Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

One Thing

Published by

Clarissa

on

A primitive person hears somebody say one thing he disagrees with and then never wants to hear from that source ever again. “If ABC is wrong about the price of cucumbers in Guam,” he says, “it follows that ABC must be wrong about everything else.”

An intellectually developed person has the exact opposite approach. He might disagree with ABC about everything but if ABC said something once that he found useful or worth considering, he will concentrate on that and feel grateful to ABC for assisting him on his intellectual journey.

15 responses to “One Thing”

  1. Stringer Bell Avatar
    Stringer Bell

    I don’t quite agree and here’s why. Your argument presupposes that one is able to accurately determine the level of correctness of all content. Only then you can proceed on a case by case basis and consume the “correct” content and discard the incorrect content. But that’s close to impossible because we cannot be subject matter experts at everything.

    Let’s say you know a lot about a particular topic and find that a given source is completely wrong about it. Doesn’t it naturally raise the question of how do you trust a source when it failed you at the one thing you know about? For the rest of its content, by definition, you have to take them at face value because you don’t know enough about everything.

    For example, I can confidently say that the NYTimes coverage of India is completely divorced from reality. So, how can I trust that they’re telling me the truth about Ukraine or Israel or China?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. stille Avatar
      stille

      Ah but you aren’t supposed to trust sources 🙂 NYT saying X about India isn’t proof that X is true about India but that the NYT wants you to believe X about India and so on. One develops one’s opinions about unfamiliar subjects very carefully, from multiple sources with as different biases as possible, and then one holds said opinions lightly.

      Sources that can give you an insight aren’t exactly a dime a dozen though, they’re usually going to be people who filter the same vast mass of information you do but draw different conclusions than you do, assemble it into something else. That’s immensely valuable, and I’ll go a step further than Clarissa and say that this usually happens from sources you disagree with on just about everything more often than not. There’s little I’ll agree with methylethyl, f’rex, values and opinions-wise, and this is part of what makes her comments so interesting to read.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. Stringer Bell Avatar
        Stringer Bell

        Nothing I like more than engaging with and learning from a point of view I don’t agree with and my tenure at this blog is proof of that :). But we have to distinguish between fact and opinion. You can learn from opinions you don’t agree with but you can’t learn from facts that are wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. stille Avatar
          stille

          I guess, in my mind, facts are things that are true or not, whereas opinions are thing one agrees or disagrees with. I don’t *agree* that the sky in my town is cloudy right now. It just is.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Stringer Bell Avatar
            Stringer Bell

            My point exactly.

            Like

            Reply
    2. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I think I was wrong to use the letters ABC because they created an impression that I’m talking about news outlets. News outlets, I agree completely. They lie about something, and I switch them off forever.

      But I was talking about people, not institutions. Thinkers, philosophers, analysts. I usually disagree with between 60 and 95% of what they say but I treasure the rest. Jürgen Habermas, for example, I disagree with everything except literally 3 sentences but those sentences really helped me understand the destruction of the nation-state years ago. And I remember him as the thinker who gave me those 3 sentences and not somebody who was wrong about everything else.

      But news sources aren’t grappling their way towards difficult concepts. They are supposed to be stating facts. That’s not hard. If they fail, I don’t use them anymore.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. methylethyl Avatar
        methylethyl

        I usually have a couple of lying news sources that I keep tabs on. It lets me know two really important things:

        1. What propaganda is being pushed *to my side*
        2. Who is pushing it.

        It’s a very useful insight into who is taking money from whom, to say what.

        With people– yes, I will tolerate a lot of personality friction in people who are willing to impart things that I want to know. Have never yet had a choir director I got along with. But I still show up for practice. Not because of any personal loyalty or for the social vibes, but because of a shared relationship with *the music*. It’s sort of a… you’re not important, I’m not important, and as long as we both understand that the music is important we can work together. We don’t have to like each other.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
  2. methylethyl Avatar
    methylethyl

    True of people, true of news sources.

    It’s good to keep some of both around with whom you *mostly disagree*, if only to keep an outside perspective fresh.

    Like

    Reply
  3. overgrownhobbit Avatar
    overgrownhobbit

    Surely the reason for the disagreement matters?

    And the nature of the relationship: e.g. ABC a corporate person, and possibly an AI bot?

    Also, why is “primitive” a term of condemnation, and “evolved” (presumably) an encomium?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Said a person who uses the word “encomium.” 🙂

      We live in an increasingly complex world. People with undeveloped intellects are doomed to living in fear and anxiety because they simply don’t understand much of what’s going on. We can bemoan this but, ultimately, there is individual responsibility and if we don’t gain control over our anxieties and act rationally in our own interest, we’ll bear the burden of the consequences on our own.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Blog commenter Avatar
        Blog commenter

        You and I agree about the reality of IQ and how it’s genetically predetermined. People cannot develop their intellects beyond the pre-set upper bound. How are people with below average IQs in developed countries not doomed to living in fear and anxiety no matter how much they try to develop?

        Like

        Reply
        1. cliff arroyo Avatar
          cliff arroyo

          “people with below average IQs in developed countries not doomed to living in fear”

          Having an elite class with some kind of nobless oblige or even just simple human decency would help a lot… but that’s the reality we’re in so the only reasonable option for most is to tune out. But then tuned out people don’t necessarily make very good choices when called upon to vote… so where’s the end of the string to untie the ball of yarn?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
      2. overgrownhobbit Avatar
        overgrownhobbit

        Ah. That usage of primitive. I was being literal-minded again.

        From a linguists perspective, then, why that word for the intellectual lack of development (and possibly capacity)?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          I could say “basic” but I’m too old for the youthful slang. 🙂

          I’m open to other terms that would transmit the idea better. Suggestions are welcome.

          Like

          Reply
  4. Avi Avatar
    Avi

    I read all these answers and I learnt so much from every single one. I’m not sure there are many other blogs out there where I could do that. Keep it up, people!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts