职业与工作方法cs.cmu.edu
理性人原则
Reasonable Person Principle
2017 — 2024，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是卡内基梅隆大学（CMU）一个员工/院系页面对“Reasonable Person Principle（合理人原则）”的阐述：在组织内假定人们会以合理方式行事，遇到分歧先私下沟通，不轻易假定恶意，也不因别人指出自己可能不够合理而立刻被冒犯。它是一套简洁的团队行为准则，常被拿来讨论大学和职场中的冲突处理与组织文化。
为什么经久不衰：它把“讲道理”变成可操作的组织规范，又触及权力不对等、沟通方式和冲突升级这些持久难题，所以多年后仍值得读。
HN 评论精选
原则清晰实用，但匿名举报趋势会削弱私下沟通并增加后续摩擦。
这是一份清晰、有说服力的结构概述，简单易引用、务实可行，对组织有积极意义。不过评论者认为“现代美国”正从面对面沟通转向更容易匿名告状，这会制造更多摩擦，因为第三方介入难免让至少一方失望；尽管如此，把原则写下来仍然重要。
6stringmerc查看英文原文
A very clear and cogent overview of a structure. Simple to cite. Pragmatic and practical - I think it's quite a positive to have for an organization. >Not all people share the same model of reasonableness, so disagreements inevitably occur. Under the reasonable person principle, the first thing to do is work it out privately (perhaps in person, since e-mail is known to amplify feelings). Indeed, many people would find it unreasonable to bring in third parties before trying personal discussion. As true as this is, holistically, I do think the trend in "modern USA" is a bit less personal. Trending more towards the "easier to tattle anonymously" than have personal interactions. This creates more friction down the line as the third party will, inevitably, disappoint at least one faction if not both. I do think making the statement is important though, and I do not disagree it's in line with what Reasonable People should do in working out differences.
权力不对等时私下解决会伤害弱者，大学和职场需要正式投诉渠道。
在大学里一律先私下解决其实很糟糕：大学充满资历和依赖关系，权力不对等时非正式解决会让较弱一方吃亏。私下解决适合朋友、家庭等平等关系；一旦涉及师生、经理与员工这种权力差，就应走正式渠道，否则容易把问题压下几十年。
Barrin92查看英文原文
>the first thing to do is work it out privately. [...] Indeed, many people would find it unreasonable to bring in third parties before trying personal discussion. I actually think that is a really, really bad thing to do in a university. That is because unversities are full of seniority and dependency relationships, and in an unequal relationship informal conflict resolution puts the weaker party at a disadvantage. Solving things in private is appropriate in a group of peers, say a small company among friends, or a family, but whenever there is an inequality in power, teacher/student, manager/employee, it is important to not handle things in private. It's one of the reasons universities tend to be so scandal ridden, and why you have these stories of say, sexually abusive teachers who somehow are able to brush it under the carpet for decades. It's also the reason why the military tends to be hyper-formal when it comes to complaints, because it is so hierarchical. Solving things privately when one party exercises authority over the other will inevitably produce some very screwed up results.
指责别人“不合理”并要求其不要被冒犯会适得其反，应聚焦客观问题。
“如果有人暗示你不够合理，别觉得被冒犯”这条原则似乎没咨询过心理学家。告诉别人他不讲理，是对话中最糟糕的做法之一；因此感到被冒犯完全正常。告诉别人“不要被冒犯”同样适得其反。更好的做法是避免针对个人特质，聚焦客观现实和共同解决问题。
crazygringo查看英文原文
> "Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I don't think they consulted with a psychologist before coming up with this "principle". Telling someone they're not being reasonable is one of the worst things you can do in any conversation. And if you feel offended by it, that's entire normal and, well, reasonable. Telling someone not to be offended is similarly completely counterproductive. When you're in a difficult situation, you should generally avoid focusing on what you perceive to be personal characteristics of the other person, or on telling them how they "should" be responding -- and instead focus on objective realities that you can use shared problem-solving techniques on.
“合理”缺乏共识时会沦为双方互相打击的棍棒，规则需要更具体的共识基础。
“合理”一词太模糊，很难用来和本来就不认同你的人沟通。除非加入部门的人大致认同什么叫合理，否则这个词会变成双方互相挥舞的棍棒，最后赢家往往是能施加更多政治力量的一方。“没人特殊”这条更具体，强调规则面前人人平等；而“被说不够合理时别被冒犯”恰恰暴露了定义太松的问题。
SapphireSun查看英文原文
Something I'm slowly coming to realize is that unless you have a logically defensible moral position, it's hard to argue with people that disagree. Terms like reasonable are so flimsy it's hard to use it as a model to communicate with people that don't already agree with you. The successful operation of a principle like "reasonableness" requires an intake filter to suss out whether people joining the department roughly agree on what it means. If someone doesn't agree with your definition of reasonableness, it becomes a bludgeon wielded by both sides that can't be affixed to a definitive state of the world and the winner will necessarily be side that can exert more political force. Element three is more concrete. "[3)] No one is special."This is the classic statement that all are equal before the law regardless of position in the department, which is the only way to grant popular legitimacy to rules. "[4)] Do not be offended if someone suggests you are not being reasonable." I feel this rule is a symptom of the lax definition of reasonableness. The reason people become offended when someone accuses them of being unreasonable, is because the standard is so loosely defined that someone can (reasonably, ha!) believe themselves reasonable when others do not. I read an interesting article the other day where the author took a moral position and reasoned it through [0], showing how it was legally reasoned through in high profile situations. This kind of cooperative principle is harder to state, but more easily defended on grounds that are still require agreement, but in principle can reference an objective reality (e.g. from the article, elements like "proportionality"). Obviously, the referenced article is not a scholarly work, so there is more that can be done, but I guess this is the kind of thing political science majors learn about in school that I didn't get exposed to as much except through my own reading. [0] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
历次讨论
同类还值得读
用十年时间自学编程（1998）
Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)
Peter Norvig 1998 年的经典文章，回应“21天/24小时学会编程”一类速成书，主张真正精通编程需要约十年持续、有意识的练习。
职业与工作方法上首页 11 次 · 2007–2025norvig.com编辑精选如何成为一名程序员：简短、全面而个人的总结
How to be a Programmer: A Short, Comprehensive, and Personal Summary
一篇广为流传的程序员成长指南，作者以个人经验系统总结了成为优秀程序员所需的各项技能——从调试、测试、沟通到团队协作与身心健康。
职业与工作方法上首页 6 次 · 2008–2015samizdat.mines.edu编辑精选不要自称程序员
Don't Call Yourself a Programmer
经典职业建议文章劝软件工程师不要把自己局限在“程序员”这个标签上，而要从公司业务角度说明自己创造的价值；文中讨论了成本中心与利润中心、头衔、求职与职业选择，也顺带批评了学术界的价…
职业与工作方法上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021kalzumeus.com编辑精选创作者的日程与经理的日程
Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)
Paul Graham 在这篇文章里把时间表分成两类：管理者的日程以小时为单位，会议可以填满一天；创作者（程序员、写作者等）的日程则以半天为单位，需要长时间不被打断的连续块。
职业与工作方法上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选为什么程序员的薪酬不与生产力成正比
Why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity
讨论为什么程序员的薪酬往往不随其生产力成比例增长：生产力难以客观量化，薪酬更多受组织预算、岗位定价和个人议价能力影响。
职业与工作方法上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022johndcook.com