3 ms·
I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of what they said, and not how I interpreted it, but ok. It seems like I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
by fasterik 3y ago
I don't think that's a charitable interpretation of what they said, and not how I interpreted it, but ok. It seems like I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
- basil-rash 3y agoI just want evidence for the claim, but nobody wants to provide it, or even consider that requesting evidence is a valid response. This is the exact kind of behavior that gets the psychs-solve-everything crowd dismissed.
- fasterik 3y agoIf you Ctrl+F for my other responses in the thread, you'll see that I'm not advocating for psychs-solve-everything. I think a reasonable interpretation is that gavinray was giving their personal experience, not making a sweeping scientific claim. It would be like if I read a book that gave me a perspective on racism I had never thought of before, and I said "this book is great at showing you how racism is absurd!" It's not the kind of claim you would jump on and ask for a scientific study. In general, it's a good idea to take the most charitable version of what someone says, because people aren't always perfectly precise in their language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity