I donât see that as surprising/âconcerning. Suppose someone approaches you with (e.g.) âSeveral people have expressed concerns about your behaviourâthey swore us to secrecy about the details, but they seemed serious and credible to us (so much so we intend to take these actions).â
It looks pretty reasonable, if you trust their judgement, to apologise for this even if you lack precise knowledge of what the events in question are.
(Aside: I think having a mechanism which can work in confidence between the relevant parties is valuable for these sorts of difficult situations, and this can get undermined if lots of people start probing for more information and offering commentary.
This doesnât mean this should never be discussed: these sorts of mechanisms can go wrong, and should be challenged if they do (I can think of an example where a serious failing would not have come to light if the initial âbehind closed doorsâ decision was respected). Yet this seems better done by people who are directly affected by and know the issue in question.)
even if you lack precise knowledge of what the events in question are.
Living oneâs own life one would hopefully have some kind of idea. Itâs a strange emphasis for an apology to say that he received access to one allegation where he didnât initially understand why the behavior was received as problematic, only to add that there are other, unseen allegations âand that this other behavior may have been more problematicâ. So were some of the things the unseen allegations could refer to problematic in his own opinion (and enough for the response by third parties to seem appropriate)?
(Using a throwaway only to avoid drama, not because I have any extra information.)
I donât think it does seem reasonable. Putting myself in his shoes, I find it difficult to accept that I would ever make an apology for numerous acts of wrongdoing without knowing what I am meant to have done. I donât understand why I would trust someone elseâs judgement more than my own on matters such as this where I obviously know exactly what happened. As the commenter below notes, he acknowledges that some of his other behaviour on the misdemeanours he doesnât have the details of was more problematic than some instances he does have information on. This is odd.
If I heard that a lot of people were feeling uncomfortable following interactions with me, I think itâs likely that I would apologize and back off before understanding why they felt that way, and perhaps without even understanding what behaviour was at issue.
Iâd trust someone elseâs judgement comparably with or more than my own, particularly when there were multiple other someones, because Iâm aware of many cases where people were oblivious to the harm their own behaviour was causing (and indeed, I donât always know how other people feel about the way I interact with them and put a lot of effort into giving them opportunities to tell me). Obviously Iâd apply some common sense to accusations that e.g. I knew to be factually wrong.
In the abstract, which of these do you think happens more often?
Someone makes people uncomfortable without being aware that they are doing so. Other people inform them.
Someone doesnât make anyone feel uncomfortable (above the base rate of awkward social interactions). People erroneously tell them that they are doing so.
Now, the second is probably somewhat more likely than Iâve made it sound, but the first just seems way more ordinary to me. So my outside view is that the most likely reason for people to tell you that youâre making others uncomfortable is that you are actually doing that. Youâre entitled to play this off against what you know of the inside view, but I think it would be pretty weird to just dismiss it entirely.
I am not disputing the claim that numerous complaints over the course of my life about my behaviour would be strong evidence that I have behaved badly. I have been defending this throughout this whole thread. The outside view is strong evidence, of course. The question is whether I would know the details of these complaints if I were told of this outside view evidence. The answer for the vast majority of neurotypical people is âyesâ. I would be able to recall specific cases in which I stepped over the line and I would know how I erred.
Just curious, why does it matter that you know how you erred in your hypothetical stepping over the line? Also, just because you would does not mean that other would or should know.
I donât see that as surprising/âconcerning. Suppose someone approaches you with (e.g.) âSeveral people have expressed concerns about your behaviourâthey swore us to secrecy about the details, but they seemed serious and credible to us (so much so we intend to take these actions).â
It looks pretty reasonable, if you trust their judgement, to apologise for this even if you lack precise knowledge of what the events in question are.
(Aside: I think having a mechanism which can work in confidence between the relevant parties is valuable for these sorts of difficult situations, and this can get undermined if lots of people start probing for more information and offering commentary.
This doesnât mean this should never be discussed: these sorts of mechanisms can go wrong, and should be challenged if they do (I can think of an example where a serious failing would not have come to light if the initial âbehind closed doorsâ decision was respected). Yet this seems better done by people who are directly affected by and know the issue in question.)
Living oneâs own life one would hopefully have some kind of idea. Itâs a strange emphasis for an apology to say that he received access to one allegation where he didnât initially understand why the behavior was received as problematic, only to add that there are other, unseen allegations âand that this other behavior may have been more problematicâ. So were some of the things the unseen allegations could refer to problematic in his own opinion (and enough for the response by third parties to seem appropriate)?
(Using a throwaway only to avoid drama, not because I have any extra information.)
I donât think it does seem reasonable. Putting myself in his shoes, I find it difficult to accept that I would ever make an apology for numerous acts of wrongdoing without knowing what I am meant to have done. I donât understand why I would trust someone elseâs judgement more than my own on matters such as this where I obviously know exactly what happened. As the commenter below notes, he acknowledges that some of his other behaviour on the misdemeanours he doesnât have the details of was more problematic than some instances he does have information on. This is odd.
If I heard that a lot of people were feeling uncomfortable following interactions with me, I think itâs likely that I would apologize and back off before understanding why they felt that way, and perhaps without even understanding what behaviour was at issue.
Iâd trust someone elseâs judgement comparably with or more than my own, particularly when there were multiple other someones, because Iâm aware of many cases where people were oblivious to the harm their own behaviour was causing (and indeed, I donât always know how other people feel about the way I interact with them and put a lot of effort into giving them opportunities to tell me). Obviously Iâd apply some common sense to accusations that e.g. I knew to be factually wrong.
In the abstract, which of these do you think happens more often?
Someone makes people uncomfortable without being aware that they are doing so. Other people inform them.
Someone doesnât make anyone feel uncomfortable (above the base rate of awkward social interactions). People erroneously tell them that they are doing so.
Now, the second is probably somewhat more likely than Iâve made it sound, but the first just seems way more ordinary to me. So my outside view is that the most likely reason for people to tell you that youâre making others uncomfortable is that you are actually doing that. Youâre entitled to play this off against what you know of the inside view, but I think it would be pretty weird to just dismiss it entirely.
I am not disputing the claim that numerous complaints over the course of my life about my behaviour would be strong evidence that I have behaved badly. I have been defending this throughout this whole thread. The outside view is strong evidence, of course. The question is whether I would know the details of these complaints if I were told of this outside view evidence. The answer for the vast majority of neurotypical people is âyesâ. I would be able to recall specific cases in which I stepped over the line and I would know how I erred.
Just curious, why does it matter that you know how you erred in your hypothetical stepping over the line? Also, just because you would does not mean that other would or should know.