Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- inane [2026/06/28 00:04] – created ultracomfy
+++ inane [2026/09/11 10:02] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 The way ISTP me handles this is by evaluating the justification for why I am meant to do it another way.\\
+  * Many genuinely safety critical rules masquerade as inane. As someone who independently evaluates nearly every rule, restriction and law, I have run into hundreds that seemed inane. Naturally I wanted to break them. Most people don't really understand why their rules are in place and then poorly explain the rules. In those cases, I would often find the reasoning invalid and be tempted to break it. In many cases, ultimately, these rules turned out to be safety critical rules. The moral of this story is that with every rule I evaluate, the first thing I think about is whether the rule might be safety related. Often it is.
   * In school, the argument was often that I am supposed to learn something from the basics, and //then// upwards. That I accept as an acceptable justification (I can understand why learning the fundamentals is important), but I follow this up by asking myself "do I have strong grip on the fundamentals?". In cases where I thought that I did (and I typically did), that brought me around to say "yes but I already know the basics", to which I was then told that I should do it that way anyway. That then is typically the point where I declared the rule inane and did it my way anyway.
-  * Outside of school, or later in life, the justification for most inane rules was typically some kind of authority. "Because I said so" and it's many variations. Trying this on me has a 100% failure rate unless you have the ability to cause me substantial headache. Typically this involves some kind of authority having an idea of how things should run and not having the flexibility to allow for variation. The problem here is that I evaluate authority in the same way. You have to justify your authority to me, and I calculate it accordingly. In most cases, an authority is in place to ensure the smooth operation of a thing, but if something I want to do differently does not jeopardize the smooth operation of the thing, then the limit of their authority is in front of the thing I want to do differently. People like this then typically attempt to reach beyond their authority, which they cannot justify before me. In that case, I evaluate the rule inane and do not follow it (again, unless you can cause me greater pain than what I gain from breaking the rule).
+  * Outside of school, or later in life, the justification for most inane rules was typically some kind of [[authority]]. "Because I said so" and it's many variations. Trying this on me has a 100% failure rate unless you have the ability to cause me substantial headache. Typically this involves some kind of authority having an idea of how things should run and not having the flexibility to allow for variation. The problem here is that I evaluate authority in the same way. You have to justify your authority to me, and I calculate it accordingly. In most cases, an authority is in place to ensure the smooth operation of a thing, but if something I want to do differently does not jeopardize the smooth operation of the thing, then the limit of their authority is in front of the thing I want to do differently. People like this then typically attempt to reach beyond their authority, which they cannot justify before me. In that case, I evaluate the rule inane and do not follow it (again, unless you can cause me greater pain than what I gain from breaking the rule).
-  * Many genuinely safety critical rules masquerade as inane. As someone who independently evaluates nearly every rule, restriction and law I have run into hundreds of rules that seemed inane, were poorly explained to me by someone who didn't actually know, and ultimately turned out to be safety critical rules. Trust me, with every rule I evaluate, the first thing I think about is whether the rule might be safety related. Often it is.
+My run-ins with authority actually are a problem. When discussing one of their rules with them, they often make up weird pseudo-arguments for why a rule is in place, primarily to make people stop asking. It seems as though a lot of people are relying on their authority to explain rules for them. The problem is that I push these invalid arguments because I don't even think of the idea that someone would make up justifications to avoid discussing the actual justifications of a thing. (Apart of course from the people who makes up their own rules and justify it with it being //them//, an authority figure, that made the rule and it therefore being valid.)