Comment by guerrilla | Hacker News Reader

Comment by guerrilla | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I was exactly the same way when I was younger. > my emotional awareness was... exceedingly underdeveloped.

Are you implying the GP's emotional awareness is "exceedingly underdeveloped" and that they'll grow out of it?

> you just haven't had the practice/opportunity to develop this side of things

> there absolutely is a reality that you haven't developed skills to see

Yes, it does seem like that's what you're saying. What kind of condescending bullshit is this? If they don't feel the same way you and author do then they're "underdeveloped"?

Not feeling the same way as other people about something is not some kind of disorder to overcome. This is the meaning of the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." People have varying preferences. Some like sports, some like this sport or another over that one. Some prefer music. Some don't get anything out of music. And all this is because of how they feel in relation to whatever subject and has nothing at all to do with a lack of development.

Sorry, that's not what I meant but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. So let me rephrase.

I intended the word "underdeveloped" not as a value judgment, just a practical sense -- in the same way my own baseball skills are underdeveloped i.e. nonexistent. If you replace it with "less developed" that might be clearer. I meant it just in the context of the goal of someone trying to understand and relate to the article.

My main point being that it's not something you're born with or not, but that you can choose to develop. That the potential is there. But you're under no obligation to, it absolutely is a choice/preference.

> I intended the word "underdeveloped" not as a value judgment, just a practical sense -- in the same way my own baseball skills are underdeveloped i.e. nonexistent. If you replace it with "less developed" that might be clearer. I meant it just in the context of the goal of someone trying to understand and relate to the article.

> My main point being that it's not something you're born with or not, but that you can choose to develop. That the potential is there. But you're under no obligation to, it absolutely is a choice/preference.

Yeah sorry, no, that doesn't fly. Just because someone doesn't feel the same way you do about something does not mean they are lacking some skill or another. Your response is just more dismissive condescension. Maybe keep working on that development of yours.

Perhaps you've learned to be emotionally hypersensitive to things you sense, while the parent commenter only interprets emotions from emotional contexts, like when people or animals express emotion?

Then again, perhaps anytime two people experience a subjective matter differently, they try to grade each other's ability to experience that matter on an objective scale, with their ability to experience it set at the origin. From the parent commenter's perspective, the article and your response are both emotionally hypersensitive, and from your perspective the parent commenter is "emotionally underdeveloped".

What this all comes down to is that applying an objective scale to a subjective matter doesn't yield anything useful; it only highlights the relative differences of the participants. I've always wondered if it's human nature, or cultural imbuement, to inject competitiveness into something that cannot be competed over. It's obvious that you each see this subjective matter differently. How can either of you possibly think that your subjective viewpoint is correct, without also acknowledging that the other's viewpoint must also be correct to them?

I understood what you were saying and didn’t interpret it as condescending.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com