Important for what? Are oranges better than pumpkins?
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).
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.
Questions have to be open ended in the sense that there's room for people to individually have their own responses to leave and contribute to discussion. Basically, this isn't a forum for questions that have a specific answer. Don't ask how to change a tire or what temperature to cook pizza rolls at.
In such a scenario perception is important.
If I say something that makes you sad, it doesn’t matter that I didn’t mean to make you sad, I still hurt you.
For me it is definitely perception. There is a German saying which goes:
Gut gemeint ist nicht gut gemacht.
Which literally translates to „well intended is not well done“ and I agree
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.
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. .
It really depends on what the context of the judgement is. For instance, if a politician accidentally makes a racist statement, the intent ends up mattering very little in terms of reputation compared to perception, while on the other hand, intent is often weighed pretty highly in criminal cases, where the intent of the individual is significant in determining an appropriate punishment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not quite saying that.
What I'm saying is that communication is a burden upon the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader. The encoder and the decoder. But any way you look at it, the goal is to communicate (on the part of the encoder) and discern (on the part of the decoder) the intent of the communication act. It's not about fault or responsibility when communication fails, but what's more important in understanding a communication act.
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.
Perception is subjective, intention less so, intention takes priority for me
totally agree that perception is subjective.
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.
Very well said.
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.
I call it out when I see it, because abusive and manipulative behavior left unchecked will only fester
I also try to call it out when I see it but no one seems to listen to me.
Better if you can achieve consistency in both.
What’s your context? Is this a theological question? A legal question? A political question?
a social question. I often hear that it is more important how people perceive what is being said, as opposed to what the intention of what was being said.
In that sense, I think it would be difficult to have consistency in both. Where I live, a lot of people think that how something is perceived is more important.
All I can say is that the greater the gap between what is intended and what others perceive, the more difficult things can become.
Politics (even family politics) is full of this stuff.
In some legal contexts intent really matters.
But intention can only ever be inferred (unless bluntly stated) you could argue that if people generally aren’t willing or able to examine things too closely, then perception becomes everything.
Intention ain't shit. Deontology is bankrupt.
Only actions count. Results, if you can get them, but the future is always uncertain.
Neither can you control what people think of you. You only have control over your own decisions.
You're not answering the question. Actions have intentions, and they are also perceived a certain way by others.
"You only have control over your own decisions"
So intention is more important? Your decisions result in an intention for a certain action.
My answer is that neither intention nor perception are the most important. Intention, after all, is just your personal, internal perception. Only the actual action matters; not how it is perceived, not how one meant it to be perceived.
Maybe ask Paul Watzlawick. Or since he died in 2007, you can read one of his very entertaining books.
Intent isn't magic. We aren't mind readers, so literally the only way to know what you intend is if you literally say it.
The most important things in life always have some element of intent.
Take marriage for example. It’s the most important decision of your life, you’re choosing who would amount as a co-proxy with you. Are you really going to let perception have power over validation? Imagine living in a culture that doesn’t allow interracial marriage and you’re discovered to be living with someone of another race. Would you accept society’s rejection of the notion you enjoy their company?
Take last wills and testaments as another example. Imagine dying, giving your last commands while on your deathbed, and some kid in the family is like “I’m going to run this by the whole neighborhood”.
Or I’ll put it another way: if perception is good, there wouldn’t be so many people here who say they dislike/denounce Wikipedia in arguments like this since Wikipedia is built on unspecific mass perception.
Holy fuck that's one hell of a comment section. I've seen my fair share of tankies but that's insane.
My thoughts exactly. That just about explains Lemmy's first two million new members in its first month.
I know this is a few days old, but thinking about it again, I'm reminded of this clip I saw from Orange is the New Black. To summarize, the clip is a flashback to explain how Suzanne ("Crazy Eyes") wound up in prison. She's an autistic woman whose sister/caretaker leaves her alone for a weekend, without arranging alternative care, to go on a vacation. She befriends a child, who she seems to connect with easily as they are on a similar mental level, and the kid follows her home to hang out and play video games. After the child says it's time for him to go home, she becomes upset, blocking the front door to prevent him leaving. He attempts to call 911 and she grabs the phone and hangs up, confused, telling him that he should only call 911 for emergencies. Panicked, the child attempts to crawl out a window to escape, accidentally falling to his death.
What would you say is more important here, intention or perception? I think it depends on who you are. For the child's parents, perception matters more. Their child is dead. That Suzanne didn't intend for it to happen is of little consolation. For Suzanne, maybe intention matters the most. For the courts, both matter; she's proven herself unsafe to be around to the public, yet the fact she didn't intend to cause harm is supposed to be taken into account too, perhaps for lighter sentencing. In a better world, she would be given help instead of incarcerated because of her intention, and perhaps her caretaker would be held partially responsible.
Without some context that's kind of difficult to answer.
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.
I wonder how I could edit my question to make this more clear? Where I live this is a common concept. But for other people maybe not. I've done a great job of confusing everyone so far.
If you're on PC I think you should be able to click the 3 vertical dots below the post title and edit the description.
On topic, IMO there is nuance in the answer to your question.
When perception and intention are 'positive', perception is more important. When perception and intention are 'negative', intention is a deal breaker.
