Discussion: The Ego and Group Identity vs Criticism

🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
Prompt: A popular subject of criticism is Criticism itself; very often (more predominantly on social media), persons have a tendency to react negatively to any criticism of their community or object of affection (celebrities, fictional literature, television, etc). This seems to be especially true when the one providing criticism is not within the group, even if their criticisms are not framed offensively (Hornsey, M. J., Trembath, M., & Gunthorpe, S. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect). A "negativity bias", or being forced to counteract our own physiology when our (the group's) actions are called into question. As K. Wright framed this in her Psychology Today article in 2011, "Our reactions are based on deeply seeded “fight or flight” survival instincts. When we are critiqued we risk exclusion and with a pack mentality, this would equal death." Baumeister explains this in his 2001 publication ("Bad is Stronger than Good") as the brain retaining a changed pattern of neuronal connection between cells in response to a fear-inducing conditioned stimulus, even after the stimulus is no longer present.
Group identity, when approached with criticism, can then provide the battleground for issues that is fueled by modernity through an incredibly interconnected society provided by social media and increased communication. When the group is criticized, a member thus might as well see this as a criticism of themselves and exposes the ego. Now in a fight-or-flight scenario, an individual has two choices: they can reflect on their character, practicing mindfulness and considering the possibility that their actions or understanding of a subject are worthy of criticism; or they can become defensive, questioning the validity of the criticism.

How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups? When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material? When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic? Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
Note: I know that, for the most part, participation on this site is fueled by boredom and attention-seeking behavior, but I would like to still have a relatively serious convo here and would rather disregard the usual in-joking and shitposting we've become accustomed to.


FatherlyNick | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: FatherlyNick
PSN: FatherlyNick
Steam: FatherlyNick
ID: FatherlyNick
IP: Logged

8,594 posts
Hey.
I came here from b.net after a few Floods invited me. None of them post on either b.net nor here anymore, which is sad. I was still active on b.net until for some bizarre reason, b.net admins locked out people who have not played Destiny. Even if you wanted to post on the offtopic section. After that, I fully moved here and have not returned to b.net since.
Please come play Halo with me.
pp


Ian | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Gaara00444
PSN: TheFriskyIan
Steam: Gaara00444
ID: Gaara444
IP: Logged

8,719 posts
Signature goes here.
Just to make sure I'm understanding this (because I'm a brainlet), this is about whether or not criticism of any type of group you're in is valid? Or if you should self-reflect on the collectives you're a part of?


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

47,606 posts
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?
well, it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, right

if we're just talking about fandoms and stuff, then it's probably not that serious—if i'm criticizing an anime show, for example, and a fan of that show gets upset, i have no compunctions about listening to whatever they have to say in defense, because after all, i do want to understand why they like this show

at that point, it comes down to the strength of their arguments or whatever they need to do to persuade me

if they don't really provide me with anything substantive, and they just want to insult me or claim that i'm too stupid to understand the show, or that i have bad taste or whatever, then i can safely disregard their opinion and not take them seriously at all

the more often this happens, the more it'll affect my personal perception of this show's fanbase, but there's a responsibility on my part to not necessarily allow these anecdotal experiences to completely color my perception of the fanbase, until it becomes persistently apparent that the fanbase itself is steeped in these issues (e.g. it's generally accepted that competitive smash players tend to have poor hygiene; this is corroborated by the smash community itself, so there's no real reason to doubt its veracity, as embarrassing of a stereotype as it may be)

so yeah, i think it really just comes down to the individual—if you wanna learn about a group, engaging with individual members of that group by politely asking questions about stuff (while taking care to avoid passive-aggression, jumping to conclusions, etc) is a good start; this way, you're far more likely to receive the most level-headed response possible, and those kinds of responses are the ones you want to take into consideration the most

this is assuming that giving the subject of the fandom a shot and becoming a part of that group yourself is off the table, of course—if you're trying to understand a fandom, it's probably a good (or at least fair) idea to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith if you lack any good reasons to dismiss them entirely
Quote
When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?
when you know enough about the material to make moral value judgments about it, i think

if i never heard of GTA before (or video games in general), and i asked someone why they enjoyed it, and they said, "because it's really fun to just go around and shoot people," until i learn more about how video games work, i might find myself at odds with this person

so if i ask, "really? you don't think it's wrong to kill people?" they might say, "no silly, it's just a game, it's not real"

and i'll say "oh, okay, i understand now"—i still don't enjoy the idea of wantonly killing people in a video game, because that's just not my idea of fun, but i can see why someone else might enjoy it, and i don't have any moral compunctions about them enjoying it, because it's been established that it's not real anyway

now, if there was a video game that involved unsimulated wanton murder (so you're actually killing people, however that would work), that's pretty much the only thing i need to know about the game in order for me to be opposed to its existence, and i'll gladly censure anyone who enjoys a game like that

maybe there's a less heavy-handed example i could've used, but that's what my brain immediately went to

Quote
When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?
depends on your goals, i guess

i think all criticism is okay, regardless of whether it's pedantic, but before you criticize anything, it's wise to know a few things first: what is the appeal of the thing you're criticizing? why do people enjoy this in the first place? if you can't figure out, it's important to at least try your best to ask questions about that, because otherwise, you'll run the risk of sounding ignorant or out-of-touch

the storyline of street fighter is not shakespeare, and you can certainly criticize it if you want to—but it's important to understand that most street fighter players don't give a fuck about the story; it's not what makes the games entertaining for them at all, so your criticism, however valid, will be considered pedantic by the community at-large

if story matters to you, it's up to you to make that clear before doling out any critiques about a game's plot
Quote
Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
i think if you're going to associate or identify yourself with some kind of group or label, it's a good idea to be self-aware, or at least make a concerted effort to understand the traits connoted by your affiliations

if you're comfortable calling yourself a republican, for example, you're gonna have to understand that there's millions of people out there who will consider you retarded, scum, etc—and you can either take that in stride, never mention it publicly, or take on a different label that means the same thing, but doesn't bring up as much ire

or, secret fourth option, try to avoid labels entirely—this will get you labeled a centrist in political circles, and you'll be hated for it, but for fandoms, if you don't want people to make sweeping assumptions about you, it's probably good if you avoid calling yourself a weeb or a furry or a brony or whatever

since pretty much any form of self-expression involving your identity gives the internet carte blanche to malign you, it's best to know when to back off of certain labels, certain fandoms, certain affiliates, or certain forms of expression if you care about being seen in a negative light as a result of associating with any of those things
Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 02:30:53 PM by Verbatim


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

47,606 posts
sorry if i missed the point of all those questions, i pretty much just winged every response lol


maverick | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Maverick
IP: Logged

4,040 posts
 
This is interesting. It's something I've noticed, but not something I've thought much about. As someone that can get heavily invested in entertainment, I don't think I've ever considered myself part of a "group" (subconsciously or otherwise) because of it. If someone told me my favorite movie was complete shit, I couldn't care less. I'm not sure if I've always been like this or not. In contrast, I have someone close to me that consumes entertainment far more heavily than myself (sports, novels, tv shows, all of it), and he can barely handle criticism of the those things he likes, but tends to be very critical towards the things he doesn't (even at someone else's expense). The complete end of this spectrum would probably be those accounts that patrol social media for criticism of their favorite celebrity, which I just found bizarre until reading this thread.

I honestly have no idea how to answer those questions you asked. It just strikes me as a very vapid form of tribalism that I tend to try to ignore.


Mordo | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Madman Mordo
IP: Logged

7,109 posts
emigrate or degenerate. the choice is yours


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

47,606 posts
This is interesting. It's something I've noticed, but not something I've thought much about. As someone that can get heavily invested in entertainment, I don't think I've ever considered myself part of a "group" (subconsciously or otherwise) because of it. If someone told me my favorite movie was complete shit, I couldn't care less. I'm not sure if I've always been like this or not. In contrast, I have someone close to me that consumes entertainment far more heavily than myself (sports, novels, tv shows, all of it), and he can barely handle criticism of the those things he likes, but tends to be very critical towards the things he doesn't (even at someone else's expense). The complete end of this spectrum would probably be those accounts that patrol social media for criticism of their favorite celebrity, which I just found bizarre until reading this thread.

I honestly have no idea how to answer those questions you asked. It just strikes me as a very vapid form of tribalism that I tend to try to ignore.
i'm incredibly defensive of the things i enjoy, but i don't think it's necessarily because i can't accept that people have different tastes or whatever—and i don't think it comes from a place of tribalism either; i just like arguing, and i like challenging people, because it gives us the opportunity to defend our interests

i just tend to have very rigid and clearcut standards that are relatively easy to understand—if you knew exactly what i consider "good" when it comes to film, you would be able to watch any movie i haven't seen and know for a FACT whether i'd enjoy it or not, without even asking me

i've always prided myself in my ability to put all of my opinions into words, which i've come to understand is something that half the population struggles with, because they don't necessarily think in words—they think in emotions, pictures, or ideas—whereas, if i can't put something into words, then it means i don't really understand it

therefore, if i think something is good, and i have a 10,000 word essay in my head that goes over all the little reasons why it's good, the idea that somebody could disagree with me makes me recoil a bit

that's what prompts me to engage with people—i don't necessarily want to change your mind; i just want to understand

that's why i've historically gotten frustrated with people about stupid shit like this over the years, because if i'm capable of holding 10,000 words of well-substantiated opinions in my head about one of my favorite things, but all you've ever had to say about your favorite anime is "i just like boobs, man," it makes it difficult for me to relate with you on any level, and i like relating with people

or rather, i HATE not being able to relate with people
Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 02:49:59 PM by Verbatim


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
Just to make sure I'm understanding this (because I'm a brainlet), this is about whether or not criticism of any type of group you're in is valid? Or if you should self-reflect on the collectives you're a part of?
Mostly I'm asking about individual responses to criticisms of a group they belong to, and the ability of an individual to practice active listening in response to criticism.


 
ಠ_ಠ
| What're you looking at?
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Nuka
IP: Logged

17,120 posts
We knew the world would not be the same.
A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent.
I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita.
Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty
and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says,
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.."
I suppose we all thought that one way or another.
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?
Listening to what those excluded by a group have to say about it could be useful when analyzing the group in question, while keeping in mind the perhaps overly negative perspective this individual may have towards it. i.e. Why they are excluded, and what conclusions you'd draw from it. Obviously the reasons will very widely depending on the situation, and may be very well justified.

Quote
When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material? When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?
I thought the word censure meant censorship lol but I'm not gonna delete this part
Tricky question, because on one hand I'm very much against censorship but on the other hand we live in an era of rampant misinformation. There's also the issue of more extreme individuals trying to make themselves more appealing for the sake of recruitment into an ideology. And of course the more typical overly aggressive tactic of attacking and individual or group in conversation, making it nearly impossible to engage in anything remotely productive. The problem being that where the line is for what's acceptable and what's not is going to be different for everyone. There's no easy answer, but I do think that there needs to be barriers in place, just nothing extreme. Responding to extremism with more extremism is a mistake. I see it as being akin to the TSA in the airport, doesn't do all that much to stop "terrorists", just invasive makes everyone's lives more miserable.

Quote
Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
I don't believe it should have much bearing. Obviously identity is a very personal thing, it's how you see yourself in the world. But that can easily change and none of us really fit into the boxes we are assigned to or assign ourselves to. There's also always going to be the more obvious outliers of people who you'd never expect to be in a certain group, possibly providing a much more unique perspective. Or perhaps not, it could always just be an Uncle Tom. But even then, analyzing how they ended up there would provide some interesting insight.


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?
well, it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, right

if we're just talking about fandoms and stuff, then it's probably not that serious—if i'm criticizing an anime show, for example, and a fan of that show gets upset, i have no compunctions about listening to whatever they have to say in defense, because after all, i do want to understand why they like this show

at that point, it comes down to the strength of their arguments or whatever they need to do to persuade me

if they don't really provide me with anything substantive, and they just want to insult me or claim that i'm too stupid to understand the show, or that i have bad taste or whatever, then i can safely disregard their opinion and not take them seriously at all

the more often this happens, the more it'll affect my personal perception of this show's fanbase, but there's a responsibility on my part to not necessarily allow these anecdotal experiences to completely color my perception of the fanbase, until it becomes persistently apparent that the fanbase itself is steeped in these issues (e.g. it's generally accepted that competitive smash players tend to have poor hygiene; this is corroborated by the smash community itself, so there's no real reason to doubt its veracity, as embarrassing of a stereotype as it may be)

so yeah, i think it really just comes down to the individual—if you wanna learn about a group, engaging with individual members of that group by politely asking questions about stuff (while taking care to avoid passive-aggression, jumping to conclusions, etc) is a good start; this way, you're far more likely to receive the most level-headed response possible, and those kinds of responses are the ones you want to take into consideration the most

this is assuming that giving the subject of the fandom a shot and becoming a part of that group yourself is off the table, of course—if you're trying to understand a fandom, it's probably a good (or at least fair) idea to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume good faith if you lack any good reasons to dismiss them entirely
Quote
When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?
when you know enough about the material to make moral value judgments about it, i think

if i never heard of GTA before (or video games in general), and i asked someone why they enjoyed it, and they said, "because it's really fun to just go around and shoot people," until i learn more about how video games work, i might find myself at odds with this person

so if i ask, "really? you don't think it's wrong to kill people?" they might say, "no silly, it's just a game, it's not real"

and i'll say "oh, okay, i understand now"—i still don't enjoy the idea of wantonly killing people in a video game, because that's just not my idea of fun, but i can see why someone else might enjoy it, and i don't have any moral compunctions about them enjoying it, because it's been established that it's not real anyway

now, if there was a video game that involved unsimulated wanton murder (so you're actually killing people, however that would work), that's pretty much the only thing i need to know about the game in order for me to be opposed to its existence, and i'll gladly censure anyone who enjoys a game like that

maybe there's a less heavy-handed example i could've used, but that's what my brain immediately went to

Quote
When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?
depends on your goals, i guess

i think all criticism is okay, regardless of whether it's pedantic, but before you criticize anything, it's wise to know a few things first: what is the appeal of the thing you're criticizing? why do people enjoy this in the first place? if you can't figure out, it's important to at least try your best to ask questions about that, because otherwise, you'll run the risk of sounding ignorant or out-of-touch

the storyline of street fighter is not shakespeare, and you can certainly criticize it if you want to—but it's important to understand that most street fighter players don't give a fuck about the story; it's not what makes the games entertaining for them at all, so your criticism, however valid, will be considered pedantic by the community at-large

if story matters to you, it's up to you to make that clear before doling out any critiques about a game's plot
Another question then, mostly semantic delving: how does one know that they know enough? I can't imagine many people would criticize things if they were to only do so with certainty of their knowledge (found through authentic scrutiny, of course). Should you commit to having your finger on the pulse of a community, or is having a wiki-entry's worth of knowledge of a subject enough?

Quote
Quote
Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
i think if you're going to associate or identify yourself with some kind of group or label, it's a good idea to be self-aware, or at least make a concerted effort to understand the traits connoted by your affiliations

if you're comfortable calling yourself a republican, for example, you're gonna have to understand that there's millions of people out there who will consider you retarded, scum, etc—and you can either take that in stride, never mention it publicly, or take on a different label that means the same thing, but doesn't bring up as much ire

or, secret fourth option, try to avoid labels entirely—this will get you labeled a centrist in political circles, and you'll be hated for it, but for fandoms, if you don't want people to make sweeping assumptions about you, it's probably good if you avoid calling yourself a weeb or a furry or a brony or whatever

since pretty much any form of self-expression involving your identity gives the internet carte blanche to malign you, it's best to know when to back off of certain labels, certain fandoms, certain affiliates, or certain forms of expression if you care about being seen in a negative light as a result of associating with any of those things
The issue is less that one knows that somebody criticizes of their group (or a trait of it), but rather why the criticism is being leveled.

——-

For the record, I'm not just speaking about destructive criticism, but also constructive criticism. Anita Sarkeesian is a rather apt example of the subject. A person creates a series of criticisms of the video game industry through a feminist lens. I don't really have to describe the response this provoked, as it is quite ubiquitously known here. Despite most of her videos being on subjects along the lines of "the damsel in distress archetype is way too common" and "bikini armor shouldn't be a standard", she is (or at least was) viscerally despised by the gaming community at large. There's no instance of her attempting to destroy the industry; hell, Ubisoft advertised a few years ago that she was brought in to consult on their depictions (the one interesting thing they've done in years). Her criticisms are clearly leveled at bringing attention to issues she sees in the medium. A majority of the vitriol seems to have existed largely because she has relatively simple gripes with the thing people have attached themselves to.


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.

I'm not exactly sure what this is getting at (in relation to the topic, at least).


maverick | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Maverick
IP: Logged

4,040 posts
 
i'm incredibly defensive of the things i enjoy, but i don't think it's necessarily because i can't accept that people have different tastes or whatever—and i don't think it comes from a place of tribalism either; i just like arguing, and i like challenging people, because it gives us the opportunity to defend our interests

i just tend to have very rigid and clearcut standards that are relatively easy to understand—if you knew exactly what i consider "good" when it comes to film, you would be able to watch any movie i haven't seen and know for a FACT whether i'd enjoy it or not, without even asking me

i've always prided myself in my ability to put all of my opinions into words, which i've come to understand is something that half the population struggles with, because they don't necessarily think in words—they think in emotions, pictures, or ideas—whereas, if i can't put something into words, then it means i don't really understand it

therefore, if i think something is good, and i have a 10,000 word essay in my head that goes over all the little reasons why it's good, the idea that somebody could disagree with me makes me recoil a bit

that's what prompts me to engage with people—i don't necessarily want to change your mind; i just want to understand

that's why i've historically gotten frustrated with people about stupid shit like this over the years, because if i'm capable of holding 10,000 words of well-substantiated opinions in my head about one of my favorite things, but all you've ever had to say about your favorite anime is "i just like boobs, man," it makes it difficult for me to relate with you on any level, and i like relating with people

or rather, i HATE not being able to relate with people
This is a compelling argument. I wasn't really thinking of you when I wrote that, but maybe the people I was thinking of are the same way, but aren't as willing to let their opinions be challenged?

For example, I've noticed my opinionated cousin tends to hate any movie review channels that are also opinionated, so he just say they suck and won't watch them.

Do you feel the same way if the debate is in regards to another person?


was this in response to me?


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
I honestly have no idea how to answer those questions you asked. It just strikes me as a very vapid form of tribalism that I tend to try to ignore.
Criticism (broadly) is rhetoric that tests our personal realities and therefore comes into direct conflict with the ego. Tribalism, then, would be the application of this over a group of people with the shared trait being confronted. One cannot take on a group and expect a response weaker than that of the group (composed of many individuals); the only real way to prevent the issue is to promote mindfulness in our interactions. If one is aware of why they feel "attacked" by criticism, they can make the choice to confront their negativity bias and meaningfully interact with that criticism.


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?
Listening to what those excluded by a group have to say about it could be useful when analyzing the group in question, while keeping in mind the perhaps overly negative perspective this individual may have towards it. i.e. Why they are excluded, and what conclusions you'd draw from it. Obviously the reasons will very widely depending on the situation, and may be very well justified.
I'm not intrinsically speaking of othered people who are excluded from the group (in the sense that one may no longer be friends with another) but really any "us vs them", "out-group vs in-group" situation. I wouldn't particularly say Democrats and Republicans exclude each other, but I would contend that modern politics are built on the foundation of Othering.

Quote
Quote
Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
I don't believe it should have much bearing. Obviously identity is a very personal thing, it's how you see yourself in the world. But that can easily change and none of us really fit into the boxes we are assigned to or assign ourselves to. There's also always going to be the more obvious outliers of people who you'd never expect to be in a certain group, possibly providing a much more unique perspective. Or perhaps not, it could always just be an Uncle Tom. But even then, analyzing how they ended up there would provide some interesting insight.
I do find the mention of Uncle Tom interesting to the subject, and actually quite relevant to the subject. The impoverished who support tax cuts (which will negatively affect infrastructure they rely on) do so because they have convinced themselves (or were convinced) that they belong to the group that will benefit, and that criticism leveled at the group  is an attack on themselves. Really, an Uncle Tom is the ultimate example of one who shuns criticism to protect their ego.


 
ಠ_ಠ
| What're you looking at?
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Nuka
IP: Logged

17,120 posts
We knew the world would not be the same.
A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent.
I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita.
Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty
and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says,
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.."
I suppose we all thought that one way or another.
I would contend that modern politics are built on the foundation of Othering.
I agree.

Quote
I do find the mention of Uncle Tom interesting to the subject, and actually quite relevant to the subject. The impoverished who support tax cuts (which will negatively affect infrastructure they rely on) do so because they have convinced themselves (or were convinced) that they belong to the group that will benefit, and that criticism leveled at the group  is an attack on themselves. Really, an Uncle Tom is the ultimate example of one who shuns criticism to protect their ego.
I would argue that those who support policy that actively hurts them are generally completely unaware of that fact, and that while it's exactly the fault of ego, it's also the fault of the manipulative media they consume preying on their ego. Groupthink is very powerful, I've watched my own mother go from full blown doomsday prepper for COVID-19 (she bought me a whole box of 20 of those N95 masks and 2 nicer ones with the gasket in the front back when people weren't taking any of this seriously yet) to now thinking it's all fake and going to protest rallies. Why? It's the media she's consuming. It's been really weird to watch happen.


