I was reading a paper by a friend today, as well as a post/report by another friend, and had some objections to both. For the latter case I think I was able to isolate my precise objections, and for the former I did realize what basically upset me, although when I did it was (partly) a somewhat heartless/selfish approach to the problem. But I had my reasons, so in neither case did I suffer the indignity of an irrational outburst, even if the only outburst was inside my own head. However, I can’t help wondering if perhaps it’s just some sort of innate bias that I have against the basic claims that both these rather academic articles made. Especially regarding the former paper, I was quite put off by what I interpreted as the moralizing tone of the article, and what I interpreted as its somewhat radical stance, without finding what it was that I disagreed with, exacly. As I mentioned, I did verbalize these objections properly as I re-read, but I wonder if that was reasoning or rationalization. And that worries me.
If anyone who doesn’t normally visit comes here after seeing my twitter feed, say hi! I want to see if that helps.