The Rules of Rules

[Paul Beardsley]

Rule 1.

When someone says, "I don't agree with rules, they just get in the way of creativity and original thought," chances are they are adolescent (whether physically or in terms of behaviour) and have probably neither created anything nor had an original thought.

Rule 2.

When someone says, "The rules are: there are no rules!" it usually turns out that there are rules after all.

Rule 3.

When a new police drama is announced, and trailers talk of the main character as, "A cop who doesn't play by the rules!" it's pretty likely that the scriptwriters have only a hazy idea of what police can and cannot do.

[mahesh]

Rule 4.

When someone says, "rules are meant to be broken", it's best to keep out of that person's sphere of influence.

It's smelly and spells big trouble, eventually.

[Neverfly]

You guys just know... That I'm gonna come busting in here with the other side right?

Rules can serve a purpose. As can breaking them.

Rules are not perfect as your arguments Seem to imply that they must be.
It is wise to respect rules but wiser still to know when to break them.

[Paul Beardsley]

You guys just know... That I'm gonna come busting in here with the other side right?

Rules can serve a purpose. As can breaking them.

Rules are not perfect as your arguments Seem to imply that they must be.
It is wise to respect rules but wiser still to know when to break them.

Actually your last line sums up my opinion pretty well.

Sometimes rules are like mines in a minefield. The fool declares that there are no mines, or they don't matter, or they don't apply to him. The wise man finds out where they are located so that he can avoid them; if he is really clever he might even find a way of deactivating them, or using them to his own advantage.

[Neverfly]

Actually your last line sums up my opinion pretty well.

Sometimes rules are like mines in a minefield. The fool declares that there are no mines, or they don't matter, or they don't apply to him. The wise man finds out where they are located so that he can avoid them; if he is really clever he might even find a way of deactivating them, or using them to his own advantage.

Ah.. see... Here we have some agreement.
I cannot always respect a person that manipulates the rules in his favor.
I also cannot respect a person that sees a rule as a rule that should never be broken.

Maybe another way to put it is to Understand the Limitations of Rules

[closetgeek]

Ah.. see... Here we have some agreement.
I cannot always respect a person that manipulates the rules in his favor.

Maybe another way to put it is to Understand the Limitations of Rules

This is very similar to the thread about surviving dangerous situations; sometimes the ones that follow the rules, surviving having done so. Other times the one's that didn't follow the rules, survive for the very same reason. You really couldn't have said it better, any other way;

It is wise to respect rules but wiser still to know when to break them.

[grant hutchison]

The fool declares that there are no mines, or they don't matter, or they don't apply to him. The wise man finds out where they are located so that he can avoid them; if he is really clever he might even find a way of deactivating them, or using them to his own advantage.

Are you recalling Douglas Bader's pithy observation, "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"?

Grant Hutchison

[PraedSt]

Maybe we need rules for when to break rules...

Sorry

[Paul Beardsley]

Are you recalling Douglas Bader's pithy observation, "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"?

Grant Hutchison

I wasn't but I am now - nice one!

[Neverfly]

This is very similar to the thread about surviving dangerous situations; sometimes the ones that follow the rules, surviving having done so. Other times the one's that didn't follow the rules, survive for the very same reason.

I see this as different because it was not a conscious effort.
They did not break rules knowing that it would save them.
Sometimes it may have been the case- But like the example of the World Trade Center employee being late for work... Well, that breaking of the rule wasn't a conscious effort to save his or her life.

Sometimes, however, rules that are generally good either lose applicability or even become Harmful.
In those cases, rebels must serve their purpose.
Some of the attitudes expressed about rulebreakers seem flippant and show a lack of respect for rulebreakers. Yet, we would not be anywhere near where we are today without them.

One example that comes to mind is how parents, teachers, daycare workers alike rush in to resolve conflicts FOR children. Lawsuits- Whatever, they have a certain selfish fear.

Let- Them - Learn. Let them grow. If the child then is unable to handle it- the adult can come into the picture.
But we are not giving them the growing room they NEED first- and that is an example of when rules become harmful.

[Larry Jacks]

Douglas Bader was a great fighter pilot. Pilots in general and fighter pilots in particular have sayings about rules, such as:

There are Rules and there are Laws. The Rules are made by men who think that they know how to fly your airplane better than you. Laws (of Physics) are made by the Great One. You can, and sometimes should, suspend the Rules but you can never suspend the Laws.

About Rules:
a. The rules are a good place to hide if you don't have a better idea and the talent to execute it.
b. If you deviate from a rule, it must be a flawless performance. (e.g., If you fly under a bridge, don't hit the bridge).

The aircraft limits are only there in case there is another flight by that particular aircraft. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no limits.

Flying is a great way of life for men who want to feel like boys, but not for those who still are.

Death is just nature's way of telling you to watch your airspeed.

Remember that the radio is only an electronic suggestion box for the pilot.

And then there are these truisms:

As a pilot, only two bad things can happen to you and one of them will.
a. One day you will walk out to the aircraft knowing that it is your last flight.
b. One day you will walk out to the aircraft not knowing that it is your last flight.

The medical profession is the natural enemy of the aviation profession.

[closetgeek]

[QUOTE]

I see this as different because it was not a conscious effort.
They did not break rules knowing that it would save them.
Sometimes it may have been the case- But like the example of the World Trade Center employee being late for work... Well, that breaking of the rule wasn't a conscious effort to save his or her life.

But the discussion was more about the ones that didn't stay in the office as they were instructed. They were aware that they were going against authority but felt that their chances of survival were better, outside of the building. That was a conscious effort.

[Neverfly]

But the discussion was more about the ones that didn't stay in the office as they were instructed. They were aware that they were going against authority but felt that their chances of survival were better, outside of the building. That was a conscious effort.

True. It's why I added the classifier about the late to work example

[Whirlpool]

to sum it all ..

Rule 5. There are Exceptions to the Rules.

[Fazor]

Rule 1.
When someone says, "I don't agree with rules, they just get in the way of creativity and original thought," chances are they are adolescent (whether physically or in terms of behaviour) and have probably neither created anything nor had an original thought.

Heh, this hints at one of my favorite social ironies (one I observered quite abit while attending an art school).

Usually people with the above phylosophy think that anyone who follows the rules is a sheep, just doing "what the man says to do". They are blind to the fact that any "open minded/free thinking/rational person" does more along the lines of Neverfly's quote: they follow the rules that they know are good and serve a purpose, but would break "the rules" if it was wiser to do so.

Whereas, the "I don't agree with rules, maaan!" crowd tend to just break the rules with the sole purpose of being defiant. Which means that they're just automatically doing the opposite of what they're told they should do. Which means they are not being individual or thinking for themselves; they're still basing thier opinions and actions on what someone else says (albiet the opposite of what was said).

Going against the grain is not the same thing as thinking for yourself.

[mike alexander]

Cop Lemma

Within three seasons at most, most cop shows lose whatever originality they once had and become like every other cop show.


The above is simply regression to the mean, or maybe an application of the central limit theorem. But like all statistical processes, is inexorable.


Life Lemma

Within three decades at most, most lives lose whatever originality they once had and become like every other life.

Okay, maybe four decades.

[Swift]

Well, someone had to say it...

Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching. Rule Three?
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five,
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six. Rule Seven,
Everybruce: No Poofters!!

[Gillianren]

I went to a college full of the "I don't follow rules, man!" sort. Interestingly, I spent the first year there studying the "know when to break the rules" sort. I have discovered one of the great differences between the two--consequences. The first group don't realize they exist. The second acknowledge them and accept them as a natural outcome.

[Click Ticker]

Heh, this hints at one of my favorite social ironies (one I observered quite abit while attending an art school).

Usually people with the above phylosophy think that anyone who follows the rules is a sheep, just doing "what the man says to do". They are blind to the fact that any "open minded/free thinking/rational person" does more along the lines of Neverfly's quote: they follow the rules that they know are good and serve a purpose, but would break "the rules" if it was wiser to do so.

