5 ms·

Speculation is how we judge other people, and our social space doesn't have objective truths. Narratives are all there is, so narratives are what matter most. I

by smhost 10y ago

Speculation is how we judge other people, and our social space doesn't have objective truths. Narratives are all there is, so narratives are what matter most. It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality.

freyir 10y ago
> It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality. You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation, unless there's some grounding in evidence and objective truth. Core1024 may have evidence that supports his interpretation, but he didn't present it. As such, it doesn't qualify as a correction.
- smhost 10y ago
  > You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation But that's how people use the word, that's what politics is. There are no objective truths to social narrative, and facts aren't the only things that have the property of correctness. Perspectives have correctness, as in moral perspectives etc. It's not an objective scale, but people don't have to conduct their lives scientistically.
  - freyir 10y ago
    You've now brought value judgement and morality into the discussion, and neither apply here. The blogger said Meyer acted on an email complaint about the turnstiles. The commenter said that's incorrect, that Meyer decided to have them removed on her own accord. There's no value judgement. There's no appeal to moral authority. It's not politics. Core1024 is claiming to be objectively correct about Meyer's internal motivation for removing the turnstile. In this case, it's acceptable to ask: what evidence do you have? If he says "She told me herself" or "It was a water cooler rumor," then great, we have our answer. If he says, "It's my strong suspicion based on [...]," then he passed off suspicion as fact. And if he says, "There is no evidence, this is a social narrative I've constructed without regard to objective truth," then we have a serious problem.
    - smhost 10y ago
      I've brought neither value judgment nor morality. I merely said that it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness, just as it's legit to think about moral philosophies as having degrees of correctness. It's fine if you want say, "I don't believe you," and that would be a valid interpretation on your part. But it is politics in the true sense, and you're participating in it with this conversation. You're attempting to assert that your interpretation of a word or a concept or a situation is correct and that mine is not, even though there are no objective truths to be said about either perspective. As far as I can tell, OP doesn't claim that he is correcting the specific fact-claim about the turnstiles but that he is correcting the anecdotes as a whole. What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes, not any particulars facts inside them.
      - freyir 10y ago
        > What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes Fair enough. One person frames it as "Meyer was motivated by empathy," and the other frames it as "She was motivated by self-interest." Neither person can prove their claim conclusively, but I assume there's some evidence that led Core1024 to contradict the blogger. The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. It might be common for people to say "You're wrong" without providing evidence or rationale. But unless "You're wrong" is accompanied by some justification, it's devoid of value. All we now know is that somebody on the Internet thinks Meyer is self-serving, and we knew that already. > it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority?
        smhost 10y ago
        > The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. I don't think the principle of evidence-based decision-making applies to most social situations. For one, there usually is no evidence. With the Mayer situation, while everyone might agree that the turnstiles are no longer there, we have no video footage or recorded conversations to examine. So in a real sense, narratives and hearsay are all we have. For another, we care about other people's opinions. Like with online reviews, people find value even in reviews that don't give any explanations, or for food product reviews that amount to nothing more than, "Five stars, because it tastes good." If someone makes an accusatory statement about another person, I agree that there's definitely a burden of proof. But Core1024's comment doesn't seem to me to be accusatory or an attempt to frame Mayer as a selfish person. I think the comment reframes Mayer's actions as being motivated by efficiency as opposed to empathy, which I think is a much more neutral view. > Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority? Any interpretation you have of a social situation. Any opinion you have of your work environment or social circle. Your beliefs about what defines a certain culture. We understand intellectually that these are all opinions and that opinions are subjective, but there's no sense in which we would ever behave as if our beliefs are not true. Otherwise why would we believe them in the first place? I think it's disingenuous to look for objectivity in social interpretations. And anyway this isn't a criminal trial, or something like that. It's pure gossip.

