Skip to main content

Small considerations

There's an old bit of advice that says you should look at how your date treats the server at the restaurant to see how nice a person your date is.  I think you should probably get to know your date a little bit better, and use a slightly more nuanced approach, but ... I think the point is very valid.  How you treat those that are situationally below you, hierarchically, says a lot about you.

My larger thought here, though, is about small considerations in general.  By small considerations, I mean when you have to think about something minor, and take a minor act, in consideration of someone else.  Put the shopping cart where it goes, park in between the lines, walk on the sidewalk instead of the grass, hold the door for someone, respond to a greeting, put an item back on the shelf where you got it, stay in the flow of traffic instead of trying to pull in front of someone half a mile down the line, etc. 

What does it take for you to feel empowered to ignore those small considerations?  For some people -- absolutely nothing.  They (quite literally) don't consider others, especially in small spots.  These people are absorbed in their own business and it simply does not occur to them that they should consider others.  Almost everyone, though, has tipping points.

So here's my mini-thesis:  The level of your considerateness should be gauged based on how long you hold out against this feeling of entitlement.

So, let's throw out some hypos. 
Do you feel that anytime you have your children that entitles you to ignore what others might want?  (You don't have to stand in line, you don't have to be nice to the person bagging your groceries, you don't have to acknowledge the handicapped parking space, etc.)
Do you feel like if you are late to a social gathering, you can be rude?
What about if you had a bad day?  Does that excuse you from social niceties?
What about if someone is rude to you?  Does that excuse you being rude?  Does it justify it (meaning not that it won't be held against you, but it is actually RIGHT to be rude)?
How about online?  Can you blast someone online even if you wouldn't in real life?
If you are fighting with someone, should you have to consider the rest of your audience?  Your kids, your spouse, your friends, your neighbors, random passersby?
If you want to hear the radio AND feel the wind on your face, should you think of the people in the houses you are passing by?
If it's nighttime, how quiet should you try to be?  Should you carefully close the doors?  Should you turn the handles so that the click of the door closing is inaudible?
Should you consider your neighbor's schedule when determining when to mow your lawn?
Should you always carry an extra Wal-Mart sack when you walk your dog ... just in case?

Now, there are at least 2 different types of being considerate, and what I am here discussing encompasses both. The first is whether the issue actually occurs to you -- if you CONSIDER the problem.  The second is whether you take action to help others, or not.

So, my feeling on this is that you should try to maximize the first type of consideration by being very aware of the effects of your actions on other people -- not just how it would effect YOU, but how your behavior effects others.  Once you are aware, you should then go through some sort of value balancing based on whether the difficulty/cost of action is worth the benefit gained.

Doing the first part is, in some ways, a lot harder; you have to learn to constantly walk in others' shoes.  And the crappy part about it is that, once you actually do that, you don't have the "Well, sorry, I really didn't think about it" excuse anymore, so you end up making more work for yourself.

But (as my theory goes) it's worth it.  You feel better about yourself, and others like you more.  It's another example of the Broken Windows theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows), which I buy, in general.

A few end-of-post thoughts:  1) I don't do the level 2 considerate thing in all of the above hypos, and I wasn't trying to say that everyone should; 2) Yes, I'm a middle child; 3) This blog led me to another topic, so I'll post something on it next.  :-)

http:\\amusingbeam.blogspot.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno