Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Ray Hargreaves, 2P START!

"Wooo I finally got around to updating my blog! I've got so many ideas for posts that I can write over the next few days! Maybe if I'm lucky I can write some in advance and queue them up so I don't have to worry about it!"

~two days later~

NOPE, I haven't done anything. This is why we can't have nice things.

From the Super Mario Galaxy 2 OST.

Mediation

When two people are arguing and a third person comes in to mediate/bring in a different viewpoint/whatever, I see a few different methods of handling it. I do this a lot myself, actually, and having watched a couple of methods, I have one that I chose as my favorite; however, I get a few bad remarks when I use it, so I wanted to lay out my logic here in the hopes that things are a bit clearer.

As an example: one kid took candy from another kid, claiming that he was owed that candy. A mediator of some kind, be it a parent, a teacher, or another kid, sees the situation and acts on it to bring some resolve. There's three main methods that I see people use in some variation.

Subjective - The mediator chooses a side from the start that they'll support. Perhaps it's not entirely blatant, as it could be an emotional bias that sways their judgement, or some sort of intuition; but whatever it is, it's not entirely logical. Sometimes this is based on good intentions (my friend/son/star student wouldn't do that!!).

Outcome: The favored kid receives retribution from the unfavored kid.

Pros: Usually an emotional bias tends to be for good reason; the kid had to get that reputation somehow. It places less stress on the mediator, with a high chance of being correct, and brings judgement to the situation. The mediator also has a sense of satisfaction for helping.

Cons: It could be a bribe, or the parents could have too much faith in their kids, or it could otherwise be wrong. In fact, it might require a second mediator to determine whether this is true or not. In any case, the mediator can be accused of taking sides.

Most used by: Friends, parents

Objective - The mediator listens to both sides equally and searches for facts and morals. When both kids have had their say, the mediator chooses who is right based on as much logic and evidence as possible. Justice is then dealt out based on the situation.

Outcome: The kid who is deemed the victim receives retribution from the kid who is deemed the offender

Pros: The correct justice is often laid out...

Cons: It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to be objective! Almost all of the time, there is some sort of emotional bias - even if the mediator has never met these kids before. Any use of fallacies completely destroys the mediation as a whole, and even moral "absolutes" vary from person to person. Also, since one kid is told that they're wrong, the mediator can be accused of taking sides.

Most used by: Judges

Impartial - The mediator listens to both sides, attempting to calm the nerves of both kids where necessary. The mediator then tries to get them to forgive each other, without choosing sides or dealing out punishment.

Outcome: Both kids get candy from the office.

Pros: The tension is removed, and the mediator distances him/herself from the situation as much as possible.

Cons: Whoever should have gotten punished did not. In fact, they get away scot-free, and the kid who was wronged receives nothing!

Most used by: Teachers, counselors

Could you tell from my vocabulary which one I like best? I try to be objective, which doesn't always work out for me. But I've been accused by three people now of taking sides when I do this, so I just wanted to make one thing clear:

That's the freaking point!

I hate impartiality! It just promotes further tension between the two parties, because the situation is never fully resolved (so both think they're still right). And it also promotes that the bad guys get to do whatever they want, because the victim does not get any sort of solace, and the offender is never told that what they did was wrong... except by the other party, who they're not listening to anyway.

So yes, I choose sides - after I hear what's going on. Because I'm not going to sit by and watch someone be a jerk to someone else. Even if it means I get into the fight myself and have a chance of being wrong.

I have a tendency to find patterns in two steps. This is both a good thing and a bad thing; it means I'm generally quicker to catch on to things than most people, but it also means that I often find patterns where they don't exist.

Let's use a mathematical example, shall we? I love math! Say I'm given two numbers:

1, 8

Here's the order in which I think of what patterns this might fit in:

Sequential cubes - 1³, 2³ (3³, 4³, n³) Add seven to previous number - 1, 1+7 (8+7, 15+7, 1+7n) Multiples of eight - 8⁰, 8¹ (8², 8³, 8ⁿ)

What tends to happen when I point out the first pattern that comes to mind is that I'm often wrong. Even if I go through all the patterns that come to mind, it could still be a different pattern, or it could just not be a pattern at all!

So what I've trained myself to do is wait for a third term to see if I have it right. I've been wrong on the third term before, but far less often. Most of the time my suspicion is correct at that point - except with things like human behavior, which I'm usually more careful about.

...no, I don't treat human behavior like numbers... I look for patterns in different ways...