We Should Be More Critical of Our Criticisms

[Reynard]

I find it super interesting one occasion when I am asked to go deeper on a preference and I suddenly realize that I can't -- or, rather, I have really reflected on the preference or opinion at hand and don't actually know what this thing made me angry or that thing brought me joy.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I understand that I'm taking the next step in the conversation. If we're talking about understanding your preferences, then we're talking about asking people to justify their preferences, i.e., explain why they have them.

With respect, I find a major difference between "justify" and "explain".

"Justification," includes a defense against judgement - justification is making it so nobody can say, "You should not have that preference." It is, by its nature, defensive.

The OP calls for us to explain why a thing is without getting into whether that is the right way to be.

The problem we face is that, on the internet, we are more than happy to judge whether people are right or wrong to have a particular opinion, and use that against each other in public.

Plenty of people don't want to, and honestly, nobody has to. I have lots of preferences that I just prefer something and it just is.

The point of the OP is that... it probably isn't "just is". There are probably some underlying reasons that could be found.

It is fair if you don't want to. You certainly don't have to. But if you do, you would probably have an easier time finding other foods you like, or avoiding things that would be disappointing.

As an example: There are dishes that I don't like at some restaurants, that I like from others. Why? "Just is?" No. It is because I have a gene that makes cilantro taste strongly like soap to me. There is a reason, and I likely wouldn't understand it without some reflection on foods I like and dislike, and learn something about how we taste foods.

But, since there are folks out there who are nigh-desperate to call you wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce for liking, say, a vinegar-based BBQ, it is not generally physiologically safe for you to examine that preference in public. When people are likely to attack you personally for having a particular preference, examining preferences with them is a bad idea.

 

[SkidAce]

Yes, I understand that I'm taking the next step in the conversation. If we're talking about understanding your preferences, then we're talking about asking people to justify their preferences, i.e., explain why they have them. Plenty of people don't want to, and honestly, nobody has to. I have lots of preferences that I just prefer something and it just is. I can talk in detail about what I like about Texas style BBQ vs Carolina or Memphis or Kansas City style; I like the smokiness, I dislike too much sweetness, etc. but ultimately I just like it because I like it better.

You see, you understand your preferences on BBQ. You aren't required to understand them, and I will certainly never ask you to justify them.

However, what happens is when we debate on the internet we usually expect either side to explain why.

So WE understand. Not requiring justification.

 

[SkidAce]

Of course, @Umbran always explains the point one minute before I do and better.

Can you justify that Umbran?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I find it super interesting one occasion when I am asked to go deeper on a preference and I suddenly realize that I can't -- or, rather, I have really reflected on the preference or opinion at hand and don't actually know what this thing made me angry or that thing brought me joy.

In my experience, it is often easier to unpack why we don't like something than why we do, even when we look deep into ourselves.

To put this more concretely- when we have a preference for why we don't like something, it's usually pretty easy to express. We know why we don't like something. But while we can try and isolate elements that we enjoy about the things we love, it's hard to truly explain why we love that thing- because it is usually a gestalt reaction from a combination of factors.

To use some examples from film-
The other day, I decided to watch a random streaming movie that I knew nothing about. The Outbreak (2025). It wasn't good. It wasn't the worst thing I ever saw, but it wasn't good. And I can articulate all the ways in which it wasn't good- the acting wasn't top-notch. The "scares" (including jump scares) were poorly edited. There was an emotional component in the plot that absolutely did not work (for reasons of poor plotting, dialogue, and acting). The choice of sets, location, and cinematography (angles, framing, closeups, etc.) felt very '80s TV movie. Finally, there is a "twist" that was telegraphed too transparently too early in the movie ... you know, one of those "M. Night" twists. So 80% of the movie was waiting for the twist that I knew was going to happen, and that only mattered if you cared about the emotional component that did not work. I could go into more detail, but I won't- the point is, I can easily write volumes about the ways that the movie doesn't work.

On the other hand, I also watched Surf II (1983) recently. Loved it. Don't get me wrong- it's a "bad" movie. But it was so bad, it circled back to being awesome. But why? Obviously, there are some camp elements. And I think that the movie is more self-aware that it is bad than the prior movie (which definitely is not self-aware). But it's hard to specifically unpack the way the various parts of the movie (the soundtrack, the Stoltz, the '80s, the Stoltz, the weird other-worldly qualities of a surf/goth dynamic, etc.) combined to impact me.

Which is important- because what we take out of things has an objective component, but a subjective one as well. Objectively, Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino make very different types of movies that I can discuss. And yet, subjectively, I love them both. But I can also understand how, despite being able to discuss objective aspects of filmmaking (e.g., WA- symmetrical framing; QT- Leone closeups), I can also understand that other people simply won't enjoy either (He's too twee or He's too violent).


Eh. As Socrates said, "The unexamined bard is not worth killing." Which is why he totally deserved that hemlock.

 

[payn]

On the other hand, I also watched Surf II (1983) recently. Loved it. Don't get me wrong- it's a "bad" movie. But it was so bad, it circled back to being awesome. But why? Obviously, there are some camp elements. And I think that the movie is more self-aware that it is bad than the prior movie (which definitely is not self-aware). But it's hard to specifically unpack the way the various parts of the movie (the soundtrack, the Stoltz, the '80s, the Stoltz, the weird other-worldly qualities of a surf/goth dynamic, etc.) combined to impact me.

This is a really good example of something I wish folks were more compelled to do. Admit something isn't of the best quality, understand that, and yet find joy in it anyways. There is a lot of "me liking something bad does not compute, therefore Surf II is a good movie!" analysis or justification/defensiveness folks have mentioned.