Aether | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,791 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
Well I definitely believe that you should always pay attention to what your opposition or anyone you happen to disagree with is saying to effectively gain an understanding of what they believe. As you entertain different ideas and perspectives, you get to grips with whatever logic may be behind them and weigh it against your own logic and values. Most of the time your beliefs are probably not going to change, but you should always be open to the idea that they can change because you along with everyone else is still vastly more ignorant than you are wise. You should always scrutinize your own beliefs, especially those you strongly identify with. Make them your own, and not purely just an emulation of the beliefs of other people.

Unfortunately the tribal nature of humans would not have the majority of people practice this. That is why I believe that the greatest thing people can be taught is to think for themselves. To not blindly follow established ideas and believe in something simply because some authority told you that you should, and to actually understand why any idea is truly worth believing in.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

47,606 posts
Another question then, mostly semantic delving: how does one know that they know enough? I can't imagine many people would criticize things if they were to only do so with certainty of their knowledge (found through authentic scrutiny, of course). Should you commit to having your finger on the pulse of a community, or is having a wiki-entry's worth of knowledge of a subject enough?
yeah, that's tricky

it may be impossible to pinpoint exactly when you've given your due diligence, but as long as you acknowledge this limitation by incorporating phrases like "in my experience" into your vernacular, and as long as you continue to make an effort to understand everything that you don't understand yet, that's probably in the realm of fairness

basically, closed-mindedness is cancer—when dealing with people matters, the idea that you might be wrong about everything you think you know should lie constantly in the back of your mind, and that it's okay to be wrong about things, because life is a series of constant course-corrections anyway

Quote
The issue is less that one knows that somebody criticizes of their group (or a trait of it), but rather why the criticism is being leveled.
right, of course—and you can't really get to that point until you've had the conversation, and it has to be an honest and cooperative conversation about real shit, like policy, and while i think i've seen more unicorns than i've seen this kind of political discussion on the internet, that's what i think you need to have

once you've had it, something interesting happens—the seeds of camaraderie are sown, as it becomes increasingly apparent that you and your political opponents (or whatever—i'm playing off my republican example, but this pretty much applies to everything else, too) are ultimately not fighting over ideals, but the methods to achieve those ideals—because ultimately, very few of us are unique; we all kinda want the same things for ourselves and each other at the end of the day, and we just have different ideas on how to attain that

so naturally, depending on your own proclivities, these conversations will have a greater likelihood of a.) softening whatever positions you may hold, making you more agreeable to your opposition, or b.) just the opposite; hardening or sharpening your argumentative skills by forcing you to compete with ideas you may never have considered before, allowing you to become a little bit more persuasive in the future

this is mainly why we criticize each other, i think, and this is why we must accept criticism—it's like a way of building intellectual ladders for each other, and even though we might despise our opponents at the end of the debate (especially if we handle ourselves poorly), i feel like there's still a subtle underlying camaraderie to it in the sense that we're both just trying to get each other to understand life better

again, assuming everyone involved is a good faith actor who checks their ego at the door, which is asking a lot
Quote
For the record, I'm not just speaking about destructive criticism, but also constructive criticism. Anita Sarkeesian is a rather apt example of the subject. A person creates a series of criticisms of the video game industry through a feminist lens. I don't really have to describe the response this provoked, as it is quite ubiquitously known here. Despite most of her videos being on subjects along the lines of "the damsel in distress archetype is way too common" and "bikini armor shouldn't be a standard", she is (or at least was) viscerally despised by the gaming community at large. There's no instance of her attempting to destroy the industry; hell, Ubisoft advertised a few years ago that she was brought in to consult on their depictions (the one interesting thing they've done in years). Her criticisms are clearly leveled at bringing attention to issues she sees in the medium. A majority of the vitriol seems to have existed largely because she has relatively simple gripes with the thing people have attached themselves to.
those videos are seriously so fucking innocuous, it's actually insane that there was ever any controversy—clearly, on the topic of making an effort to understand each other's points of view, i have some work to do on that, because to this day, it's tough for me to work out what was so wrong with anita's videos that they sparked up such vitriol

i think she said that she wasn't really a gamer once, and she might've framed a hitman mission in a dishonest way—flaws that you might find in any average youtube video essay that nobody would really flip their shit over if somebody like matthew matosis pointed it out

and i guess most of the people getting angry at the time were young gamers, and young people don't appreciate being implicated as sexists, or the idea that there's something wrong with them for having a sexuality post-sexual revolution, but these were never actually points of contention anyway—as far as i can tell, they're just projections, kneejerk reactions
Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 05:46:21 PM by Verbatim


 
ಠ_ಠ
| What're you looking at?
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Nuka
IP: Logged

17,120 posts
We knew the world would not be the same.
A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent.
I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita.
Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty
and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says,
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.."
I suppose we all thought that one way or another.
i think she said that she wasn't really a gamer once, and she might've framed a hitman mission in a dishonest way
Basically this. Her portrayal of Hitman was extremely dishonest. People latched onto that and her admittance to not being a gamer as the spearhead to rally against the feminist demon. There was also a Kickstarter that she basically did nothing with.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

47,606 posts
This is a compelling argument. I wasn't really thinking of you when I wrote that, but maybe the people I was thinking of are the same way, but aren't as willing to let their opinions be challenged?

For example, I've noticed my opinionated cousin tends to hate any movie review channels that are also opinionated, so he just say they suck and won't watch them.

Do you feel the same way if the debate is in regards to another person?
maybe a little, but not as much, just because i find it a lot more difficult to defend people (especially controversial figures)

everyone under the sun, no matter how much i personally like them, has done something stupid that i disagree with a lot—and all i can really say in defense is that nobody's perfect, which isn't going to stop anyone from hating their least favorite people

like, i wouldn't oblige anyone to see the virtues of george washington (one of my favorite presidents) if they simply can't get past the fact that he owned slaves—to some people, it doesn't matter that he freed them; the fact that he owned them at all in the first place makes him an irredeemable monster

and honestly, that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and one that i can't and won't argue with

if you dig deep enough into someone's life, you'll always find dirt—and personally, if i were to base my opinions on people exclusively around the worst things they've ever done, there's pretty much nobody that i wouldn't hate, and believe it or not, i just don't really have the energy for that

let me put it to you that way: there's not too many vegan socialist atheist feminist anti-natalists in the world, and i'm just not insane enough to hold everybody to that standard, so i kinda have to adjust

art is a lot easier to defend and have evaluative discussions about, imo, because it's all in how you interpret it—all i ask is that people interpret it charitably, and i try my best to do the same
Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 06:06:18 PM by Verbatim


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,907 posts
If you bend your mind towards the challenge, the skill will follow in your hands
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?
To believe in a ideal is to be willing to betray it. Well constructed criticism should be, if possible, always considered, whoever was constructing it put effort in it. Regardless of what purpose criticism served, if we can get a better idea (be it same idea but sharpened or entirely different thing) or at very least recognize the flaws in our current one, it would make us more prepared for the future and give us ability to design whatever idea we have in mind better.

More often than not though we can be faced with poorly constructed criticism or even some petty insults, and it's not always easy to work through it and maybe concerns in it aren't worth attention and will get ignored, however we should keep an eye on those too, if we are able to. If some concern is expressed multiple times there might be something that we missed. Note that people ability to communicate and their knowledge is limited, so even if they wanted to they can't provide comprehensive enough criticism for us to figure out what is wrong. In that case we should guess in what domain problem might be and seek for criticism from someone who can find what is wrong.

Example:
I drew a picture of horse, very detailed, with background, and most of people liked it. However there been people that said that it looks a little bit odd for them, but they can't put their finger on what exactly was wrong. So I found an artist much more competent than me and asked him what he thinks about my drawing and he immediately told me that anatomy of my horse was wack here, here and here and that realism of horse and realism of background doesn't match.

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?
Whether it's okay or not depends on how you presented it and your intentions. You can criticise without knowing full material behind topic but you have to let whoever you criticise know what gaps in knowledge you have, whether you do it or not showcases whether your intentions are good for who are you criticising or not and whether you want to learn. Even if you don't know full extent of problem you are criticising it still might be good for who you criticise as showcased in example above.

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?

I might miss something here, but I can pinpoint some points when I think criticism is pedantic. Criticism is pedantic when you don't care about topic (so you do it purely for the sake of giving critique or maybe you just don't like people behind ideas and you want to critique them on any idea they have) and it's also pedantic when you criticise the idea you already agree with so critique serves here as reminder of drawbacks of what idea you are going with.

"When is criticism necessary?" is a hard question for me. Necessary for who? In case it was necessary for me to take keyboard and write a careful surgery in a foreign language where I try to consider every outcome, intersept every response, it's sure not for pedantic reasons. It might be topic I'm interested in very much or maybe someone stepped on my values (despite how little of them I might have).

If it's necessary for idea or individual following certain idea, it might be both necessary for them and pedantic from me at the same time. Now that I think about it, whether it's pedantic is quite subjective too. It might seem pedantic from the perspective of person being criticized, but the critic might actually seek knowledge and mutual gain under the premise of critique.

Hard question indeed. I should read more, maybe there is something more basic underneath of the critique model and then those questions can be reconstructed using more basic ideas and then answered with more precision.

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
Never. From what I read there have been a lot of people blindly following ideas and it caused a lot of deaths. Never become slave to ideolodgy, always look for opportunity for reshaping it into something better, because good is the enemy of better, and the world changes every day. Keep critical thinking on, don't trust anything, even don't trust yourself and ideas that you took for your own that in fact might own you.


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
I would argue that those who support policy that actively hurts them are generally completely unaware of that fact, and that while it's exactly the fault of ego, it's also the fault of the manipulative media they consume preying on their ego. Groupthink is very powerful, I've watched my own mother go from full blown doomsday prepper for COVID-19 (she bought me a whole box of 20 of those N95 masks and 2 nicer ones with the gasket in the front back when people weren't taking any of this seriously yet) to now thinking it's all fake and going to protest rallies. Why? It's the media she's consuming. It's been really weird to watch happen.
The evil in it is that the people misleading are the ones who profit. This is why I mentioned censuring in the prompt questions. It is important that a freedom of speech be maintained (outside the realm of hate speech/inciting violence), but lies travel faster than truths and certain groups certainly benefit from that fact. Censuring the insanity the conspiracy theorists/profiteers and magnifying the voices of doctors is the best thing we can do (other than listening to those doctors).


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
those videos are seriously so fucking innocuous, it's actually insane that there was ever any controversy—clearly, on the topic of making an effort to understand each other's points of view, i have some work to do on that, because to this day, it's tough for me to work out what was so wrong with anita's videos that they sparked up such vitriol

i think she said that she wasn't really a gamer once, and she might've framed a hitman mission in a dishonest way—flaws that you might find in any average youtube video essay that nobody would really flip their shit over if somebody like matthew matosis pointed it out

and i guess most of the people getting angry at the time were young gamers, and young people don't appreciate being implicated as sexists, or the idea that there's something wrong with them for having a sexuality post-sexual revolution, but these were never actually points of contention anyway—as far as i can tell, they're just projections, kneejerk reactions
I'd honestly say groupthink, and the protected egos that fuel it. The Hitman thing is the one good example I can think of, and that happened waaaay after people hated her. Her saying she's not a gamer is a good piece of evidence to support that Othering was at play. If she's not a gamer, then there's no way she knows what she's talking about! Pay no mind that the bulk of criticisms were about portrayal of women, and you wouldn't think it's core to video games but I suppose some think differently. People have a hard time separating themselves from their interests, especially if they are the backdrop to their childhood. An insult on your idol is an insult to yourself, and that's the danger of blindly following anything.


🍁 Aria 🔮 | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: D4C
IP: Logged

10,547 posts
His eyebrows sparkling, his white beard hangs down to his chest. The thatched mats, spread outside his chise, spread softly, his splendid attos. He polishes, cross-legged, his makiri, with his eyes completely absorbed.

He is Ainu.

The god of Ainu Mosir, Ae-Oine Kamuy, descendant of Okiku-Rumi, He perishes, a living corpse. The summers day, the white sunlight, unabrushed, ends simply through his breath alone.
To believe in a ideal is to be willing to betray it.
Interesting concept. Could you expand a bit?

Quote
Whether it's okay or not depends on how you presented it and your intentions. You can criticise without knowing full material behind topic but you have to let whoever you criticise know what gaps in knowledge you have, whether you do it or not showcases whether your intentions are good for who are you criticising or not and whether you want to learn. Even if you don't know full extent of problem you are criticising it still might be good for who you criticise as showcased in example above.
I'm uncertain of the general application of debate outside of a neutral setting with monitors. Cults and conspiracy theorists infect people through rigorous (and insidiously deceptive) debate. Argument can be dangerous, and if you're not on your toes you can end up helping spread disinformation.

Quote
Never. From what I read there have been a lot of people blindly following ideas and it caused a lot of deaths. Never become slave to ideolodgy, always look for opportunity for reshaping it into something better, because good is the enemy of better, and the world changes every day. Keep critical thinking on, don't trust anything, even don't trust yourself and ideas that you took for your own that in fact might own you.
We are molded by our environments; it's silly to think that we couldn't pick up some nasty understandings along the way. Exposing one's self to criticism is the most honest way to develop; it will sting sometimes, and there will be plenty of cringing down the road, but ultimately it makes one a better person.


E | Member
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: E
IP: Logged

85 posts
 
I only have a few minutes to reply so I can only pick one line. "How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?"

I don't think it's so much a question of how strongly we should consider arguments made by anybody. It's a question of whether or not said argument has any foundation in logic whatsoever. That should always first and foremost be considered. Only after you've established that an argument has valid roots in logic can you proceed to actually weigh how strongly it's taken into account.


E | Member
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: E
IP: Logged

85 posts
 
 "the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?"

Lastly before I drop into a sleep coma. Always. Always question your framework. When you settle into framework of identity you inevitably imprison yourself from new data coming in that alters how the game works. New data is always coming in. If you don't adapt, you stagnate mentally.


Solonoid | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Jx493
PSN: Jx493
Steam: Jx493
ID: Solonoid
IP: Logged

13,388 posts
 
How strongly should we consider the argument of "othered" persons or groups?
It depends on how alien that person or group's perspective is to the way you perceive and comprehend the world. Sometimes, conflicts in understanding are rooted in a belief so fundamental to how you process the reality of the world that trying to see their side becomes futile. I recently had an argument with someone who believed that monopolies based on market dominance were completely justified, and that companies should be able to extract any price from dependent consumers they please because, in his opinion, the market is always just. In his opinion, if you make a product that is superior to all other similar products to the point you squeeze competition out of existence, even if that product is something people, or society as a whole depends on, you should be able to charge much more than a reasonable profit margin, and he did not see that as taking advantage of consumers. It's not that I'm unable to understand his viewpoint, I'm just completely unable to understand how he could justify something like that. Should I even consider his argument when my fundamental values are so misaligned from his that where he sees acceptable business practices I see blatant abuse? Honestly, I don't think it would even be possible for me to seriously do so; what we believe is just too different on a very basic level.

When is it okay to censure one prior to engaging in material?
Again, when something becomes so alien to your most basic understanding of the world we live in that you literally cannot comprehend their point of view. Some cultures believe (or have believed) it's okay to marry and have sex with children, but there would be absolutely no point in me watching some child pornography to attempt to understand the sexualization of minors. I don't even need to see it to know that I will never agree with it or view it as anything other than criminal. Conversely, if you come from a culture in which twelve year old girls are made into brides and that's your tradition, though I might see it as my moral duty to put an end to it, your worldview would be so fundamentally misaligned with mine that my arguments would be laughable and not worthy of consideration. The only way to snuff out something like that is to indoctrinate the youth at a very early age to understand your point of view, before the traditional understanding becomes cemented.

