According to Mlodinow, "when put in a position where they have to criticize someone face-to-face, people often hesitate or sugarcoat their true opinion" (128).
Do you think the world would be a better place if there was no sugarcoating? Is there any downside to anonymous critiques that protect that identity of the critic? What if the critiques are only read by the person being criticized?
In some ways, I definitely think the world would be a better place if there were no "sugar coating". Misunderstandings could be much less likely and less frequent, because if people just state things the way they are, there is nothing to misunderstand. We need to be tactful so as not to offend people unnecessarily, while not buttering things up such that we lose the depth and meaning of what is being said. I've been involved in several major misunderstandings--not fun. It has made me step back and evaluate what I say and how I represent what is going on, making sure that I am stating things as they are and not distorting the truth.
ReplyDeleteIs there a downside to anonymous critiques? The fact that they are anonymous prevents people from getting angry at people for their critiques, which is a good thing. However, not providing a name could make them less personal, and so potentially less meaningful.
I think that who all should read the critiques depends on what is being critiqued. If it is something very personal, I think only the one person should read them. But, if it is something simple, like a paper, a speech, a competition of some sort, then it could be helpful for others to read them, as that could potentially spark other constructive criticism, and really be valuable to the person.
Brittany,
DeleteYou say, “we need to be tactful so as to not offend people unnecessarily”, but I'm not too sure that this could be realistic in a world without sugar coating. For instance:
I will go with the topic of offending people when it comes to beliefs, just to give this (potential) conversion a little guidance/direction.
Suppose we were discussing a topic that holds deep meaning and significance; whether culturally or personally. I think there are some topics – like that of religion and politics – that no matter what, generally, if one were to even raise a point to the contrary, the other would become upset in one way or another. As long as people keep tying themselves down to personal belief, I don't think we have a choice of whether or not to offend people – no matter how cautiously or sensibly our approach. How should we go about not offending them? Now I did say “generally”, as there are people who do enjoy discussing these topics and the value of other's opinions – my favorite kind of people!
Furthermore, should we really worry about offending people when it comes to beliefs? I'm not so sure. What if someone's beliefs are “wrong”? What if someone believed that minorities are scum, lower than “the white man”, i.e. racist.? Even worse, what if such a person was spreading his beliefs to citizens and children alike? Would it not be justified to criticize them or even engage in ridicule? As weird as it may sound, doing so can actually be a beneficial tool; I've had people put down previous beliefs of mine that were wrong (in the sense of being false) – beliefs that once tied deep into who I was – which caused me to go reflect and further learn more about the encompassing subject and realize why – I've watched the same thing happen many of times over. I think we put too much emphasis and importance on belief and intuition, rather than fact and logic. If someone's beliefs are factual and reasonable, what is there to to be offended by in the first place?
Chase,
DeleteWhat I meant by "not offending people unnecessarily" was not to - intentionally or unintentionally - go the extra mile to offend them. I once heard the perfect illustration of this...one wouldn't invite a Jew over to their home for dinner and a potentially offensive conversation (like politics or religion), and serve ham casserole. It would be a stumbling block before they could even get to the potentially offensive conversation. (By the way, I'm not picking on Jews. It is just a really good illustration of what I'm trying to say). But that same conversation, I by all means agree, should not be sugar coated. Like you said, there are definitely topics that are offensive no matter what, but sometimes are of unavoidable importance.
And when something is that important, I don't think we should worry about offending them. Truth is truth, and if someone is holding fast to false beliefs, they need to be corrected. Also, if as you said, there were someone spreading false ideas around, corrupting "citizens and children alike", they absolutely need to be stopped. If that required harsh, hard-to-hear words, then so be it. I don't know that I agree with the tactic of ridicule, but direct, strong, face-to-face confrontation could definitely be used if the circumstances called for it. And I definitely agree, if someone's beliefs are founded in truth/fact, there is nothing to be offended over.
