Critic or Promoter?

[EmptyVessel]

Which are you and what do you think of others? Which do you think is better? The critic for looking at what's wrong or the promoter looking at what's right? When is the critic out of place for too much faultfinding? When is the promoter brushing what's wrong under the rug?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

the critic preoccupies my mind but my voice speaks the lies of the promoter

 

[Minuend]

Neither?

It depends on the overall scheme. It depends on the circumstances.

Some things are more good than bad, other things more bad than good. When it comes to how I view other people, I tend to look for why they are and how they are. Criticism or promoticism isn't really an accurate division of my perspective. I'm not known for being a person who always have something nice to say or who is overly positive. Neither am I known for being overly pessimistic and criticizing.

 

[Grayman]

the critic preoccupies my mind but my voice speaks the lies of the promoter

this^

Why concentrate on things that don't need fixing?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Why concentrate on things that don't need fixing?

did you mean to imply that you have some control over the prevalence of the critic or just that you choose to keep its thoughts to yourself?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Both are useful, both contribute to a single vision.

 

[Grayman]

did you mean to imply that you have some control over the prevalence of the critic or just that you choose to keep its thoughts to yourself?

My view is not the same as others. I seem myself as solutions oriented adn seeking improvement in things that can benefit from it but not always need it.

To others, the need to change what is is a statement that something is wrong.

I am not a person who points out faults as if I thought they were not already aware of them...IRL.

I equally consider positive traits and negative traits in my head of any individual without discrimination but will offer solutions and improvements more often to those closest to me and remain silent to others waiting to see how they would take my comments.

 

[Pyropyro]

Which are you and what do you think of others?

Both.

Which do you think is better? The critic for looking at what's wrong or the promoter looking at what's right?

Neither one is better. It depends on the situation and your goals.

When is the critic out of place for too much faultfinding?

If they don't provide solutions or act on one.

When is the promoter brushing what's wrong under the rug?

If they don't provide all the necessary details about whatever/whomever they are promoting.

 

[GandalfLeBleu]

First post because this thread really sparked my interest... it seems that this has (for the most part) defined my friendships with people as I grew and matured through high school and now as I finish college, although I've learned from my mistakes.

The main one being, I've found that a healthy balance, regardless of which way you're oriented, is key to not going insane and crawling back into your introvert lair because the world is full of idiots.

Lengthy intro aside, I tend to be a critic. Though every single one of my close friends has called me an asshole at some point, they keep inviting me to hang out for some reason. I think there is value in bringing to light the truth behind what is said, and the truth behind the way people act or think. However, as any emotionally-developed (I know, we INTPs tend to lack quite a bit in this area) person knows, people don't always need to hear the truth to help them through a crisis, especially when it comes to close friends. Both sides are of equal value imho, but I find truth-seeking to be a much more satisfying hobby.

 

[Jennywocky]

Both.

Neither one is better. It depends on the situation and your goals.

If they don't provide solutions or act on one.

If they don't provide all the necessary details about whatever/whomever they are promoting.

All this.

Criticalness is useful until it undermines to the degree of preventing success.

Promotion is useful until it misrepresents to the degree of preventing success.

(Success = achieving your purpose)

 

[Grayman]

All this.

Criticalness is useful until it undermines to the degree of preventing success.

Promotion is useful until it misrepresents to the degree of preventing success.

(Success = achieving your purpose)

Success = the overall 'long term' and 'sustainable' happiness of everyone involved

 

[Jennywocky]

Success = the overall 'long term' and 'sustainable' happiness of everyone involved

If that is your goal, then yes.
There are various goals an individual might have.

 

[Grayman]

If that is your goal, then yes.
There are various goals an individual might have.

Other goals that only account for the self are of a narrow-minded view of success. One cannot truly be successful by themselves in a society.

It also makes more sense from a utilitarian standpoint to consider the success of everyone. Since we are arguing the usefulness of criticism and promotion, it only makes sense that an action that affects the most amount of people in the most positive way has the largest measure of usefulness due to the sheer unit of measure.

 

[Jennywocky]

Other goals that only account for the self are of a narrow-minded view of success. One cannot truly be successful by themselves in a society.

It also makes more sense from a utilitarian standpoint to consider the success of everyone. Since we are arguing the usefulness of criticism and promotion, it only makes sense that an action that affects the most amount of people in the most positive way has the largest measure of usefulness due to the sheer unit of measure.

As far as granularity goes:
I'm viewing this from somewhere above the forest.
You're arguing some point amid the trees.

I'm done, thanks.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i try to go smooth for the most part and not judge whatever goes on in my immediate environment, good or bad. usually i focus on trying to find a new perspective on either the situation at hand or some tangent, whether it is feasible to communicate or not. more often it isn't. more often it's not even possible to articulate. more often i'm not very sociable.

with really close friends or loved ones i tend to keep my encouragement and faith implicit verging on indetectable since i feel it's really important not to vulgarize it. with other people i consider friends or acquaintances i am more lax in handing out affirmation.

on pseudo-anonymous internet forums i enact my less sympathetic inclinations, but also whatever superficial affection happens to flow through me. i am more extreme and less reserved overall, due to rather mundane but not insignificant factors. i used to think of this as a problem, but now i welcome a multiplicity/diffusion of identity as it seems to align with current and future developmental phases of collective intelligence.

messy post not sure if these generalizations are valid

 

[Grayman]

As far as granularity goes:
I'm viewing this from somewhere above the forest.
You're arguing some point amid the trees.

I'm done, thanks.

Sorry, I insulted you.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Sorry, I insulted you.

nah

 

[Grayman]

nah

She cut off the discussion because...

1. I insulted her.

2. My argument was so sensless that it cannot be corrected because who even really knows what I am talking about or how I came to such an odd conclusion.

3. I did a poor job of really presenting it so others can understand.

4. Other

 

[Brontosaurie]

?? i understood perfectly. are you being sarcastic

 

[Cherry Cola]

She obviously cut if off because it would be a pain to explain her reasoning to you because you weren't really listening. I cba to explain it too.

Basically you can't consider everyone, if you want to consider everyone you find a heuristic approach that doesn't involve considering everyone.

Furthermore, to consider everyone is not the same as trying to generate the most happiness, so it isn't utilitarianism.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i don't see a reason to interpret Greyman's set of "everyone" as a plane on the time dimension.

fuck that last bit sounds like something wruce billis would say in a castatrophy movie

 

[Cherry Cola]

i don't see a reason to interpret Greyman's set of "everyone" as a plane on the time dimension.

fuck that last bit sounds like something wruce billis would say in a castatrophy movie

Ok I take it I interpret it that way. Problem is I don't know what it means and I can't make sense of it :P

 

[Brontosaurie]

you think he means "everyone" as in all people who exist, now. right?

i think he means "everyone" as in humanity at large. the best definition of utilitarianism is the one i automatically refer to, and it is "maximization of progress and prosperity and scale for the intelligent organism or process or network or phenomenon in question as ethical standard" or something like that. maybe it's not the usual one but i use it anyway

 

[Grayman]

I just meant that you have to consider everyone's view of success who is affected by giving or not giving the criticism. Your own view of success is not as relevant much of the time because you usually are not the one most affected.

I did not mean that you have to make this choice based on your own view of what is successful for everyone else.

I disagree with jenny because "your purpose" indicates that you are basing it on your own views. When affecting others you have to judge it individualy and separately based on each of their own views of what would be successful for them.

Yes, it is complicated and we can not accurately or fully know what everyones views are.

In many obvious cases you can.


A man cheats on his wife and tells you about it.

Jenny based success on accomplishing what is your purpose.
That depends on what you value.
Marriage: I cannot be friends with a cheater. It is just wrong what you are doing.
What you think is beneficial for others: Your an asshole doing that to your wife, and your kids....!

I am trying to suggest that it should be based on everyone's point of view of success of those who are affected
This depends on what every other individual values
"How would your wife take it if she found out? What if you give her an STD?"
"If this goes bad your kids may feel you betrayed their mother. Is it a good risk to take?"

Because you don't fully know what the wife feels or what the kids feel or what their view of success is, you simply ask. The criticism is rather indirect but the man will feel criticized and judged when asking these questions.

 

[Grayman]

you think he means "everyone" as in all people who exist, now. right?

i think he means "everyone" as in humanity at large. the best definition of utilitarianism is the one i automatically refer to, and it is "maximization of progress and prosperity and scale for the intelligent organism or process or network or phenomenon in question as ethical standard" or something like that. maybe it's not the usual one but i use it anyway

The people affected, is not necessarily restricted to the current time so it also refers to them although you can only speculate based on 'what most people' would feel.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Eh, why would "your purpose" indicate that? :O I didn't read it that way.

