• rando_nneur@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zoneM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • TheActualDevil@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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. .

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

  • MadMenace [she/her]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Saigonauticon@voltage.vn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • cubedsteaks@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • C4d@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Better if you can achieve consistency in both.

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

    • cubedsteaks@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • C4d@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • cubedsteaks@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In some legal contexts intent really matters.

          Someone else brought this up too which is why I originally was asking. I had to watch one of those anti-sexual harassment training videos at work. If I remember correctly, the dialog they used was “Remember, regardless of what you intended, the perception of what you said matters more” and they were talking about saying lewd things to coworkers.

          So the person saying it doesn’t find it to be sexual harassment to just say something lewd to someone, but someone else could hear it and perceive it as sexual harassment and the intent would just go out the window because it was perceived to be harassment.

          • C4d@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The key word is “some”.

            You’ll find bullying is treated in a similar way - the perception of the person who heard or experienced something is significant, the intent of the person who said or did something much less so.

            On the other hand, one could be misleading and mistaken by giving out incorrect information, but one could be lying if they are knowingly giving out incorrect information… (intent)

      • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I answered this question below:

        It shouldn’t matter. Even if you don’t know why someone does something there’s still an intention behind that behaviour and it matters.

        Ofcourse that doesn’t mean you’re going to be fine as long as your intentions are pure even if your actions are perceived to be malicious because you might suffer the consequences from the misunderstanding but you’re still not a bad person.

        The reverse of this would be a high functioning charming psychopath that’s great at manipulating people and is well liked but his intentions are to take advantage of you so they’re a truly bad person despite not being perceived as such

      • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It shouldn’t matter. Even if you don’t know why someone does something there’s still an intention behind that behaviour and it matters.

        Ofcourse that doesn’t mean you’re going to be fine as long as your intentions are pure even if your actions are perceived to be malicious because you might suffer the consequences from the misunderstanding but you’re still not a bad person.

        The reverse of this would be a high functioning charming psychopath that’s great at manipulating people and is well liked but his intentions are to take advantage of you so they’re a truly bad person despite not being perceived as such

        • cubedsteaks@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The reverse of this would be a high functioning charming psychopath that’s great at manipulating people and is well liked but his intentions are to take advantage of you so they’re a truly bad person despite not being perceived as such

          Oh I have definitely encountered this type of guy before.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • MadMenace [she/her]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.