by smhost 10y ago

freyir 10y ago

> It's legitimate to correct offending narratives that conflict with your version of reality. You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation, unless there's some grounding in evidence and objective truth. Core1024 may have evidence that supports his interpretation, but he didn't present it. As such, it doesn't qualify as a correction.

smhost 10y ago
> You're not "correcting" someone's interpretation simply by stating a different interpretation But that's how people use the word, that's what politics is. There are no objective truths to social narrative, and facts aren't the only things that have the property of correctness. Perspectives have correctness, as in moral perspectives etc. It's not an objective scale, but people don't have to conduct their lives scientistically.
- freyir 10y ago
  You've now brought value judgement and morality into the discussion, and neither apply here. The blogger said Meyer acted on an email complaint about the turnstiles. The commenter said that's incorrect, that Meyer decided to have them removed on her own accord. There's no value judgement. There's no appeal to moral authority. It's not politics. Core1024 is claiming to be objectively correct about Meyer's internal motivation for removing the turnstile. In this case, it's acceptable to ask: what evidence do you have? If he says "She told me herself" or "It was a water cooler rumor," then great, we have our answer. If he says, "It's my strong suspicion based on [...]," then he passed off suspicion as fact. And if he says, "There is no evidence, this is a social narrative I've constructed without regard to objective truth," then we have a serious problem.
  - smhost 10y ago
    I've brought neither value judgment nor morality. I merely said that it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness, just as it's legit to think about moral philosophies as having degrees of correctness. It's fine if you want say, "I don't believe you," and that would be a valid interpretation on your part. But it is politics in the true sense, and you're participating in it with this conversation. You're attempting to assert that your interpretation of a word or a concept or a situation is correct and that mine is not, even though there are no objective truths to be said about either perspective. As far as I can tell, OP doesn't claim that he is correcting the specific fact-claim about the turnstiles but that he is correcting the anecdotes as a whole. What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes, not any particulars facts inside them.
    - freyir 10y ago
      > What I believe the OP wants to correct is the framing or the tone of the anecdotes Fair enough. One person frames it as "Meyer was motivated by empathy," and the other frames it as "She was motivated by self-interest." Neither person can prove their claim conclusively, but I assume there's some evidence that led Core1024 to contradict the blogger. The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. It might be common for people to say "You're wrong" without providing evidence or rationale. But unless "You're wrong" is accompanied by some justification, it's devoid of value. All we now know is that somebody on the Internet thinks Meyer is self-serving, and we knew that already. > it's legit to think about perspectives as having degrees of correctness Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority?
      - smhost 10y ago
        > The best we can hope for is to hear evidence from both sides, and come to our own conclusion. I don't think the principle of evidence-based decision-making applies to most social situations. For one, there usually is no evidence. With the Mayer situation, while everyone might agree that the turnstiles are no longer there, we have no video footage or recorded conversations to examine. So in a real sense, narratives and hearsay are all we have. For another, we care about other people's opinions. Like with online reviews, people find value even in reviews that don't give any explanations, or for food product reviews that amount to nothing more than, "Five stars, because it tastes good." If someone makes an accusatory statement about another person, I agree that there's definitely a burden of proof. But Core1024's comment doesn't seem to me to be accusatory or an attempt to frame Mayer as a selfish person. I think the comment reframes Mayer's actions as being motivated by efficiency as opposed to empathy, which I think is a much more neutral view. > Can you provide an example where one perspective on a person is correct (or more correct), another perspective on that person is incorrect (or less correct), and the relative correctness is not based on objective truth or an appeal to moral authority? Any interpretation you have of a social situation. Any opinion you have of your work environment or social circle. Your beliefs about what defines a certain culture. We understand intellectually that these are all opinions and that opinions are subjective, but there's no sense in which we would ever behave as if our beliefs are not true. Otherwise why would we believe them in the first place? I think it's disingenuous to look for objectivity in social interpretations. And anyway this isn't a criminal trial, or something like that. It's pure gossip.