When is criticism necessary and when is it pedantic?
Same answer again. Criticism is only necessary when it can be effective, and becomes pedantic when there is an outstanding conflict in two moral viewpoints. Look at Congress as an example. The legislature only exists to make compromises and concessions in the areas least offensive to the opposing party. Radical agendas are so incapable of gaining traction because Republicans simply do not understand humanity in the same way Democrats do and vice-versa. Conservatives have a fundamental view that humans do not have the capacity to do good with the sole intention of doing good, rather that acting in one's own self interest is neither good nor bad, and people, given the opportunity, will always make the decision most profitable to themselves. However, by trusting the collective wisdom of society, and trusting centuries of accumulated tradition, we can benefit from wisdom much greater than any individual could muster, to the ultimate good of society. Liberals on the other hand, believe that humans are capable of doing good with the sole intention of doing good, and that by trusting the articulated wisdom of experts, we are able to defy backward and abusive traditions to the ultimate good of society. Because of this diametric opposition, radicalism on both sides is eschewed, and moderate policy prevails. This system oy works because each side's pedantic and ineffective criticism of the the other ends up being totally ignored (though it does often consume a great deal of time), while necessary and moderate criticism of each other shapes compromise into law without the opportunity for radicalism.

Finally, the most broad question: at what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves, or define themselves by external subjects?
Whenever there is an opportunity to truly see a situation through the lens of another. In my first example, I was totally incapable of understanding how the guy I was arguing with could come to the conclusions he did, though I did understand the conclusions he came to. However, if my alignment were slightly different, and I could really consider his beliefs by virtue of the logic he had used to arrive at that conclusion, then even if I might not necessarily be convinced to change my stance, I would see it as worthy of my consideration. Anytime the lens someone sees a situation through is comprehensible to you, you owe it, not to them, but to yourself to look through that lens and understand what they are saying with an open mind. That doesn't mean that you will ultimately agree with them, merely that you have considered their point. You should always be reconsidering your stances when possible. If you do, and your stance does not change, then you will have a better understanding of why you believe what you do. If your stance does change, then you will be likely be happier and more complete with your new viewpoint than you were with the old one. Unfortunately though, seeing it the other way is not always possible, and attempting to do so when you really just can't will only cause confusion, consternation, and unresolvable self-doubt.
Last Edit: May 20, 2020, 03:27:57 AM by Solonoid


MarKhan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

2,907 posts
If you bend your mind towards the challenge, the skill will follow in your hands
Never. From what I read there have been a lot of people blindly following ideas and it caused a lot of deaths. Never become slave to ideolodgy, always look for opportunity for reshaping it into something better, because good is the enemy of better, and the world changes every day. Keep critical thinking on, don't trust anything, even don't trust yourself and ideas that you took for your own that in fact might own you.
We are molded by our environments; it's silly to think that we couldn't pick up some nasty understandings along the way. Exposing one's self to criticism is the most honest way to develop; it will sting sometimes, and there will be plenty of cringing down the road, but ultimately it makes one a better person.
I'm terribly sorry, I misinterpreted a question in a way that changed it meaning to an opposite one. In particular I missed a first half of question (At what point ought one call into question how they identify themselves?) and gave response to only second part (At what point ought one define themselves by external subjects?) which I interpreted as "At what point ought one define themselves by the ideal they carry out?" but it seems that even here I misinterpreted a question and it should've been "At what point ought one to update their ideals to changes in outside world?".

I agree that we have to expose ourselves to criticism and not hold onto ideas and definitions we have, because as you said whatever we picked might be nasty and better alternative can be found and also because world changes every day those ideas won't hold true forever.

To believe in a ideal is to be willing to betray it.
Interesting concept. Could you expand a bit?
It's a quote from second KOTOR by Kreia. To believe into something is to show your confidence in it, in that it will be successful or, in current context, that it will withstand critique. You can't have full confidence in something that you haven't thoroughly checked, and so you have to check everything. But in checking you automatically admit to possibility that the thing in check is flawed and that you betray it for something better.

If you aren't willing to subject an ideal to critique, even one that coming from yourself, you can't say that you have a confidence in what is being critiqued.

Whether it's okay or not depends on how you presented it and your intentions. You can criticise without knowing full material behind topic but you have to let whoever you criticise know what gaps in knowledge you have, whether you do it or not showcases whether your intentions are good for who are you criticising or not and whether you want to learn. Even if you don't know full extent of problem you are criticising it still might be good for who you criticise as showcased in example above.
I'm uncertain of the general application of debate outside of a neutral setting with monitors. Cults and conspiracy theorists infect people through rigorous (and insidiously deceptive) debate. Argument can be dangerous, and if you're not on your toes you can end up helping spread disinformation.
Yeah, that's why we need to keep critical thinking on, don't trust anything and always look to fill the gaps in information we receive.

Unfortunately not always (usually never, especially when it comes down to a miniscule details) we can fill the knowledge gaps and not always we have resources or can afford to spend them (time or attention, specifically) to validate the critique and that's a big problem. That said, sometimes we have to critique, or engage in debate or discussion even with gaps in knowledge even in a complex domains such as politics or business, because it is a feedback and without feedback ideas might not adapt and will stagnate with time.

Honestly, sometimes I wish we lived in perfect world where unsolvable problems wouldn't exist. But then humanity as it is now would not exist either.


E | Member
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: E
IP: Logged

85 posts
 
Honestly, sometimes I wish we lived in perfect world where unsolvable problems wouldn't exist. But then humanity as it is now would not exist either.

Unsolvable problems don't exist. It couldn't even be classified as a problem if its counterpart didn't exist. The only type of problem that exists is one where the solution hasn't been found yet.