm that is important, it's it's natural as a social good, and it's nature as something (typically) trivial to do.
Its neither a good or bad. It could be argued either way, which makes it a matter of opinion.
You even have cart returners here in this thread arguing to not return them in some cases.
The real answer is that whether you put a cart back or not says nothing about someone's character.
It's absolutely a good.
The only "cart returner" I saw against it basically just claimed that the people in their town/state/country were too incompetent to operate shopping carts (even if that's not what they explicitly said) so idk if i really trust them or want to use that as a measure.
Making work for others to save yourself some trivial amount of work absolutely says something about your character
I'm saying it doesnt rise to the level of determining if someone is a good or bad person. Besides the fact that noone is good or bad.
Who's Noone, and what makes them good or bad?
Exactly.
Let me put it another way:
They fail the vibe check
It's a red flag
Bad vibes and red flags don't mean for sure someone is a bad person, they're a call to be alert and suspicious.
That only applies if its someone in your social circle. You can follow up with them and ask why, learn about their struggles or stance on it.
With strangers you have none of that, just little glimpses into their life for a few seconds as they cross yours. When we are out in public it is very important to make quick judgments for safety, but this often is confused with moral judgment.
There are very few people in each persons social circle that they know well enough to judge morally. Strangers aren't close enough by a long shot.
With all this considered, I have to conclude its best to always give strangers the benefit of the doubt when personal safety isnt involved.
I'm concerned this post is showing people are coming to the opposite conclusion, that we now have this great new way to judge strangers we shouldnt be judging to begin with.
For complete strangers who you never see again, it doesn't matter if you judge them or not, you'll never see them again.
It's useful on aggregate to tell the general attitude of an area to set expectations for interacting with strangers.
But mostly what people are talking about is when you're getting to know someone. If you find out an acquaintance or romantic prospect does/doesn't then it's one (of many) indicators you can gather to build a model of them.
Remember, this isn't deep. This is intentionally super simple. There is no "struggle" involved that wouldn't be immediately apparent. There is very little room for nuance because there is very little to be nuanced about.
This is "given the chance, will this person spend a trivial amount of effort to make someone's life easier, if there is no personal gain?"
First, what absolute savage would take a new acquaintance or romantic interest grocery shopping and make a show out of leaving the cart? Thats absolutely a red flag.
Second, you are right that with strangers it won't matter if you judge them, but thats only true from their perspective. The way you think and carry on affects how you feel, its not a good idea to waste energy judging people in that way. It affects how you perceive and interact with the world essentially.
Maybe not 'good' per say but it actually does make them civilized. Regardless of motivation, they are being polite/courteous, which is the definition of being civilized
I'd argue that doing something because of peer pressure is different to being taught or learning to be considerate, so what looks like considerate behaviour from the outside, may just be e.g. avoidance of guilt/judgement. It doesn't necessarily equate to being civilized.
I mean, isn't that the reason a lot of people do stuff they don't necessarily want to do (at least in the moment), but do it because it's better for everyone in the long run?
No, I don't believe so. Some might, but I think many do it purely for the selfish reason of avoiding guilt etc. Just because you and I and many others see it as being good for everyone, I don't beleive that most people think the same! They may be able to describe the act of doing something for the benefit of all, just as we are discussing, and understand it, but otherwise only want whatever they want regardless of the impact on others. Humans are selfish, all of us are, it's an evolutionary tool for survival used by all life and helps ensure the survival of the species. Some of us regularly think beyond that though, but I reckon you'd be surprised how few do with any regulatory, it can become quite tiring to constantly assess situations afresh, so instinct kicks in and so people just do what they want in that moment that takes the least effort.
Maybe, but in addition it's like a social fabric/contract. I don't want carts everywhere dinging my car up or taking up spaces and because no one else wants that either we all (most of us) tacitly accept to return carts to avoid this problem.
Ah but is that not peer pressure? You and others don't want your cars damaged etc and therefore critisise people who leave carts around selfishly. This then creates a scenario where people may feel guilty or wish to avoid said critisism and put the cart away as a result.
I agree that social contracts exist, but only between those who accept them and are willing to make an effort for everyone and anyone. Those that do not return the cart are in effect rejecting that contract.
Living in a society requires you to accept some social contracts, it is not really a choice at some point.
To have 100% free will, not living in a society is a condition.
But then who are the criminals and 'bad' people if not those that have rejected the contract? Life is never all or nothing, so there will be times when someone will abide by the contract, for whatever reason, and times when they wont. This discussion centres on the times that they don't and assumes that is the option taken the majority of the time.
True, a society does demand sacrifice of free will, however it can be argued that there can never be 100% free will even if you're a hermit in a cave 100s of miles from another human. E.g. "I want to stay in my cave all day today, but I can't because I've run out of food." Hunger removes the free will for that period of time.