Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Additional_Fail_5270 t1_jcga81t wrote

I think sometimes people don't distinguish between subjective and objective criticism. So sometimes people subjectively don't like something and so they assume it has absolutely nothing to offer anyone. And then similarly sometimes something appeals to someone's subjective tastes and then they decide that anyone else looking at it MUST have the same reaction because any other reaction is somehow threatening to your ability to feel positively about it. So like, someone should be able to read a book, and it doesn't relate to them at all on any level, not one of their most exciting or stimulating reading experiences, but still acknowledge that it's well written. And vice versa, someone should be able to read a book and it blows their mind, is a window into their soul, changed their life, but still acknowledge yeah you know, issues here or there that might be more significant to a reader not having the same emotional response I am.
But you know, for a culture so obsessed with how complex identity is, we're not great at engaging with any kind of duality

24

munkie15 t1_jch6eyh wrote

That’s a great breakdown.

I think the problem lies in how most information is communicated, electronically. I think this mode of transmission conditions people to react very quickly. This quick reaction does not bode well for any sort of in depth discussion, on any topic, let alone a very complex topic.

5

Additional_Fail_5270 t1_jcjdrcj wrote

100% agree. I also think platforms like Twitter, with their character limits, have conditioned us all to go for punchy and reductive, and like you say, put so much weight on our gut reaction to things there's no room to let an idea sit for a while and tease it out fully

2

munkie15 t1_jck9i73 wrote

Exactly. I’m currently reading “Stolen Focus” by Johann Hari. He talks about this very thing. It’s pretty interesting so far.

2