I wonder if there is, on average in a general population, a specific percentage amount where you have to agree with someone before you can apply a critique which does not paint them in the most glamourous of terms?
Kind of like a points system - your sycophantic X times and that earns you 10 points. Say you think they are saying something which just doesn't even mesh with their own apparent value system - but saying so would cost you more than 10 points and that's all you've earned so far? So you can't, without all hell breaking loose and them needing you to be a bad guy in order for them to main the certainty they had before.
Just trying to make sense of years of discussions. I love a points system...so easy to understand...
Well, I'd say that addressing a disagreement with someone is definitely aided if you first determine things you do agree on.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have a common point of reference, you a) can't really have a meaningful debate and b) have no particular reason to talk to them.
But what do you do? Say they make a post and your pretty much 'Oh yeah, subject doesn't excite me but seems to make sense to me', do you post when you otherwise wouldn't?
ReplyDeleteIf it doesn't excite you, no, I don't imagine it'd be worthwhile to say anything.
ReplyDeleteI think being direct and honest is the best way to go, and that may mean suddenly appearing in someone's life with criticism. I think as long as you're friendly and comradely about it, you should be able to avoid being sycophantic.
Can you say more about how you'd define "sycophantic"?
I suppose I'd define it that if someone only ever thinks they are right on a matter, sycophancy is the act of retarding ones own thinking processes which are inclined (at the very least inside ones mind) to question that utter certainty.
ReplyDelete