8 ms·
Since we love categorizing, here is a quick taxonomy for what you are describing: Dogmatists: unthinking, inflexible Weathervanes: unthinking, flexible Skept
by mikrl 3y ago
Since we love categorizing, here is a quick taxonomy for what you are describing:
Dogmatists: unthinking, inflexible
Weathervanes: unthinking, flexible
Skeptics: thinking, inflexible
Pragmatists: thinking, flexible
The names are adhoc and should be taken with a grain of salt. The thinkingness axis we can attach a notion of good/bad to, since it is generally better to think things through than not.
Flexibility, not so much, but we can contrast the skeptic’s “I need more information before I can make a judgment” to the pragmatist’s “how can I use this right now?” and apply this to our workplaces. Certainly some of us are more skeptical than pragmatic, and vice versa.
- ke88y 3y agoI think this two-axis system misses the difference between "weathervanes" and "partisans", who sit in the same place on the two-axis system but function very differently in practice.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rawgabbit 3y agoI can understand "partisan" as someone whose primary adherence is loyalty to a party and will comply with the latest party talking points. I don't know what a "weathervane" is.
- haswell 3y agoWeathervanes reorient themselves based on the direction the wind is blowing. I took this to mean: “weathervanes” are people who attach themselves to some popular sentiment without giving it much thought.
- mikrl 3y agoWeathervanes point in the direction of the prevailing wind. You could call them trendies, or in cybercultural terms: NPC, I SUPPORT THE CURRENT THING, etc
- kapp_in_life 3y agoWouldn't partisans fall under the dogmatists?
- ke88y 3y agoDogmatism is more about ideas and ideologies, while partisanship is more about in-groups and out-groups. Dogma is -- by its very denotation -- inflexible. Partisans have no issue with flexibility.
- detourdog 3y agoDon’t the weathervanes oscillate?
- joshuamcginnis 3y agoWhat describes being dogmatic about not being dogmatic?
- baremetal 3y agoParadoxical dogmatism. It's a paradox because dogmatism typically implies a fixed perspective, whereas a refusal to be dogmatic typically suggests an openness to various perspectives.
- joshuamcginnis 3y agoIt's worth noting that this form of dogmatism (e.g. ironic or paradoxical dogmatism) can lead to intellectual arrogance or self-righteousness. If taken to an extreme, an individual can become close-minded about their own beliefs regarding open-mindedness. I see this a lot in today's society, especially amongst many young people who may not have accumulated enough life experience to understand why others might have come to think differently than themselves.
- makeworld 3y agoContrarianism?
- onesphere 3y agoWhen I think, it leads to thought that is not the first, which immediately leads back to the first thought. What prevents the initial thought? What prevents it from becoming what it was not, before? Why did the thought become what it was not? How much thinking do I do for the next thought to lead back to the first? Which of those thoughts are the first thought and which of them are not?
- lannisterstark 3y ago>Skeptics: thinking, inflexible Skepticals are fairly flexible given that you can convince them with accurate, fact based information. IMO this is probably the best default for all of them. Pragmatists by your definition sound too trusting.
- gofreddygo 3y agoI'm referring thinking in this context as "thinking for yourself" and the ability to distinguish lies from truths and being able to accept some as undetermined. And flexibility as having gone through the "thinking" phase and arriving at a conclusion and opinion, the ability to defend, bend or uproot the previous conclusion or opinion as supported by newer evidence and experience. Then there's people who pretend to be one but are another, some who don't know who they are, some who are splendid pragmatists in some areas and astute dogmatists in others. And then you come across some weathernerves who've done much better for themselves simply by following , some dogmatists who've done well for themselves by leading the skeptics. While the pragmatists, sit around gathering and categorizing others and themselves, and some others commenting on such comments, thinking they've finally; finally figured it out. Oh! The variety. Such is life...
- jemmyw 3y agoI am all of these at once. I try to be pragmatic especially at work because that helps with working with others. But I'm really a skeptic as a default position. However, a lot of things in life aren't as important at one time or another and I'll unthinkingly be dogmatic or a weathervane. Sometimes it's good to take a weathervane approach if you don't know much about an area and get blown around a bit before you're able to form an opinion. And yes that might make you look silly, but that's ok.
- alexvoda 3y agoI wonder if this in some way analogous to the 4 quadrants resulting from Carlo Cipolla's law of stupidity or if it is orthogonal. I think flexibility is orthogonal and turns this into a cube.
- scott-smith_us 3y agoI have objected in the past to the characterization that someone who changes their position on an issue is a waffler or flip-flopper or whatever. There are times when changing your position is absolutely the right thing to do.