6 ms·

> the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say ... > ... a complete and utter lie I'd say that's an overly broad generalization, if it

> the thing that has to be understood, IMO, is that everyone will say ... > ... a complete and utter lie I'd say that's an overly broad generalization, if it wasn' for "IMO" and the following > People identify their ideas with themselves Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean "one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion. But then comes the offensive attack: > Despite the lies they tell themselves so they can feel noble and open-minded, people DO NOT want to be challenged. They want their egos stroked. This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded. See, I can write an informal accusation all the same, but I don't expect you to like it. I can't really write a formal argument about it, because I lack training in formal rhethorics.

cookiecaper 9y ago
>Which is an obvious self-reference. I would on occasion say "you" to mean "one", but actually mean "me" in an hypothetical fashion. I don't think it's [just] me. Identity politics is based on attempting to program this impulse. >This is an informal accusation that would upset people because its unfounded. I think the evidence is abundant. It upsets people because it trivializes their behaviors and makes them feel unimportant and predictable (that is, it fails to stroke their egos). People like things that make them feel in control and important. Commentary around psychological realities rarely does this because psychology itself is about analyzing and generalizing human behavior.