A note on "intent isn't magic"

[kaberett]

Interestingly, this is one of the relatively few things my father got right in bringing us up - for values of "right" that do not include "actually expressing it well or compassionately", in that he tended to phrase it not as "intent isn't magic" but "intent doesn't matter".

I think this plays into some of what I've been working through. To use the treading-on-toes example, how badly something affects me has two components: the direct physical effect ("someone trod on my toe") and my emotional response ("and I'd repeatedly told this specific person that it's currently broken, and trusted them to be careful of that" has very different impact to "and they're a stranger on the tube").

Intent can't fix the direct damage (it isn't magic), but can be taken into account in modulating the emotional response of the person suffering it (intent can matter). However, whether it matters and how much it matters is entirely up to the person damaged: it does not automatically absolve the person who caused the damage.

It's about agency and respect and all that good stuff.

Comments

[redbird]

Agency and respect, and also that if my goal is to get someone not to step on my toe, it matters whether I've already had that conversation with them, and whether it's appropriate for them to be that close to me in the first place.

If someone knows that I have to be careful because of an old injury and ignores that, I will react differently than if soneone who has no way of knowing that suggests I do something that would be reasonable for a random adult with no visible disability, but isn't good for me. If I am having to have this conversation for the fifth or sixth time with the same person, I stop really believing that it's going to work this time either.

[quirkytizzy]

YES! For me, the number of times I had to have the conversation with this one person was what helped me realize that this wasn't going to get any better. I was just going to talk myself blue in the face and keep getting that old injury stepped on until bones broke. Very good way of wording it!

[jelazakazone]

This is actually incredibly helpful. Thank you for teasing pieces apart.

[happydork]

Yeah, very much agreed -- I think phrasing it in terms of the different types of hurt caused is very important, because that's something where it's not always possible in the moment to disentangle that there are different kinds of hurt (and, indeed, different kinds of hurt can interact to build on each other) .

[inoru_no_hoshi]

Yep, all of this. I've always heard "intent doesn't matter", but I like "intent isn't magic" better, because that more clearly implies how it can modulate the responses, especially since different folks, different strokes, etc., etc.

♥

[alexseanchai]

*nodnod*

[shehasathree]

yesss.

for my mother intent is magic as long as it's her intent, and intent doesn't matter if it's me or anyone else getting something wrong.

[vi]

Yes! <3

[sidheag]

I've been involuntarily mulling this since you posted it, because IMHO there's an interesting mixture of true and false here.

The true is clear: "I didn't mean to hurt anyone" does not typically affect whether anyone is hurt. ("Typically" because if it was, in fact, the apparent intent that hurt, as can sometimes be the case, then it can.)

However: this "However, whether it matters and how much it matters is entirely up to the person damaged: it does not automatically absolve the person who caused the damage." takes the perspective of the person damaged, and that is not the only valid perspective, although the language ("absolve") rather suggests that we are to read it as though it were. Red flag raised: linguistic sleight of hand going on...

This reminds me vaguely of something else you've said - I can't point at anything specific right now, so maybe I am misremembering, but I have the feeling that you've had trouble sometimes in remembering that you have a valid perspective too, in interactions where you feel you may have done a thing wrong? And had trouble absolving yourself in such a case?

Suppose A has an interaction with B in which A, using reasonable care and intelligence, anticipates an amount of harm x being done to B, but in fact an amount of harm X >> x is done to B. It's understandable that B's feelings for A are, at least temporarily, similar to those B would have for someone who had knowingly done an amount X of harm. However, it's important that a neutral observer (C!) is likely to judge that the fact that X harm was done is an unfortunate accident. It is not (by our assumption about reasonable care and intelligence) A's fault; if C is to judge A's character, the important amount is x, not X. However understandable B's feelings might be, B is in fact being unreasonable in blaming A in the same way as someone who had anticipated (thus, intended) an amount X of harm. If x is less than or equal to 0, then A does not need any absolution - is not guilty, should not feel guilty - regardless of how large X might be, and regardless of B's feelings on the matter.

[shanaqui]

That is... a really good way of putting it. Thank you.

[azurelunatic]

Sooo much this.

I also use the "fingers up nose" example.

Darkside once literally put his fingers up my nose. From a stranger who would have had no business being that close, it would have been a gross boundary violation, because just what the fuck.

From a dear friend who was currently playing grab-nose games and I tried to nip at his fingers? It is an understandable slip! We are in fact that close! It should not surprise anyone that occasionally someone sticks their fingers up someone else's nose.