If I had to define the technique/perspective/skill that was lacking it would be something like asking a direct question that would force the other side to clarify themselves in relation to what you are claiming.
<Chris could have said: “are you saying I should stop watching things I love and watch things the critics like, even if I hate it?”>
at this point Chris would have won NO MATTER WHAT THE RESPONSE WAS!
you claim they would have said "of course not". But I don't think that it matters. Even if they have said yes, Chris would have an easy follow up- "explain" or better yet "explain- what you said is counter intuitive for me, and probably for many other people"
this is a little different than your claim I think. You said you have to repeat back to them what you think they said and check in. And the resolution would lie in the correction of communication.
I think the skill is more in asking a direct and clear question that would focus us on the topic at hand- even if everyone still disagrees.
I'm not sure /how/ different this is. But I think my way bypasses the need for compassion. You are trying to target the disagreement- not clear up and find out you really agree.
> I think the skill is more in asking a direct and clear question that would focus us on the topic at hand- even if everyone still disagrees.
yes, I think you're right!! It's so cool that you get this, this is the ultimate goal of what I'm doing to do: document a case, then multiple people give their analysis, and we discuss, and the ultimate test is which theory produces the best results in practice (we go out and test it in our lives/on the internet etc) and we update the theory. I'm not very far yet but I was trying to put the "theory" into a little handbook on GitHub that we can update: https://defenderofbasic.github.io/in-good-faith-handbook/
I think you're right because asking the right question just by itself has a causal effect on others. I think this is what I was trying to reach for when I made this tweet [1] about "how to change anybody's mind about anything", and it wasn't by telling them but by asking them to reconcile something (where their "map" of the world doesn't match "the territory")
If I wanted to propose a theory- its that either trust is unnecessary (in the way I use the word) or if it is- the way you use it needs to be defined. I'd love to figure out how to experiment and test this
Admittedly I didn’t click into the Björk thread but I’m actually confused on what each party thought.
When Chris was saying I am going to form my own opinion by experiencing music did they think there was an element of I am going to dislike music for the sake of disliking music?
I think you outline part of the nuance which is that even though art is subjective there’s still patterns and elements that you can comment on and appreciate it. Is the problem that people thought Chris was undermining all of that?
Chris is saying two things (1) he rejects the "litmus test of artistic taste" because art is subjective (2) the correct way to experience art is to think about what you like & don't like and follow that
The other people are saying (A) the "litmus test" IS useful, it DOES have something objective about it. (B) the correct way to experience art is to think about what you like & don't like, AND expand your horizons/challenge yourself.
So, they're saying *very* similar things. The disagreement happens because Chris THINKS they're saying his claim number (2) is false. And he is defending it. On the other side, they see him rejecting (A), and are trying to convince him of it. But he's not listening, because he's defending claim (2)
does that make more sense? I'm trying to make this more legible, so I really appreciate you asking this clarifying question!
This pattern happens a lot:
- Person 1 says X
- Person 2 *hears* Y, and argues against it
- Person 1 is confused why anyone would reject X, which is obviously true & good. Concludes that person 2 must be an idiot/malicious
This becomes obvious when you ask them to repeat what they think you said. But people don't like being told what to do by strangers on the internet, so you can just do this yourself for them.
In our story, "X" is, litmus taste for art is a real/useful concept. And "Y" is, you should trust critics' opinions above your own.
"you need to agree on the same premise to move forward" 💯🎯
Yes I think this is very important. I used to feel like it was like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon, but I don't see it that way anymore. I think teaching just ONE person this has a huge effect. *especially* because I keep seeing smart people who genuinely care getting frustrated and burnt out because of a lack of communication skill. Trying to collect all these techniques + case studies in an open source book! https://github.com/DefenderOfBasic/in-good-faith-handbook/issues/1
If I had to define the technique/perspective/skill that was lacking it would be something like asking a direct question that would force the other side to clarify themselves in relation to what you are claiming.
