• Nagel
    47
    The abnegation of simplification. Is it from a desire for complexity? Why? Vanity, perhaps? Pride? If so, then how does the simplification of one's identity hurt one's vanity? When pondering this, we are to set aside the notion of misunderstood and inaccurate simplification of the concept of oneself. We are to ponder this question looking at one's disapproval of an accurate simplification of the conception of oneself.

    Perhaps this is only problematic at a relational level? That one feels one's vanity scarred when the other whom one relates to comprehends every bit of oneself while one is unable or has not yet acquired full comprehension of the other? I suppose this is where one's vanity is most hurt. Is it on his inability and lack of knowledge relative to the other? Or is it one's insecurity in one's inability to empathize with the other; the inability to reciprocate empathy based on interpersonal understanding? If this is the case, then I suppose it follows that the other would find one's inability as distasteful. Therefore a loop of negativity is formed. "I can't understand him and I find this problematic." Says one. "One cannot understand me even though I can understand one. I find this distasteful." Says the other. What does this mean? That it ultimately depends on a component in the reward system of our brains (for the other) and the realization that one is unable to reciprocate the same level of understand at a given time which in turn trigger feelings of inferiority (for one)?

    This is a tangent, but I was under the impression that the greatness of life ultimately depends on psychological states, though I suppose I must correct this to 'brain states.'

    Anyways, is there some truth in saying that one's hatred of being reduced to simple bits of data (in order to simplify something, it must first be fully understood) is based on... rewards and the superiority complex? And the fulfillment of our sense of belonging? But that is just based on the situation I created. In the real world where it is, as I see it, impossible to understand someone else in complete fullness (I am under the impression understanding is ad hoc; it is sort of reactionary and dependent on context, expectations,...etc though at the same time being reflective and intuitive), then is it not the case that one hates not being simplified, but being simplified in an inappropriate way in relation to the given situation? For example, say that lover B has been spending more time with his/her dog than lover A. Lover A may say that lover B is problematic because recently, lover B seems to care more about his/her dog than him/her. Lover B then insists that it is complicated. Lover B has indeed grown very attached to his/her dog and he/she is upset that lover A is speaking some truths about his recent behaviour but is not speaking of how the situation with lover A is very different with the dog. In this situation, A is correct on saying that B has recently been caring more about the dog than him/her; she/he is correct with this simplification. However, B is repulsed by this simplification as he thinks that there is a difference between person-pet and person-person relationships. Regardless of the difference, A's simplification is still true. Another example: say that X and Z love cookies and would like to start a cookie business next year, but X is diabetic. Z says that it is detrimental for X's health to continue consuming cookies. X agrees and refrains from eating cookies in order to be in good health once they start their business. In this situation, Z asserts a simplification about X, but X is not repulsed by this because he understand what Z is implying without him/her having said so, that they are to start a business next year and bad health would hurt this plan. These two situations show us that simplification is not repulsive in general but it is interpreted as negative or positive dependent on the situational context of any given simplifications.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    It mostly depends on how the belief in another's "simplicity" is articulated or conveyed. If I said, "wow, you've got life figured out, x, y and z, that's all you need". I think this would be accepted even if it makes it appear like I think I've got them figured out and that they've got fairly simple interests. Even in your examples about Z telling X not to eat cookies, the issue is basically how the message is conveyed, X understands Z has their best interests at heart and isn't trying to be offensive and that's why that message might be accepted. if X thought Z was implying something negative or being nasty then it wouldn't be received well or if X thought what Z suggested reflected badly on them then they would also be unhappy with the comments.

    Don't evaluate a comment by its truth value when you're looking to understand its psychological impact. Comments can indicate a person's thoughts and feelings, they can characterise people, highlight or emphasise certain things about a person and so on. I do think we can say simplification is generally going to be received poorly.

    People don't like being stereotyped, judged, pigeon-holed and generally want to be treated fairly. That means acknowledging the breadth of facts and emotional factors that play a role in a situation, not picking out a single feature of it in isolation, which will likely misrepresent the person. Doing this also reflects badly on you because the ulterior motives for misrepresenting someone or ignoring potentially inconvenient factors are likely the result of ill-intent, apathy, condescension or dishonesty.

    A thorough view or comment at least shows that you put some effort into understanding that person or the situation. It shows that you're trying to be honest and considerate of the other person. So I think it's usually going to be received better but not necessarily, sometimes people don't want to be analysed so thoroughly and feel uncomfortable about it. Anyway, I think your comments on this topic are very generalised, so the "its more complicated than that" answer is the gist of what I had to say.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    If so, then how does the simplification of one's identity hurt one's vanity?Nagel

    I wouldn't take it for granted that this is a given. If you are getting to the essence of a person then this is frequently appreciated by them. Getting to the essence is often a form of simplification too. Not everyone hates being understood in concrete and/or elemental terms. Generally it is only when the 'understanding' is seen as reductive that it rankles.

    People quite like being stereotyped, judged and pigeonholed if those categories conform to their understanding of themselves. For instance, if I say to my friend Joe that he is an aging, Star Wars fanboy who refuses to grow up. He says, 'You got me there, Brother.' Someone else might find this offensive if they visualize themselves as something different or more elevated than this. Joe does not.
  • Nagel
    47
    I see. Simplification really just sucks balls when it lacks consideration for others' view of themselves.
  • Nagel
    47

    Don't evaluate a comment by its truth value when you're looking to understand its psychological impact. Comments can indicate a person's thoughts and feelings, they can characterise people, highlight or emphasise certain things about a person and so on. I do think we can say simplification is generally going to be received poorly.Judaka

    Doing this also reflects badly on you because the ulterior motives for misrepresenting someone or ignoring potentially inconvenient factors are likely the result of ill-intent, apathy, condescension or dishonesty.Judaka


    It seems to me that the truth value of a certain remark has some relevance in understanding a simplification's psychological impact. In my example with A and B, I find it hard to imagine that B would be repulsed the same way about the simplification if A's remark was false. If, instead, A said that B has been ignoring him/her recently, then what? The following reactions depend on persons and context, but in a situation like that a truth we can easily infer is that A is misunderstanding B; B, without any intention of ignoring A, had been spending time with his/her dog. This is no longer a simplification, but a misunderstanding. In the first example, B was upset because A simplified his recent behaviour but failed to capture the complete essence, that is, the difference between A-B and B-dog relationships. On this new example, it's no longer about B's character being simplified, but about A, possibly out of jealousy, misrepresenting B. It's already a different ball game.

    I agree with you when you say that we mustn't look at truth value for a thing's psychological impact, but what I am concerned about here is the simplification which necessitates that a statement is true. Your take on this is much broad, and I appreciate it.

    then is it not the case that one hates not being simplified, but being simplified in an inappropriate way in relation to the given situation?Nagel

    @Tom Storm's comment further raised my opinion of this quote. Regardless of a person's intent, I think this is true. I know I'd hate it if my friend suddenly barges in to my meeting and tells everyone about my erotic fantasies. It's inappropriate and embarrassing. But if he says the same thing to my other friends in a drinking session, I can easily imagine how loud we'd be roaring in laughter.

    A thorough view or comment at least shows that you put some effort into understanding that person or the situation.Judaka

    I agree. But I do think that a simple comment can achieve the same effect.
  • synthesis
    933
    The abnegation of simplification.Nagel

    We are just simple, as simplicity is truth and Absolute simplicity is Absolute Truth.

    Increasing levels of complexity transports us further and further from the truth and, as well, is the womb where all fabrication is conceived.
  • Nagel
    47
    If it is as you say, then why do you think there is a will for complexity?
  • synthesis
    933
    That the way our thinking works. We start with perceptual reality and run with it until we make ourselves crazy with all kinds of fantasies. Once deluded, we must rationalize our place in Hell with wild stories that have little to do with what's actually taking place.

    It doesn't take too long listening to most people to understand their degree of dis-reality (for lack of a better term).
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    Maybe it is semantics but I don't think what matters is whether the comments are true but what it means for the comments to be true. The intentions of the speaker don't necessarily matter either, it's about what the listener takes from what is said. Whether that's being flattered or insulted, whether that's feeling understood or misunderstood, and the list goes on. Simplicity is another such thing, and really, so is "being judged or pigeon-holed" like @Tom Storm suggests. Whether something is taken positively or negatively is based on the interpretation of the listener on the comments. Intent can be clarified, misunderstandings can be cleared up but not always.

    The context matters immensely but I think simplifying things can be done in a way that most people will accept. If it demonstrates your care and goodwill, being appropriate and considerate then it should be accepted. If that is the case then we are just conflating separate issues, we can simplify things if it is done in the correct way and if it is done carelessly then it is the carelessness that has caused a problem.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment