Timeline for What is the basis of the belief that words themselves can be hurtful and verbal aggression should be weeded out?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2022 at 12:25 | answer | added | haxor789 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 15:57 | history | edited | elliot svensson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Oct 9, 2018 at 14:50 | answer | added | elliot svensson | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 9, 2018 at 6:38 | answer | added | Veraen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 21:34 | comment | added | Conifold | I do not have an argument, nor am I interested in arguing. I simply pointed out that your argument does not require a response, it can be dismissed by people with different "intuitions". You can inspect their motives and dismiss them in turn, given the current state of knowledge it is simply a judgment call, what you see is judgment calls trending in a different direction. Same with skills, some are worth teaching, and for others it is better to eliminate the need, often something in between. But vague epithets like "important" are of no help, costs and benefits require quantification. | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 21:24 | comment | added | gaazkam | @Conifold OK, so lets say it in another way. Usually, in the course of maturing, people acquire important skills. Your argument seems to be among the lines of "There is a cost of acquiring important skills, we should instead ensure the world doesn't require them to learn those skills". But then they cannot mature. And there are costs: We can never ensure no person shows contempt to other people, so if people never learn to not condition their self-esteem on other peoples' opinion, they will always be vulnerable to being severly hurt in such a trivial way. | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 21:15 | comment | added | Conifold | Intuition is feeble and parochial, some have one, others (or the same ones at a different time) have another. This is why value questions are not factual. After feminism many dismiss the macho intuition pumping as channeling of patriarchal stereotypes, for example. A serious study of the balancing act called for here would require much more intricate cost/benefit analysis than rhetorical invocations like "weaklings & wimps who are never given the chance to graduate from infancy". And a much better than current understanding of material basis of emotions and the costs of "dealing" with them . | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 21:02 | comment | added | gaazkam | @Conifold A general response to "people can and should" is "people shouldn't have to" -- this is counterintuitive to me. "people can and should learn how to walk in infancy" -- "people shouldn't have to, let's just do what the movie Wall-E envisaged". I know, maybe my intuition is silly, but my intuition is that in this way we're creating a society of weaklings & wimps who are never given the chance to graduate from infancy and we're on our way to, paradoxically, create a very dystopian world :( Again, maybe my intuition is outright stupid tho. | |
| Sep 30, 2018 at 20:42 | comment | added | Conifold | It is a messy picture, as one would expect with psychology. The "emotional sovereignty" is a naive folk metaphor, as is clear from the presentation your book advises some ways of dealing with negative emotions, not the impossible feat of controlling brain chemistry. You seem to mix the normative (what people should do) with the factual (what actually happens). A general response to "people can and should" is "people shouldn't have to", and like all disputes about shoulds it is irresolvable by psychology or any other science. Dealing has its own costs. | |
| Sep 29, 2018 at 12:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 6, 2018 at 21:16 | |||||
| Sep 28, 2018 at 13:50 | comment | added | rus9384 | Well, you are forgetting one essential thing. Words without context and object hardly can be hurtful, which is essentially my argument for rejecting some words as being banned in themselves (they are called profanities). But if you call someone a fool, depending on the context it may or may not hurt. Words along with other tools are methods to produce various thoughts. Thoughts can hurt. | |
| Sep 28, 2018 at 13:47 | comment | added | gaazkam | @Cell, please see above. | |
| Sep 28, 2018 at 13:47 | comment | added | gaazkam | @Conifold Ah, so this boils down to psychology. Very well, could you then see my follow-up question on psychology SE? What is the basis of the belief that modern psychology demonstrates that words themselves can be hurtful and verbal aggression should be wed out? | |
| Sep 28, 2018 at 1:42 | comment | added | Cell | Humans are social creatures. If a grief stricken person can be consoled by words and interactions. Why would you not expect the opposite to be equally effective that is turning a happy person depressed and mentelly unwell? To say that people should just "ignore it" is to assign all blame to the victim but that's not fair and ignores everything we know about human behaviour. | |
| Sep 28, 2018 at 0:03 | comment | added | Conifold | One major mistake in this reasoning is "unlike with sticks and stones, with words the addressees have the choice: to accept the message or to drop it". They do not, the message will be received and the emotional reaction will happen, emotions are not subject to conscious control. One can choose to "get over it", but the same can be said of sticks and stones, so the real issue is the damage assessment. One reason for the new consensus is the undermining of folk misconceptions that heavily weigh physical damage over emotional one (as in the saying) by modern psychology. | |
| Sep 27, 2018 at 23:33 | history | asked | gaazkam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |