Comment by paxys
3 years ago
The instructions for the exercise tell you straight up to ignore any and all exceptions, yet 30% of people chose to apply their own judgment in the police and ambulance case because it felt right to them. Very telling.
3 years ago
The instructions for the exercise tell you straight up to ignore any and all exceptions, yet 30% of people chose to apply their own judgment in the police and ambulance case because it felt right to them. Very telling.
If you believe that the spirit of rules is more important than the text, then those people were obeying the spirit of the rule to not include exceptions, not the text.
Those people failed to follow the spirit of the quiz.
Following the letter of the law or rule to an absurd conclusion without any common sense is a typical example of bureaucratic nightmares.
It should be comforting that people are able to use independent judgement when faced with a nonsensical situation, situations that illustrates a glaring lack of detail to the law or rule rather than anything else.
Basically the more terse a rule is, the more it requires the enforcer to use their own judgment.
That game would only be supportive of the point the author wants to make if the rule had a few paragraphs of examples and defined vehicle.
Instead the author hand waved away the case of a rule with examples by saying that nit picker could always find ambiguity. So instead they gave a overt terse rule that defies common sense. It’s a strawman attempt of a example.
2 replies →
I'm far more worried about the people who think a man should die because the sign must be obeyed at all costs.
It's telling that 70% would apply immoral guidance. "Just following orders."
Just because we acknowledge an ambulance would break the rule doesn't mean we wouldn't break the rule anyways.