> Consider: What this attitude might mostly be demonstrating is that humans > tend to be > able to adjust to anything... whether they should or not. > > It's a version of the rat in the increasingly hot water phenomenon.
As an off-topic aside, this is not a weakness of humanity. It's a strength; without our ability to adapt to our environments we probably would have gone extinct a long time ago. For example, if you ask people how they think they would adapt to particular situations, humans are *extremely* bad at predicting their own level of happiness. For example, people who have lost a leg think they'll be very depressed for the rest of their lives. They are in the beginning but after a while their happiness reverts back to the same level as before. Similarly, unhappy or depressed people who win the lottery are initially happy but after a few months they revert back to their own previous level. This inability to predict how we will feel in the future in response to change is called the Affective Forecasting bias. Yet as it turns out, people are good at adapting to change even when they previously thought it would be bad. Hmm, on second thought, maybe it's not that off-topic...? -- Terry -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:36 AM To: Al Iverson; [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Hey, Yahoo, you just broke my church mailing list On 4/10/2014 11:21 AM, Al Iverson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Roland Turner > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >I am going to assume that Yahoo!'s email people haven't lost their >> >minds and >> >- despite the failure to give a heads up - actually did carefully >> >assess the impact of the change before making it and that, >> >therefore, they're not likely to undo this change. Note in >> >particular that the rua/ruf mechanisms originated with Yahoo!, it >> >seems rather unlikely that they neglected to consult them. If my >> >assumption is correct, then the sensible behaviour for list >> >operators would now appear to be to let go of the reflexive "not our >> >problem" response and embrace a "here is how we can make it work" stance >> >because, clearly, it now is a list operator's problem. > This is wise and everybody should read it twice. > > I think that most mailing list managers are reasonable people and as > they move through the five stages of grief, they'll get beyond the > "this is wrong and I hate it" and will probably eventually move on to > "well, this is still wrong, but it makes sense to deal with it." Consider: What this attitude might mostly be demonstrating is that humans tend to be able to adjust to anything... whether they should or not. It's a version of the rat in the increasingly hot water phenomenon. It's what folk who disempowered tend to feel they must do. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