Brittany Jolly
Brittany and Chase,
DeleteWhen it comes to religion, politics and other sensitive issues there should be no sugarcoating and no one should get offended. The reason I say this is many different people have many different ideas on these topics. This is what makes our American society unique. We are allowed to think and believe as we choose. As Chase said, the best discussions come when two different people with two different beliefs have a civilized intellectual discussion. There is a difference between stating the facts of what you believe and "cramming" it down someone's throat or bashing their beliefs. When pure, honest discussion ends and argument begins is when people begin to become offended.
When it comes down to it, most beliefs are just that, beliefs. You can argue it all day, but when it comes down to it the reason one chooses to identify as either democrat or republican is because one or the other aligns more ideologically with their beliefs. Discussing it might challenge or even change one or more of their ideas, but I have learned in discussing religion or politics that yelling and trying to show how superior and right you are will get you nowhere. I am sure you both have also experienced this at some point.
Both of you have stated if someone’s beliefs are founded in “truth” and “facts” there is no need to take offense and if someone elses opinions are “wrong” they should be corrected. The thing is, when it comes to issues concerning politics and religion there are no absolutes that prove undeniable truths. That is why Evolution Theory and Creation Theory are just that, theories and not laws because no one has been able to scientifically prove either as true. If they were proven, they would be Laws not theories. While at the same time, you don’t hear argument concerning reality of the existence of gravity because it is a proven law rather than a theory. Can an individual say that the Republican or Democratic party is wholly right and without flaw? I think we can even agree that the political party of our choosing, whichever that might be, gets things wrong sometimes.
All this said, in conversations of religion there will always be what you believe to be true and what others believe to be true. You can state your reasons and “facts” for why you believe as you do, but you can never force others to believe the same as you. Believing to the contrary is an exercise in futility. If they do not accept your “facts” as truth they will continue not to unless you logically persuade them otherwise. What I said in the beginning holds true, one must be able to clearly state your beliefs and courteously LISTEN to the other’s beliefs without bashing, attacking, or condescending in order to have a religious or political discussion without offending the other party.
And please just consider all this my humble opinion.
Kathryn Keiffer
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEDIT: I've deleted my initial reply because, after reading it over a few times, there were some things I feel I didn't explain well enough. Here is my slightly edited revision:
DeleteKathryn,
Some statements I must point out as wrong in this paragraph:
“That is why Evolution Theory and Creation Theory are just that, theories and not laws because no one has been able to scientifically prove either as true. If they were proven, they would be Laws not theories. While at the same time, you don't hear argument concerning reality of the existence of gravity because it is a proven law rather than a theory.”
I'm afraid you're mistaken on what a theory is, among other things in science. Let's take this paragraph one section at a time and hopefully I can clear them up.
Since my reply doesn't fit in the work count limit, see you in the next post!
Theories:
DeleteIn modern culture, there are two different definitions of the word theory. Usually, as you just did, when someone uses the word theory they think it implies that something is unproven or speculative. In science, and in reality, a theory is an explanation or model of a phenomena based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that provides specific and testable predictions about said phenomena. Therefore, in order for something to be called a theory, it must have supporting evidence.
Laws:
Nothing is proven right in science, things are just proven to be wrong. When we call something a law, we have a high level of confidence in the idea(s) and reasoned that there are no competing theories. That's not to say, however, and as you state, they are absolutely true. That's the important part, laws can be falsified if confronted with contradicting data – they are not set in stone.
Theory vs Law:
A theory describes phenomena, i.e. the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity. Laws, on the other hand, are distillations of repeated observations. When we characterize something as law, we mean that we've found all the limits to which that law applies – not that it's universal. In other words, a scientific law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and can be false when extrapolated. Let me give you some examples to drive this idea home: Ohm's Law only applies to linear systems, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit.
To bring this back home, evolution is counted as a scientific law. The theory of evolution is not complete, but it does bring undeniable evidence of it's validity – the details are still up for debate, not the general idea. While scientific laws can be falsifiable, it's agreed that we will never prove evolution to be wrong – there's too much supporting data and no competing theories that haven't already been found false. Evolution is really how life works.
Creationism vs Evolution:
Creationism is not science or a scientific theory, in any sense of the word. The illusion that it is was designed by sneaky Christian fundamentalists as an attempt to slip religious doctrine into the school system. Let me state that again, creationism is not science, and it never will be. Creationism is purely a belief system, and a faulty one at that. Moreover, as I've already stated, a theory must provide testable predictions and based on observation, creationism is neither of those – and if you can't test it, it's not science, it's philosophy. Evolution is a scientific theory, and as far as modern science is concerned, a fact. The theory of evolution provides direct and specific predictions most of which have already been confirmed. There is tons of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and it is doubling every year. The biological, scientific community overwhelmingly accept that the theory of evolution is true.
The case of gravity:
Again, you're confused. Of course no one denies the existence of gravity, and that's because it is a phenomena and not, as you say, a law. What we call gravity would exist whether we were here or not, we've just labeled it “gravity”. We have a theory that describes the phenomena – yes, it is a theory of gravity, not a law.
What you're really saying when you say gravity “is a proven law” is that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a scientific law – which states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. I'm sure that is not what you meant by your statement nor had it in mind when you wrote that, but I could always be wrong. And just in case I am, either way, Einstein's general theory of relativity isn't a law – as the name states, it's a theory.
Hope this helped,
CT
Chase,
DeleteUpon reading what I wrote, I can concur with you that what I put was inaccurate. I do know the difference between a scientific law and theory, even more now that I have looked it up thanks to your rebuttal. I will admit that what I said was inaccurate ,but I was not basing it on the scientific fact. I made that statement in order to show that the only reason that Creation and Evolution are even debated is because they are controversial issues and, unlike Gravity, cannot be accepted by all people, which ties into why there is no need for hard feelings and arguing when it comes to discussing controversial issues. There will likely not be a common ground found in any issue that projects someone’s personal beliefs into the situation.
Just as you said that Laws are not set in stone neither are Theories. Many theories that were thought to be fact for centuries were later proven inaccurate. You also stated “nothing is set in stone.” You stated that “evolution is counted as a scientific law. The theory of evolution is not complete, but it does bring undeniable evidence of it's validity – the details are still up for debate, not the general idea.” First, I have never heard of evolution being a Law. You have probably researched it more than I have and if you have a scientific, academic resource stating that I would love to read it. Secondly, you say that the general idea is not up for debate, but if this were true why would there be many scientist, and people like you and I, still having discussions and debating it all over the world?
You say that evolution is overwhelming supported by the scientific community and, although this is a true statement, there are still many prominent scientists who do not support evolution theory and instead choose to support creationism. Saying that something can never be disproven, especially something as controversial and disagreed upon as evolution is a bold statement. I hope we have the opportunity to discuss this issue more in depth face to face in the fall.
Thanks for the Discussion,
Katy
I think Brittany makes some great points. I can't see how the world would suffer if we did away with sugar coating things, only benefit. Sugar coating bit of information undoubtedly leads to confusion; I've seen and experienced it many of times. When someone decides to sugar coating information being conveyed, I think it's for two reasons – generally.
ReplyDelete1) We're trying to not be as articulately barbed as we'd like to be, especially while discussing social or personal areas. As humans, we take into account how other people may or would feel if we gave them straight, factual answers – which depending on the subject being spoken about, can really put someone down.
2) We're trying to sound more knowledgable about a subject than we really are. I see this all the time in debates, namely about the origins of the universe. We try to make our statements and rebuttals as articulate as we can, throwing around all the fancy jargon and what not. Though the fact remains, no matter how knowledgable you may be or how convincing your elegant rhetoric is, no one knows (yet).
A world that values the conveyance of factual, straight forward information over other means is a world I want to live in. Taking out the sugar coating would, as Brittany and I agree, result in less misunderstanding; thus making information more more conceptually easier to grasp.
On the subject of anonymous critiques, I think it's better that way. Brittany points made make for an interesting dilemma, and I'd like to take that on. Yes, without a name attached to the critique it would make it less personal, and I think that's a good thing. “The fact that they are anonymous prevents people from getting angry”, that's just the reason, too. There's no doubting that emotional behavior and logical/rational behavior are at opposite ends of the bell curve, if you will. Emotion clouds the logical mind, therefore you're not making reasonable processes regarding the critiques and how you might go about fixing the points raise. A calm, clear, impersonal critique and delivery, I believe, makes for the best opportunity of growth. Not to mention this way completely cuts out the potential for ill will against specific people.
In some situations sugar coating can be very beneficial. But for the most part I do believe that being straight up honest is the best approach. But it all depends on who you are addressing and what subject matter is addressed. When a child’s parent dies would you say to them “Your dad is dead. Good luck with life now.”? No, of course not, we would never dream of doing that. You must approach it as gently as possible. Although the child needs to know the truth, there must great caution and tactfulness when discussing an issue like this. On a lighter note, if you are approaching a professor with whom you disagree and whom you believe to be teaching incorrect information, it is far better to sugarcoat the situation rather than to tactlessly voice that you believe they are an incompetent, pompous, bumbling old air bag. Perhaps by stroking their ego a bit first by telling what a fine job teaching on a specific area before you share with them that nothing in their lectures was actually on the exam.
ReplyDeleteIn other areas it is better to be direct and to the point and not sugarcoat your opinion such as when one of your friends is making a poor decision. It is better to tell them it will be a mistake than to watch them foul up part of their life. While they might be mad at you at first once they cool off if your information actually was the truth they will come to thank you. In regards to religion and beliefs I do not believe that anything should be sugarcoated. I can tell that Brittany and Chase are both passionate in what they believe and value; this is a very good thing. I can also tell that neither one of them have a problem expressing what they believe, a very positive attribute. When it comes to beliefs nothing should be sugarcoated because we all have our own opinions and it is good to discuss them. But there is a difference between speaking what you believe and disrespecting someone else’s beliefs. State the facts I hold as truths, but never attack or disrespect is my philosophy in discussing religious, scientific, political and moral beliefs.
As for anonymous critiques, they do serve a purpose by sparing a person’s feelings. The person being criticized does not know the education or expertise level of the criticism if the critic remains anonymous. An anonymous critique may be written by an expert holding a PhD in the field of study or just a lay person who completely lacks knowledge in the subject at hand. Criticisms need to be read by others so they have the opportunity to determine for themselves if the critic really presents a true and valid criticism.
Kathryn Keiffer
Kathryn, I completely agree with you when it comes to sugar coating around superiors. One would not want to come across as disrespectful, or even pompous, when speaking to one’s employer, teacher, or elder. It is better to present the truth in a courteous way. Though it may be courteous, it does not mean that you lie and build their confidence with untrue compliments, it simply means that you tell the truth while being respectful. I also agree with you when it comes to friends in dire situations; if that friend could completely throw their life off track with a decision, it is better to be completely honest with them. They may be offended at first, but if they are a true friend, they will accept it and continue the friendship. If they are so offended and perhaps narrow-minded that they end the friendship, though it may hurt, it may be for the best. I personally had this happen with one of my past friends; she was in an unfortunate situation, and no matter how much advice I gave her, she never took any of it. At the beginning I sugar coated it, but she completely ignored what I told her when I did. There came a point where I had to be brutally honest with her, and it ended our friendship. For me personally, that was best since it released me from the stress our friendship had been causing. Hopefully, my words sunk in and she was able to right what was wrong. Sugar coating has its moments when it is vital to use, but other times it is more beneficial to be completely honest.
DeleteI agree completely with Kathryn's last post! I have to admit, scrolling through some of the responses on this question made me become a bit "hot under the collar" as it were. I understand that, with religion and politics, everyone has his or her own opinion. Even in my own household, we hold completely different beliefs in some aspects. However, there is a difference between sugarcoating and being respectful. Do I believe you should sugarcoat your beliefs? Absolutely not! I am a proud Christian, and I will defend my religion with every fiber of my being. However, as Kathryn stated, I would never "attack or disrespect" another person of a different religion. There are actually quite a few scientists who have proven many parts of the Bible to be true. They have confirmed that Jesus Christ was an actual person, and they have confirmed that there was a huge earthquake/storm on the day that Christ is said to have been crucified (also echoed in the Bible).
ReplyDeleteHowever,I realize this is not a religious debate, so I will get off of that subject. Our problem, especially as the technology generation, is that we do have a hard time with face-to-face conversation. It is so easy to type up exactly what you're thinking and press a button- never having to see the other person's initial reaction. It is a much more difficult thing to confront someone in person. Critiquing someone anonymously is a step further, because then you may never see any reaction. You can get what you want off of your chest and that's that! We, as a society, use that too much. The reason we are so put off by having to see someone's reaction to what we say is because they might be hurt by our words, and that challenges our belief that we were right to say what we did. Sometimes, that could be true.
If we are to go around saying whatever comes into our minds, absolutely no sugarcoating, we would be very lonely creatures indeed. Imagine the age-old question, "Does this dress make me look fat?" If guys were to answer truthfully all the time, ladies, we wouldn't have boyfriends for long. I know that is a silly illustration, but think about it on a larger scale. Your parents ask you if you are partying/drinking (while still in high school), and you answer truthfully, yes. You would not have had much of a life after that. Your professor asks you if you actually studied for his test, you answer no. Obviously you now have a bad grade and a very ticked professor. Your employer asks why you are late, and you answer that you just didn't feel like waking up early this morning. Now you're fired. Some of these may be extreme, but do you get the picture?
Though this is kinda long, and maybe a bit rambling in parts, it is important for me to get across that "sugarcoating" is not necessarily the key here, respect is.
Kendall Walker
I do believe the world would be better off without sugar coating. It would allow for many issues to be settled and with less confusion as Brittany stated.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with Kendall though that there is a difference between sugar coating and respect. Sugar coating is trying to find the nicest way to tell someone that they're wrong, implying that you are right or know more than they do. Respect on the other hand is knowing you don't see eye to eye on a subject and agreeing to disagree.
I am a proud Christian as well and this particular discussion has brought up a pretty big subject of debate, Creationism vs. Evolution. While I believe Creationism to be true, I respect those who don't by not cramming my view down their throat or discrediting them as a person because of what they believe.
While anonymous critiques have benefits, there is definitely a downside. Some people use anonymity as an excuse to be unnecessarily rude. Another downside is that the person may be intentionally or unintentionally letting a personal issue get in the way of critiquing someone's work or teaching. The person being criticized may have no knowledge of this issue and will therefore be unable to understand the critique or correct something that might be a real problem. Also, they won't be able to mend the relationship if there is a real problem.
I think critiques should be read by more than one person for two reasons. First, the person being critiqued may not see the reasoning behind it and be unwilling to change for the better. Having someone else read it, causes the person to be accountable. Second, the critique may not be a valid reason for change. Such as "The professor should have let us skip more classes or assign less homework." That's basically a student saying "I'm too lazy to do the work that you require, therefore I don't like you." Well, a professor's job is to teach you, so allowing you to skip class or not do your homework while still giving you a good grade is them failing at their job. I know this is example is a bit extreme, but allowing more than one individual to view the critiques allows the best decision to be made on what should or shouldn't be changed.
Ashlyn Angel