<Chris could have said: “are you saying I should stop watching things I love and watch things the critics like, even if I hate it?”>
at this point Chris would have won NO MATTER WHAT THE RESPONSE WAS!
you claim they would have said "of course not". But I don't think that it matters. Even if they have said yes, Chris would have an easy follow up- "explain" or better yet "explain- what you said is counter intuitive for me, and probably for many other people"
this is a little different than your claim I think. You said you have to repeat back to them what you think they said and check in. And the resolution would lie in the correction of communication.
I think the skill is more in asking a direct and clear question that would focus us on the topic at hand- even if everyone still disagrees.
I'm not sure /how/ different this is. But I think my way bypasses the need for compassion. You are trying to target the disagreement- not clear up and find out you really agree.
Does this make sense to you?
> I think the skill is more in asking a direct and clear question that would focus us on the topic at hand- even if everyone still disagrees.
yes, I think you're right!! It's so cool that you get this, this is the ultimate goal of what I'm doing to do: document a case, then multiple people give their analysis, and we discuss, and the ultimate test is which theory produces the best results in practice (we go out and test it in our lives/on the internet etc) and we update the theory. I'm not very far yet but I was trying to put the "theory" into a little handbook on GitHub that we can update: https://defenderofbasic.github.io/in-good-faith-handbook/
I think you're right because asking the right question just by itself has a causal effect on others. I think this is what I was trying to reach for when I made this tweet [1] about "how to change anybody's mind about anything", and it wasn't by telling them but by asking them to reconcile something (where their "map" of the world doesn't match "the territory")
[1]: https://x.com/DefenderOfBasic/status/1771171097733439761
If I wanted to propose a theory- its that either trust is unnecessary (in the way I use the word) or if it is- the way you use it needs to be defined. I'd love to figure out how to experiment and test this
Admittedly I didn’t click into the Björk thread but I’m actually confused on what each party thought.
When Chris was saying I am going to form my own opinion by experiencing music did they think there was an element of I am going to dislike music for the sake of disliking music?
I think you outline part of the nuance which is that even though art is subjective there’s still patterns and elements that you can comment on and appreciate it. Is the problem that people thought Chris was undermining all of that?
Chris is saying two things (1) he rejects the "litmus test of artistic taste" because art is subjective (2) the correct way to experience art is to think about what you like & don't like and follow that
The other people are saying (A) the "litmus test" IS useful, it DOES have something objective about it. (B) the correct way to experience art is to think about what you like & don't like, AND expand your horizons/challenge yourself.
So, they're saying *very* similar things. The disagreement happens because Chris THINKS they're saying his claim number (2) is false. And he is defending it. On the other side, they see him rejecting (A), and are trying to convince him of it. But he's not listening, because he's defending claim (2)
does that make more sense? I'm trying to make this more legible, so I really appreciate you asking this clarifying question!
This pattern happens a lot:
- Person 1 says X
- Person 2 *hears* Y, and argues against it
- Person 1 is confused why anyone would reject X, which is obviously true & good. Concludes that person 2 must be an idiot/malicious
This becomes obvious when you ask them to repeat what they think you said. But people don't like being told what to do by strangers on the internet, so you can just do this yourself for them.
In our story, "X" is, litmus taste for art is a real/useful concept. And "Y" is, you should trust critics' opinions above your own.
Yes thank you for clarifying! In the midst of reading this I definitely lost the concept or argument around people saying taste is valid.
It also does make sense that the argument is devolving and that the misunderstanding is the essence of the disagreement.
I say it all the time that you need to agree on the same premise to move forward in a discussion and it sounds like you are saying the same.
I appreciate your posts. The time you took to explain this to me, and your passion for this!
"you need to agree on the same premise to move forward" 💯🎯
Yes I think this is very important. I used to feel like it was like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon, but I don't see it that way anymore. I think teaching just ONE person this has a huge effect. *especially* because I keep seeing smart people who genuinely care getting frustrated and burnt out because of a lack of communication skill. Trying to collect all these techniques + case studies in an open source book! https://github.com/DefenderOfBasic/in-good-faith-handbook/issues/1