I see some parallels into alignment discussions where folks believe their PC to be the main character and/or protagonist so its not possible for the character to be evil despite their actions. A sort of cognitive dissonance in action.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's also fascinating to look at yourself and see how you think. We are creatures of patterns and habits. We react much more than we act. And once you look at it, it's really difficult to unsee how we react or hold certain opinions out of psychological shortcuts more than anything.

Definitely this.

One thing that I think can be quite interesting in this topic is revisiting the same thing at different ages, decades apart, and seeing how differently or similarly you react to all or part of it. Can really reveal what mattered to you about something, or where you were being driven by perhaps non-rational feelings about stuff.

I'm currently re-watching Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and seeing a lot of this. Some characters I found intensely dislikeable or distressing as a teenager are much more understandable as an aging adult, but others it becomes obvious that no, that is actually bad behaviour, even looking at it from a 40-something perspective. I always wondered if I was being too hard on Buffy's mom about some stuff as a kid, but as an adult I can see she's a real "helicopter parent" (something I didn't even have a term for back then) in both senses of the term and a bit more self-indulgent and "standard procedure"-focused than most parents I knew growing up (and particularly more than ones I know today, who are my age!), even after all is revealed.

It's also interesting to see how certain things which seemed fine then did not age well, but other things did, or even were ahead of their time.

And I think one of the reasons that emerges for why the show is so likeable to me is that it is really pretty relatable in a lot of ways, especially there's something about Buffy herself and the constant frustrations and often surprisingly uncontrived misunderstandings or half-understandings she deals with that makes her relatable. The writing, whilst very 1990s, also holds up surprisingly well. Comparing it to TV series today directly, it's clear writing hasn't really improved since that era, in fact, it's relatively rare to see shows which are as well-written as Buffy often is (and that might seem like a low bar but there we are).

In fact looping back on "uncontrived", I am genuinely a little surprised because I remembered the show as being more contrived than this - there is some contrivance, and you can see a lot of places where if Buffy and friends had mobile phones (as I did at that time, current on S3), things would have been simple, but that wasn't a contrivance in the US back then - relatively few people did have them, and surprisingly major places in the US had poor or no cellphone coverage - perhaps something I didn't realize at the time (generally it seems like the US was like, 3-4 years behind much of Western Europe here, and we were behind Scandinavia, Japan and South Korea).

There is a lot of "me liking something bad does not compute, therefore Surf II is a good movie!" analysis or justification/defensiveness folks have mentioned.

Yup. It's important to realize that sometimes you like things that aren't very good and not to be too defensive about it. Sometimes a specific criticism may be dead wrong, and that's fair to push back against but everything has flaws. Except Deep Space 9. Obviously. < pushes Profit and Lace under the carpet with a broom >

I like criticising things I enjoy (call me perverse but...), and am not a true "fan" of much (maybe just Mass Effect and Star Trek), so I think it's bit easier for me than some people, who reach "fan" levels of adoration more easily (nothing wrong with that, note, I wish I could sometimes). Sometimes the flaws make something better too in certain ways. Sometimes they really don't though!

 

[TiQuinn]

This is a really good example of something I wish folks were more compelled to do. Admit something isn't of the best quality, understand that, and yet find joy in it anyways. There is a lot of "me liking something bad does not compute, therefore Surf II is a good movie!" analysis or justification/defensiveness folks have mentioned.

This is Flash Gordon for me.

It’s the weird mix of really wooden bad acting by some (Sam Jones, Melody Anderson) combined with really good acting by folks like Max Von Sydow and Timothy Dalton, and I think it’s kind of the point. Flash is boring - it’s everyone around him that is strange and goofy and interesting. He’s the stereotypical golden boy and from that perspective he was actually played just like he reads in the old comic strips.

So was it really bad acting then??

 

[payn]

Yup. It's important to realize that sometimes you like things that aren't very good and not to be too defensive about it. Sometimes a specific criticism may be dead wrong, and that's fair to push back against but everything has flaws. Except Deep Space 9. Obviously. < pushes Profit and Lace under the carpet with a broom >

I like criticising things I enjoy (call me perverse but...), and am not a true "fan" of much (maybe just Mass Effect and Star Trek), so I think it's bit easier for me than some people, who reach "fan" levels of adoration more easily (nothing wrong with that, note, I wish I could sometimes). Sometimes the flaws make something better too in certain ways. Sometimes they really don't though!

Same, im critical of everything. I've had more than a few discussions where folks ask if I even like the thing at all. I do, im just wired to be incessantly looking at how the sausage is made. It's through deep examination that I get a real feel for the context of something. I feel its required to have an interesting conversation about the essence of things.

Though, ive come to understand that for a lot of folks this process is entirely under the hood so to speak. They dont really know the whys or care how the sausage is made they just want to eat it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I do, im just wired to be incessantly looking at how the sausage is made.

My entire direct family is "sausage analysts" as it were lol, so yeah I grew up around people doing that constantly and kind of competing with each other to do it, and when I came to realize some people didn't like/get doing that, or thought it somehow "ruined" things I was quite vexed. Many of the things I like best I like precisely because I understand what they're doing/saying, why wouldn't I lol?

Hell, when I got on the internet, the TTRPGs I wanted to discuss were the games I was running/playing, and I definitely wanted to take them apart and understand how they worked, what the problems were, what was clever about them and so on. It massively increased my respect for some systems I'd sort of dismissed instinctively as "simple" when I realized they were actually doing something quite intentional and actually more considered than some "mindlessly complex" systems. There's self-discovery there too - I realized I like intentional, intelligent design, that it matters to me if a game works intentionally rather than half by accident or because it was sort of guessed into working.