 

[Grayman]

Eh, why would "your purpose" indicate that? :O I didn't read it that way.

The only way to know or determine 'your purpose' is to utilize your own perceptions and values. It never should have gotten to that point. The only purpose that matters are the ones affected as they are a part of the function of what is occurring.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The only way to know anything is to utilize your own perceptions and values -the two are by no means in a discrete relationship, in fact they are hard to separate- afaik :O

 

[Grayman]

The only way to know anything is to utilize your own perceptions and values -the two are by no means in a discrete relationship, in fact they are hard to separate- afaik :O

"I would feel successful if I got married and had a wife."

you using your own perceptions: "I've been married and I know he wouldn't like it."
you using my perceptions: "It would be good for him to get married."

"I think I want to get married. <Frown, looking at ground with uncertainty>

you using your own perceptions: "I think he would love to get married. I think it's great."
you using my perceptions: "Being married carries an uncertain future for him that may not be the best."

They are rather definable in practice.

Your perception of my perception so it is still your perception because you perceived and interpreted my perception?

It is still my perception. You just have to do you best to perceive it accurately.

 

[OrLevitate]

The only way to know anything is to utilize your own perceptions and values -the two are by no means in a discrete relationship, in fact they are hard to separate- afaik :O

eventually casuists will compile all ethically relevant empirical data into a computer and commence the ultimate common law. has history gone on long enough? not for a dumb dumb like me to say. but something like that will inevitably happen (unless we explode), because currently; "Moral evaluations have become mediated by the imagination [undefined ultimate self or cosmic order from which to index moral order]."
heard it from orlevitate first!

and then we can less wrongly be critical and supportive.

i'd say we're on the brink of UTOPIUHHHH

 

[The Gopher]

Other goals that only account for the self are of a narrow-minded view of success. One cannot truly be successful by themselves in a society.

It also makes more sense from a utilitarian standpoint to consider the success of everyone. Since we are arguing the usefulness of criticism and promotion, it only makes sense that an action that affects the most amount of people in the most positive way has the largest measure of usefulness due to the sheer unit of measure.

I'm going to start here and may or may not be playing devils advocate.


"Success = the overall 'long term' and 'sustainable' happiness of everyone involved"

"Other goals that only account for the self are of a narrow-minded view of success."

What if you are going for long term sustainable happiness of most people involved. You don't have to only account for yourself while having a different goal. What if you don't change the happiness of others by making yourself happy is that not at least a small success.

I may have a narrow minded view that if I stand in fire for a long period of time I will die. Since in most situations I am correct does being narrow minded matter? I don't consider the other possibilities exempting fire suits.

"One cannot truly be successful by themselves in a society." One can be successful by themselves in society even with a utilitarian view if they achieve the overall 'long term' and 'sustainable' happiness of everyone involved.

The problem is you are far to subjective, you have an initial point that is correct because you believe in it and that is what you base all following arguments on. Now thankfully I have left you an out. Your view on success may be narrow minded and subjective but it also may be correct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am am perfectionist (believe it or not) and so I fall on the critic side when it comes to improvement. That said after criticizing something I then go "But if you fix that I'll be perfect!" and promote whatever it is or at least the possibility of what it could be.

 

[Grayman]

My issue is in understanding where in the decision making process we are considering 'my purpose'. Essentially my purpose overall is to not fully consider my purpose in the final decision but to be objective.

The impossibility of being objective is another debate entirely.

 

[Grayman]

What if you are going for long term sustainable happiness of most people involved. You don't have to only account for yourself while having a different goal. What if you don't change the happiness of others by making yourself happy is that not at least a small success.

To be objective you first remove self, values opinions and see the world. In an objective world there is no meaning. There is no reason, therefor you cannot decide anything because everything you do becomes a judgment.

After this you realize there is meaning. It is created by those who believe it it and make it real in their actions and reactions. You must then consider the meaning they create. YOu look at yourself from afar like all the others and you see no reason to set yourself above or below anyone else because that would be a subjective descision on your part. You must consider the entity of 'you' like you do everyone else.

YOu then plug in the various possiblites into the entities judgment systems and you determine the possiblity that provides the best result based on their combined judgment sytems.

Long story short. Self is considered. I is just not valued.

 

[The Gopher]

AHHH FE ALERT FE ALERT. I assume you account more for self due to others accounting more for self and thus needing to balance out how much priority is on each. For example if someone else had your view you would need to account more for them due to them accounting less for themselves.

People like you are a big drain on others as they have to make up for you. I see this happen all the time and the person is always oblivious. The problem is when multiple people make up for your lack and thus you get promoted.

But yeah being objective is nice and all but anyone can be objective. Subjectivity and perspective is what you need to critic. Because if you only had objective critics then only the most intelligent one would be needed. Since nobody is that intelligent you need subjective ones :P

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Gopher, I hear the distinct sound of a submarine alarm going off. Or maybe 'warning Will Robinson'

 

[OrLevitate]

AHHH FE ALERT FE ALERT. I assume you account more for self due to others accounting more for self and thus needing to balance out how much priority is on each. For example if someone else had your view you would need to account more for them due to them accounting less for themselves.

People like you are a big drain on others as they have to make up for you. I see this happen all the time and the person is always oblivious. The problem is when multiple people make up for your lack and thus you get promoted.

But yeah being objective is nice and all but anyone can be objective. Subjectivity and perspective is what you need to critic. Because if you only had objective critics then only the most intelligent one would be needed. Since nobody is that intelligent you need subjective ones :P

You advocate the method that is already the prevalent one in terms of purpose. Everyone totes what they think is important. This is the natural way of humanity, and its been sorting itself out for the longest time.

Grayman is one of those people toting what they think is important. Yes, absolute objectivity is imaginary, but there is a least subjective.

 

[The Gopher]

Gopher, I hear the distinct sound of a submarine alarm going off. Or maybe 'warning Will Robinson'

Danger Will Robinson Danger! ...I think I was 4 last time I saw that...


I'm actually not technically advocating any method. I'm just bored hunting people.

 

[Grayman]

AHHH FE ALERT FE ALERT. I assume you account more for self due to others accounting more for self and thus needing to balance out how much priority is on each. For example if someone else had your view you would need to account more for them due to them accounting less for themselves.

I am afraid to answer because I am not adequately sure as to what you are talking about. Everyone gets accounted for including the self.

People like you are a big drain on others as they have to make up for you. I see this happen all the time and the person is always oblivious. The problem is when multiple people make up for your lack and thus you get promoted.

How am I considering their success if I am not accounting for myself and ensuring I progress in ways that others may benefit?

But yeah being objective is nice and all but anyone can be objective. Subjectivity and perspective is what you need to critic. Because if you only had objective critics then only the most intelligent one would be needed. Since nobody is that intelligent you need subjective ones :P

Suppose you are a movie critic. Does your own subjective view provide more weight to the value of a movie than the multitudes who buy tickets?

 

[The Gopher]

I am afraid to answer because I am not adequately sure as to what you are talking about. Everyone gets accounted for including the self.



How am I considering their success if I am not accounting for myself and ensuring I progress in ways that others may benefit?



Suppose you are a movie critic. Does your own subjective view provide more weight to the value of a movie than the multitudes who buy tickets?

Heh, there are people like you that try to account for everyone equally. There are people that account for themselves mostly and others and there are those that focus on balancing it all. So they account for themselves and the first group more to balance them with the second group.

So if going group by group it's (out of 150%) 50-50-50 then adding second group it's 60-80-60 then the final group comes along and it's 100-100-100. See how much work the final group has to do? Shame on you.

If I value a movie badly and if my subjective opinion is respected/generally agreed with multitudes with similar opinions to me won't go and watch it.

 

[Grayman]

ding second group it's 60-80-60 then the final group comes along and it's 100-100-100. See how much work the final group has to do? Shame on you.

The first group does hte most because they are there the longest.

 

[The Gopher]

The first group does hte most because they are there the longest.

AHH Noo the logical errors! (But it seems you understand )

 

[arthur]

Criticize if its wrong. Promote if its right.

 

[Double_V]

Which are you and what do you think of others? Which do you think is better? The critic for looking at what's wrong or the promoter looking at what's right? When is the critic out of place for too much faultfinding? When is the promoter brushing what's wrong under the rug?

Excellent questions.

Working on finding the balance myself.

 

[B00Bz]

Both are useful, both contribute to a single vision.

This. However I think the critic is needed less often and being overly critical is more detrimental than promoting something that is not perfect overall.