from Hacker News

The Platinum Rule

by rg81 on 4/23/14, 12:52 PM with 44 comments

• by afarrell on 4/23/14, 2:19 PM

  The Platinum rule does however require that you know someone else's preferences, which is harder when you are not married to them.

  I default to treating people how my mental model of a "normal person" wants to be treated. For example, most people in most circumstances want minimal interaction with strangers. I then modify that by what I can vaguely infer about their preferences based on their background. For example, women going to be not just annoyed, but creeped out by random strangers. I then modify that based on setting: at a conference, people are far more interested in meeting new people. I then try to pay attention to their body language, tone of voice, and words to see if I can read anything about them as an individual. If a person looks alert and open-stanced, they are probably more interested in meeting people. And of course, if it is non-awkward, I'll just ask them about their preferences.

• by logfromblammo on 4/23/14, 3:32 PM

  The problem with the platinum rule is that we have no clear and unambiguous language for advertising how we would like to be treated.

  In _This Alien Shore_, by C.S. Friedman, one planetary culture, the Guerans, is essentially a human colony, but one where gestational biochemistry has been mutated to the extent that every adult exhibits at least one type of human mental disorder. They adapted by adopting a system of face markings so that people don't make simple but potentially dangerous mistakes--like hugging someone with an autism spectrum disorder, or holding eye contact too long against someone with a dominance disorder.

  The point is that you would really have to either put extensive research into the preferences and personalities of everyone you know, or everyone would have to write key information across their foreheads every day.

  Our society, lacking a dire need, does not care to invest in that level of effort and openness. It is far easier to follow the silver rule (don't do things you don't like to others) and the golden rule (do for others what you would like them to do for you), because those do not require extraordinary knowledge of other people's preferences.

  In the age of social network oversharing and augmented reality, perhaps we can run an application that will superimpose another person's preferences over their faces automatically. But for now, the platinum rule is going to be pretty hard to use outside the bounds of your own family.

• by jerf on 4/23/14, 1:57 PM

  The "Platinum Rule" is already implied by the Golden Rule, unless you're saying that you would normally want people to ignore your preferences.

• by cheald on 4/23/14, 2:18 PM

  I actually used to work for a company that developed tools for administrating and interpreting DISC assessments. It's actually really interesting stuff - we all tend to have some assumption at some level that other people think like us, value the same things that we do, and have the same reactions to a given situation that we do. DISC asserts otherwise - just because I want to be treated one way doesn't mean that you want to be treated that way, and by understanding those differences, we can eliminate friction in communication.

  Once you can learn to read how others want to be treated and know how to modify your own interactions with them accordingly, your ability to successfully interact with a wide variety of people vastly improves. It seems obvious and handwavey, but in my experience, the vast majority of tense relationships or awkward interpersonal interactions are because of a failure of two people to understand each other. Even if they're both behaving in the way they'd want to be treated, that doesn't mean that they're treating the other person as they'd want to be treated.

• by corry on 4/23/14, 3:35 PM

  To me the WHOLE POINT of the Golden Rule is that there ISN'T a whole bunch of introspection / analysis / etc of the other person.

  You just use yourself as the litmus test - i.e. "would I like this?" is waaaaaay easier to answer than "would they like this?". The former is an immediate gut-reaction; the latter requires a certain amount of empathy and insight.

• by protonfish on 4/23/14, 3:36 PM

  This is a poor rule and I'll explain why.

  In Reciprocal altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism there must be a way to detect "cheaters" otherwise you will spend your life breaking your back for others and have nothing to show for it except the feeling of being abused. Sure, if everyone did it, that would be great. But the more people who use the "Platinum Rule" the more advantageous it is for some to abuse the system - criticizing others for not doing enough for them while never doing a darn thing for anyone else.

  If you follow this rule, you are a total sucker, but hey you live like you want to live. It affects everyone else, however, because it creates an environment where unethical bullies and liars can thrive and gain power.

• by auggierose on 4/23/14, 3:31 PM

  I really hate putting people into these quadrants. As if that would be possible. It is certainly not possible for me, so why should it be possible for most other humans?

• by davidw on 4/23/14, 3:21 PM

  Another way to look at the two types of behavior is "maximizing" vs "satisficing":

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

  This is covered here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice

• by vkjv on 4/23/14, 4:26 PM

  "Do unto others as they would like done unto them." Is a pretty common restatement of the Golden Rule. While I agree with your premise, there's no reason to rename it.

• by sneak on 4/23/14, 6:35 PM

  I don't like this because, as a massive weirdo with an above-average level of control over my own emotions, the golden rule basically gives me a free pass.

• by ASneakyFox on 4/24/14, 8:39 AM

  Myers briggs, this dcis thing, astrology, meh. All gobly gook. People dont fit in to easy clearly definable categories. People dont make decisions based off of clearly definable categories (even if they did exist, they're not relevant). So its all silly to even talk about.

• by peteretep on 4/23/14, 3:39 PM

  Massive apologies in advance for my immature nature, but who on earth let a quadrant for describing human behaviour that spells out "dicks" get past copy editing? I can it describe all people? If so, I guess that means all people are...