Whereas, the "I don't agree with rules, maaan!" crowd tend to just break the rules with the sole purpose of being defiant. Which means that they're just automatically doing the opposite of what they're told they should do. Which means they are not being individual or thinking for themselves; they're still basing thier opinions and actions on what someone else says (albiet the opposite of what was said).

Going against the grain is not the same thing as thinking for yourself.

I've always heard this view referred to as, "I wanna be different, just like everybody else!"

[tdvance]

Are you recalling Douglas Bader's pithy observation, "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"?

Grant Hutchison

Of course, rarely does a fool know he's a fool, so...... if there's a fool in the room and everyone you see is wise, it must be you? nah--won't work reliably.

[tdvance]

I suggest this rule:

"know the reason for a rule before breaking it."

If you believe it was an arbitrary rule made by someone who likes to make rules, and it turns out it isn't, that could be trouble. People tend to assume the former more times than it's actually true.

Todd

[Pippin]

From sports and other games.

If you aren't cheating then you aren't trying hard enough.

I personally don't follow that mantra as I'd rather keep my morals.

[Argos]

Just the other day we were discussing that obeying rules is not a survivor´s trait [well, except on a private bulletin board]: Link

"They were not rule followers, they thought for themselves and had an independent frame of mind,"

[Fazor]

Just the other day we were discussing that obeying rules is not a survivor´s trait [well, except on a private bulletin board]: Link

"They were not rule followers, they thought for themselves and had an independent frame of mind,"

True, but disobeying the rules isn't a survival trait either. The pertinent trait is being able to reason, which requires understanding the rules, why they're in place, and if they apply to the situation at hand.

[Ivan Viehoff]

When you come to bring up children, you quickly realise there have to be rules. "Because I say so" is not necessarily exasperation, lazyness or an abuse of power, although it can be any of those: it is actually a very good reason for a rule. This is not merely because it saves time, or because explanation is too difficult, but because authority is a useful concept of evolutionary significance. Do-what-you're-told is a good survival strategy for infants. And in wider society security is a necessity for us all, in which the concept of authority reduces its cost of provision.

I think the nicest demonstration of this is the Montreal police strike of 17 October 1969, which started at 8am, and ultimately resulted in the army and federal police restoring order.

"By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted..."
(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate)

There, that's from a bleeding heart liberal telling you that.

[slang]

Rules have a purpose. When rules become the purpose things get shaky.

[Neverfly]

When you come to bring up children, you quickly realise there have to be rules. "Because I say so" is not necessarily exasperation, lazyness or an abuse of power, although it can be any of those: it is actually a very good reason for a rule. This is not merely because it saves time, or because explanation is too difficult, but because authority is a useful concept of evolutionary significance. Do-what-you're-told is a good survival strategy for infants. And in wider society security is a necessity for us all, in which the concept of authority reduces its cost of provision.

I actually agree with this.

When it comes to children, I remind people to Never Explain themselves to children.
It puts you under the authority of the child to do that.

[closetgeek]

I actually agree with this.

When it comes to children, I remind people to Never Explain themselves to children.
It puts you under the authority of the child to do that.

There was a time I would have passionately disagreed with this. I firmly believed that rules would make more sense to children if they understood the logic behind them. What I didn't realize is that offering an explanation every time suggests to them that they are not only open to debate but can be proven unnecessary by defying the expected outcome.

[Gillianren]

How long do you think "never explain" will work? How old do you think the child will get before they ignore the rules because there's clearly no reason for them?

[Neverfly]

How long do you think "never explain" will work? How old do you think the child will get before they ignore the rules because there's clearly no reason for them?

It's called progression.
Children earn more privileges as they get older right?
Like it or not Gillianren, you may not agree- but neither did I. And apparently neither did Closetgeek.

But after having a child- I learned I was wrong. Apparently so did she.

Maybe one day you will too.