this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
70 points (96.1% liked)

Asklemmy

44152 readers
748 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Important for what? Are oranges better than pumpkins?

[–] counselwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

maybe intentions behind the action rather than the perception of the action itself.

An extreme example would be in the latest episode of My Adventures with Superman (great show, slight spoilers), Superman saves an invisible man from getting hit from a truck by stopping the truck and causing a traffic accident.

The intention was to save a guy, the perception of the people was that he caused an accident for no reason (because the guy he saved was invisible).

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, gotcha. I thought OP meant as personal traits, which didn't make sense as I don't see how someone's abilities or skills to perceive the world can be compared to what they want to do.

To answer, in your case, I'd say intention is more important

[–] Samihazah@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that you misinterpreted what OP meant leans toward perception though.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

I also found the misunderstanding funny in context, however note there was a productive conversation out of it in which I managed to understand their intention.

If intention had no importance I don't think I would have bothered.

[–] cubedsteaks 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, this is what I meant.

[–] cubedsteaks 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

oh, it says in the sidebar the question has to be open ended so I didn't think I could explain it further? I also kind of assumed it had to fit in the title only.

But I meant socially. I often see rhetoric stating that its more important how people perceive what you're saying, as opposed to how you intended to have it sound.

The person who responded to you gave a great example too.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohh a totally different spin then, thoughts are not the same as actions. For me intention wins, however it falls flat it nobody can understand you. So I can see why the counterargument has weight.

[–] cubedsteaks 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, how I often see it described is that, even if you didn't intend for something to sound bad - if someone else perceives it as bad, then you just messed up.

I've seen this in a few different places online and it made me think but then I was at work and saw it mentioned in an anti-sexual harassment training video. That kind of made me realize this is like, the new ideology being pushed. At least where I am anyway.

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you, I think it's dangerously stupid to push that idea if you don't also make an emphasis on trying to understand the other person. Empathy goes both ways, saying perception is the only thing that matters sounds like a cheap and selfish way to avoid a real conversation.

It's like when people don't speak your language and accuse you of insulting them even though they have no idea - and worse yet no intention on their part- of ever finding out what you were saying.

[–] cubedsteaks 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Empathy goes both ways, saying perception is the only thing that matters sounds like a cheap and selfish way to avoid a real conversation

Yes! It seemed very one sided to me. Especially after seeing it in a training video, where I get it and it made sense but I couldn't help but think, doesn't this mean someone can just misinterpret something and then run wild with that because that's how they perceived it?

[–] Mothra@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

That does happen too... I guess it boils down to the common sense of those involved, more reasonable people would work out their differences whilst unbalanced ones not so much.

You also have the extra complexity legal loopholes and cultural differences in a work environment so I can understand why a company would be pushing for interpretation/perception more than intention.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] rando_nneur@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me it is definitely perception. There is a German saying which goes:

Gut gemeint ist nicht gut gemacht.

Which literally translates to β€žwell intended is not well doneβ€œ and I agree

[–] cubedsteaks 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

ohh you even have a saying for it!

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So does English - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] funkajunk@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

The Germans have a saying for everything!

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly, intent. The issue is that another person's intent can't ever truly be known. All you have is your perception of their intent.

But I weigh my perception of someone's intent more than I weigh their outcomes

My immediate thought when I read the post title was of the old subreddit, r/thedonald. The intent was to be a place to sarcastically post "pro Trump" memes to make fun of him and his supporters. The outcome was that it was removed by reddit for being filled with Nazis and hate speech when actual Trump supporters just took over, flooded it with hate and racism.

I don't think one can ever really actually know intent, really, but knowing what a person states as their intent can be interesting. I just don't think it actually matters very much. Outcomes are what actually change things and affect other people.

[–] StThicket@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

It's an art not to be judgmental. I always try to see beyond the reception, and give people the benefit of doubt. My reasoning is that most people inherently wants to do good, but sometimes makes mistakes or misjudge the situation. .

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think intention is more important, but perception of your intentions can have just as drastic consequences.

And of course just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you're doing the right thing.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

The question is flawed.

When dealing with others, there is only perception. Even if I really try to understand their intention and they really try to communicate their intention, all I will ever have is my perception based on my understanding of what they tried to convey.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Only you know what your true intention is, perception is how the world sees you.

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like we're talking about a speech act.

If the question is intention vs. perception, intention all the way. Perception of a speech act should track the intent of the speaker, otherwise the perception has failed.

There are of course ways a person can make their intention clearer, particularly by following rules/norms of communication, and a person receiving or processing that communication should also utilize understanding of those rules to interpret (to properly perceive) the information.

But if both parties are doing their level best to clearly encode and decode the information, but the perceived message varies from the intended one, which one is closer to the truth? Intention. And over the long term truth wins out.

[–] Risk@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

With this argument it puts the burden of understanding on the listener. That's like saying it's little kids fault for not understanding the teacher.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perception is subjective, intention less so, intention takes priority for me

[–] cubedsteaks 2 points 1 year ago

totally agree that perception is subjective.

[–] MadMenace@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are both equally important. However, we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior. Considering this, I think it's important to continually try and understand the intentions of others, and consider how our actions might be interpreted by others.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Perception.

All we can go on really is how we perceive others actions (or what they say) and the intent that we can gather from what they do (or say).

And all of this runs through our filters of past experience and what we've perceived others intents to be in relation to the things they've done (or said).

For example: I'm really quick to pick up on people using emotionally abusive/manipulative language or acting in abusive/manipulative ways, this is because I've (unfortunately) had so much experience with abusive/manipulative people. I've spotted it incredibly early in relationships, not only my own but the relationships of others. People don't like getting called out on it, and people really don't like it getting called out when they don't see it in their friends or partners.

"They're not like that with me."

"They're only like this sometimes."

"Well I did kinda deserve it."

I call it out when I see it, because abusive and manipulative behavior left unchecked will only fester.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Saigonauticon@voltage.vn 5 points 1 year ago

Perception. Everyone knows what they think they heard you say. Very few people are privy to why you said it. The perception of what you did has a far greater reach than the intention, and is therefore the more important thing to control. This was as true in antiquity history as it is today -- although the Internet certainly amplifies this effect.

Did Nero really fiddle while Rome burned? Did Marie Antoinette really say "Let them eat cake"? All that matters is public perception.

Machiavelli covers a lot of things like this very well, I feel he's unfairly maligned -- most of The Prince is ethically-neutral and practical leadership advice.

[–] C4d@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Better if you can achieve consistency in both.

What’s your context? Is this a theological question? A legal question? A political question?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Intention tells everything about you and perception tells basically nothing

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you arrive at someone’s intention other than by perception?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] schmurian@lsmu.schmurian.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe ask Paul Watzlawick. Or since he died in 2007, you can read one of his very entertaining books.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί