The Golden Rule is Wrong

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," sounds like a reasonable and desirable credo, but it suffers from a fatal logical flaw. You are not like me, and I am not like you.

How many times have you bought a Christmas gift that you loved and thought another would also, only to find that gift rapidly make its way to the back of a closet? Did you ever tell a joke that you thought was funny only to get a non or negative reaction? Does everyone like the same movies, music, food, etc., that you do? Then what makes you think that if you treat people the way that you want to be treated that those people will be happy? While there are certain cultural and social norms, certain common standards of morality, etc., it is often a disservice to others to assume that their attitudes, desires, etc., are the same as yours. No, the "Golden Rule" has much merit, but it is deficient. It does not adequately consider what is in the hearts and minds of others, and further absolves one from finding out.

The Golden Rule should be something along the lines of "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." Of course, that assumes that others are "good," where those actions have moral implications, but that's a subject for another discussion.

"The hardest thing is writing a recommendation for someone we know." [Kin Hubbard]

I write a pretty fair number of recommendations and will write one for just about anybody (except for those applying to law school; we don't need any more of those amoral greedy weasels- What do you call 50,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.). I also read some job applications. What have all these recommendations taught me? That recommendations typically don't matter too much, as the expectations seems to be that anyone should be able to find three people to say something nice about them. Hyperbole is expected and discounted, with recommendations holding more potential to harm than help.

Recommenders understand that negative comments carry risk (such as lawsuits), and why would anyone go out of one's way to hurt anyone anyway? Like mom said, if you can't say anything nice (as in the case of prospective attorneys), then don't say anything at all. It is fairly simple to generate the orthodox, nebulous recommendation that makes the applicant happy and puts the reader at ease. If the recommender wants to communicate useful information, there are subtle signals, often employing omission or faint praise, that may be sent for negative points, and specific data on determinant attributes that may be sent for positive points.

If one is seeking a truly good recommendation, then, there are two important steps. The first is to locate someone that is knowledgeable and has a positive impression of you. This is as ridiculously obvious as it is impractical for many, of course. What most really need is a sympathetic sort who is willing to write a very positive recommendation, and there are some of these around if you can make it easy and quick for them to do. That's where the second step comes in, for the recommender needs information. First, you need to find out what the reader of the recommendation values in an applicant. This is essential, and in fact underlies the whole concept of "marketing oneself." If there is an application, some measure of these important areas are often noted. But you need to go beyond this in defining what matters most to the reader (the subject of a future entry, perhaps). Once you know what the reader is looking for, then communicate those points to the recommender and indicate that he or she might focus on them. Then give the recommender plenty of specific information and examples about you on those points to allow the recommender to tailor a truly useful recommendation.

As a quick example, a few days ago I was asked to write a legal declaration that was essentially a character reference. While others wrote long submissions addressing all manner of elements of what a terrific fellow was the subject of the declaration, I tried to focus on what the reader (a judge, presumably) might value. The legal matter was one of child custody, so my declaration addressed nothing except the past and potential performance on critical points related to that custodial care. Focus on the reader's values, and gather and provide information so those points may be addressed favorably.

Together is easier ...

... when you won't be sad when you're apart. A profound and powerful paradox for those who will understand it.