No offense intended but it sounds like you're a flat out bad judge of character in general.
None taken! I understand that it's mean to be constructive criticism, which I wholeheartedly invite.
You're using stone-hearted and realistic like they're synonymous. They're not.
I understand where you're coming from, but back then, I was very sensitive to a lot of things. I was raised to always care for others, but I was in a situation where I cared for others but others didn't really care back with as much intensity, if at all, to be quite honest. From my experience, the reason why I'm able to think more rationally now is because of all of the terrible people I've met in my journey. That's why, for me, being realistic and stone-hearted are synonymous.
You should assume the best out of people first and multiple times, that's the right thing to do.
No offense, but that sounds optimistic to me. It differs from person to person, but when I assume the best out of people and they end up being total assholes, I'm left with nothing but regret and disappointment. For instance, I was once betrayed by someone whom thought was worth trusting, all because I took their manipulation at face-value. Again, it differs from person to person, but my naïveté and assumption in the person being good in the first place made me end up where I was. I think that starting off from a neutral point - that is, to assume that this person isn't either good nor bad has helped me to want to understand others more, rather than paint a picture in my head and keep it that way - a terrible habit I used to have.
Even to people who are kind of mean because you don't know what they're going through
But that doesn't give them the right to be assholes to others, while the people around them just take it, right? Perhaps you meant assume the best until you know they're not as good as you had assumed?
I cringed when I read "the old zone". Yeeeesh. Nobody calls it that dude. The term you're looking for is 'grown up'.
This seemed unnecessarily, but understandable.