[jama211]

Think it through just a tiny bit more. It’s more socially acceptable to be angry back at someone who is confronting you directly than someone who may or may not be making an example of you but in a passive way. Therefore it’s less likely the other individual will confront you back, or perhaps more importantly it would make them look more unreasonable for doing so.

Social pressure is a real thing and it affects both behaviour and outcomes, it’d be silly to ignore that.

[tshaddox]

> It’s more socially acceptable to be angry back at someone who is confronting you directly than someone who may or may not be making an example of you but in a passive way.

I actually agree with this. And similarly, I'd argue that it's more socially acceptable to use this audio repeater than to "nicely" confront someone who is so brazenly violating social norms.

[jama211]

Exactly!

[magicmicah85]

The people who react angrily to someone asking them to keep their noise down are very likely the same people who react angrily to someone interrupting their call or entertainment with loud noises, especially noises that just repeat what they're saying or watching. I agree social pressure is a real thing, but if you don't have the courage to ask them to kindly keep the volume down, how would you have the courage to do this?

[jama211]

These questions have pretty straightforward answers. No, the first one isn’t a reasonable assumption because people react VERY differently to passive vs direct action. This isn’t controversial. As for your second one, easy, because one takes less “courage” than the other.

I also disagree with the entire premise that it’s about courage in the first place. You can have the courage but decide the other method simply has less downsides. No need to pretend otherwise.