5 ms·
> They're neatly covering 3 stages of grief over these 3 articles No. It could only be something like three stages of grief if a single person were cycling amo
by mumblemumble 6y ago
> They're neatly covering 3 stages of grief over these 3 articles
No. It could only be something like three stages of grief if a single person were cycling among these positions. When it's just three different people writing three different blog posts, it's either three completely unrelated things, or a debate.
- pwdisswordfish8 6y agoOr maybe, and just maybe, the whole ‘stages of grief’ concept is not actually predictive of which opinion is actually right, and it’s just a cheap rhetorical trick providing an excuse to patronizingly dismiss someone else’s scepticism towards an idea.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- adonovan 6y agoExactly. Kubler-Ross, the author of the original "stages of grief" paper, has since tried to clarify her horribly misunderstood idea: the "stages" are neither essential nor sequential, but are merely some of the many ways in which people react to grief.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ghosty141 6y agoI doubt the commentor was 100% serious when applying the "stages of grief" to blogposts.
- clarge1120 6y agoThank you. The Gamma radiation was starting to glow.
- mumblemumble 6y agoTrue, but whether or not something is a joke and whether or not it is rhetorically misleading are orthogonal characteristics.
- brokenkebab 6y agoI don't think it's misleading. I read the OP comment as a humorous warning that we should be cautious around arguments which very probably came out of wish to defend beloved PL. These opinions often bring interesting thoughts, but more often then not they are built as "I need to proof X, therefore I select facts for it"