You must be joking, right? Since you've drawn up an Order of Battle, let me present one of my own to show you what's wrong with this statement.
Kestrel,
iguana_tonante,
Deckerd,
{ Emilia }. I don't wanna speak much for the others, but that's really a pretty darned heterogenous mix; you're not gonna find many guys with as different ideological background as myself and
iguana, for example, and I'm closer to
Rush in background than any of them.. I'm sorry, but if this is one of your evidences for groupthink... you should seriously reconsider.
I'd wager she was referring to a possible "groupthink" in one
specific issue.
I don't believe I've seen said dismissal, honestly. Actually, I don't think I've seen this point addressed at all.
Well, I'd say my constant calls for how one should define "sexual liberation" and "emancipation" serves as an example.
You're right. He was. Because he was reliving the trauma of being kidnapped, surgically altered, mind raped, and transformed into a soulless killing machine responsible for the deaths of 40 Starships, all while he watched helplessly from inside his own body.
I don't know about you, but I think that's damned good cause to be insecure.
Not unlike suddenly finding out the reason you're being haunted by demented nightmares is because you were a serial killer in a former life, but were brainwashed to forget it and the brainwashing is wearing off. And there's nothing you can do about it but live with the knowledge and move forward. Again - pretty good reason to be insecure about the serial killer in your psyche.
You'll get no argument from me, there. As for Jadzia--yes, having Joran (a murderer) and Curzon (who had rejected her--for reasons Jadzia somehow wasn't able to discover until "Facets") inside her, symbiont-wise, is grounds for a
great deal of insecurity.
I'm sorry (I'm so sorry), but your analysis simply doesn't fit the facts.
Your initial premise: Jadzia uses sarcasm and quips to mask a deep-seated anxiety and vulnerability, not unlike K'Ehleyr.
But if you actually look at the times when she's most vulnerable, you find the facts don't bear that out. Use the examples of Joran, of Curzon... and of Verad, the three times when she was most traumatized and vulnerable. In all three cases, rather than being sarcastic and quippy, Jadzia is clearly unsure of herself and her vulnerability shows through as she's faced with the uncertainty that each situation presents - rather than being hard-charging and using force of will to bluster through her pain. Look at her death scene, for that matter. Any silly quips there?
In contrast, when she's most quippy and sarcastic, it's in situations and surroundings where she's familiar - especially around and about Klingons, but also about to go into battle with Jem'Hadar at her side ("To the Death") and very often around friends.
I understand your argument--however, note how, though we can all agree that Picard's insecurity was with him
long before his "The Line Must Be Drawn
Here" breakdown, said breakdown occured when he was pushed to a breaking point.
Considering how Jadzia's breakdowns are less intense than Picard's was, it seems to indicate that her mental "walls" hiding her insecurities were less thick than Picard's were. The thicker the wall, the more intense the collapse when they're broken down.
Her expressions of vulnerability are, effectively, moments of breakdown--when she doesn't
have the force of will to prop up her defensive barriers.
To serve as a teaching moment? To explain where this line of reasoning comes from, so as to allow said person to examine and change their prejudices and thus be better integrated into the world around them? Debating doesn't have to be a zero sum game, after all.
That's... not really germaine to my point, which is that you can't invoke liking Ezri as a defense in this case, because it's not about her.
I'm saying that "traditional values" are not necessarily grounds for saying that we want "emancipation" to be limited.
Well, it's an indication of, to be frank, pompus elitism: "My point of view is more "advanced" than yours, and yours are backwards--one might say more
primitive than mine".
It's not his point of view. Look, if you're going to talk math, do you start with calculus or arithmetic? Would you go up to a physicist and demand he explain every single basic principal before he presents a grand new theory? There's a certain level of education that's readily available out there but really doesn't belong here.
Kestrel--we're talking about definitions of "sexual liberation" and "emancipation"! I hardly think
that qualifies as akin to calculus or physics....
No weaseling there - that's a very accurate explanation of how two women, both equally free, can have different reactions to them based on whether or not they freely choose to stick with more traditional roles.
And again--such differences of reaction do
not contempt for emancipation make.
Now, let me get this straight: even though you now concede that we have no problem with women's emancipation as such...you're problem is how we judge how it manifests itself?
You're problem is that we're criticizing behavior?
A particular kind of behavior, yes.
And again--I ask what the problem is with that.
The implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as Nerys, beg to differ.
Continuing to arrogate Socratic (?) titles to yourself isn't helping your case and just makes you look pompous, to be frank.
Well, technically, that's not a Socratic title. But again--my previous invoking of Socrates was
to make a finer point.
Again--I do not see myself on a similar level with Socrates in matters of brilliance and genius--I'm not
quite that vain. I brought him up to illustrate that he knew, as I know, that general consensus is not a real barometer of truth.
The denotation isn't the rightness of the crowd, it's the fact that other people - ie not oneself - can sometimes see truths and patterns that the self can't see, and hearing the same thing repeatedly from very different people might mean there's something to it.
And again--perhaps it's just an example of a prejudice or bias common to a society in general.
1. Kestrel said "you might need to consider". Kestrel didn't say being in a group "always makes right."
The
implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as
Nerys, beg to differ.
No, the implication was that if a couple of people from heterogeneous backgrounds who all seem to be pretty reasonable and coherent think you're being silly then
you might want to rethink your own position and
draw your own conclusions.
There's nothing wrong with questioning yourself or your ideas once in a while. I do it all the time. You should try it,
Rush.
I do it all the time, too,
Emilia. That may sound suprising to you--but it's true. My stubborness here is simply due to the fact that, as someone firmly set in my beliefs, I try my hardest to hold the other side's feet to the fire--preferably without sarcasm and mockery, although I have at times fallen short of that standard, much to my regret.
(Sidenote: I'm also pretty sure you don't have to lecture the
Iguana or me about resisting the popular sentiment. He lives in a country that's dominated by Berlusconi's media yet he doesn't fall for it. And if you think that I'm a good example for a conformist person then you haven't read any of my posts in the past.
)
Then I'm amazed you don't understand my position, there.
This isn't a matter of objective facts--i.e., science and mathematics. This is a matter of interperetation of facts--philosophy and ethics.
I used the maths example for effect, I'll give you that. It still applies to opinions, too if to a lesser degree. That doesn't change the fact that nobody wants to force an opinion onto you, people just wonder if your ego is too big for you to actually be able to reconsider your positions once in a while.
Well, while I do amit to a healthy ego--I also admit to a tendency to get set off at accusations of bigotry, or "backwards, outdated" thinking, or similar things. This leads to increased stubborness. I guess you could call it an Irish Temper...but I'm only 1/4th Irish.
As I have noted,
Kestrel tends to debate with me in a civil, respectful manner. He asks tough questions regarding what I have said, challenging me, etc.--and I answer those challenges. I respect that--and I am more likely to see and understand the points of the other side if the discussion is conducted in that manner.
What I do
not respond well to is attacks along the lines of "you don't appreciate emancipation" or "you're invoking backwards, old-fashioned standards" or "you're arguments are nothing more than cheap rhetoric and bulls--t".
But I'm getting the feeling that I'm just not as prone to passing quick judgement on somebody's character as you are.
Well, technically--I'd say saying things like "cheap rhetoric tactics" and "I call bull---t when I see it" in reference to what I said...was unfortunately quick....
But as I have said--I would consider Jadzia as a good friend who would be fun to be around. That doesn't mean I can't find her...general "irreverence", and attitudes towards men, to be quite off-putting.
"Perfect" people who never "cross the line" or "push too far" bore me. I don't expect everybody to be perfect.
Neither do I. No one would call Ezri perfect. (Well...not
that kind of perfect....
) Still, I consider her "flaws", if you will, to be part of her charm.
I suck at keeping my mouth shut for example but I don't think I'm a terrible person.
Right?!
Well...
The implication is that the crowd is right more often than not. But as One Who Resists The Tug Of Popular Sentiment--I, as well as Nerys, beg to differ.
Continuing to arrogate Socratic (?) titles to yourself isn't helping your case and just makes you look pompous, to be frank.
The
denotation isn't the rightness of the crowd, it's the fact that other people - ie not oneself - can sometimes see truths and patterns that the self can't see, and hearing the same thing repeatedly from very different people might mean there's something to it.
"One Who Resists the Tug of Popular Sentiment"--
This from a guy with a
popular AM radio talk-show host in his avatar.
Now that I've had my contemptuous laugh--I'd just like to point out that
Contemptuous and highly
ad hominem. Hardly a good way to get the other side to see your point.
Now...
what Kestrel is describing, and what Rush is wrongly disparaging as mere conformity or groupthink, is called "intersubjectivity"--the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals. And far from something to be disparaged, it's one of the most reliable means of obtaining knowledge that human beings have ever invented.
Any time you turn to the person next to you and ask "did you see that?" you're engaging in intersubjectivity, by checking the reliability of your own perceptions against someone else's. In fact, intersubjectivity is built right into our sensory system: stereopsis and depth perception are made possible by the fact that we have two eyes that quite literally provide us with two (slightly) different perspectives on the world. And it's one of the pillars of the scientific method: experimental results are never accepted unless they can be reproduced--that is to say, unless other experimenters can check and see for themselves.
Intersubjectivity is important because the brain is one of our least reliable organs. Our brains routinely make wrong predictions and come to wildly inaccurate conclusions based on the available evidence. People talk about their eyes playing tricks on them, when in truth it's the brain that plays tricks on itself--and then tries to shift the blame onto the eyes, which are actually the much more reliable of the two organs. So, in order to survive and flourish in this world, we check our perceptions against other people's perceptions. Generally speaking, two heads really are better than one.
Of course, it is possible to have too much of this good thing. There are many situations in which the individual's judgment is correct, and the group's is wrong. Moreover, as the Asch Conformity Experiments have shown, the pressure to conform can make people deny the plain evidence of their senses.
But though our culture makes a fetish out of the lone wolf, the romantic genius, and the rugged individual, the truth is that just about everything we do and think is a group effort--and the only true individuals in any society are the insane. In nature, the lone wolf is more likely to die than one who stays with the pack.
The crowd is not always right--but if the crowd is against the individual, the burden of proof rests with the individual. Any other position is just pretentious puffery. Doubly pretentious, in this case, because they come from someone who actively advertises his emulation of another person, in both his avatar and his username.
A good argument (one that was, again, ruined in its effectiveness through your unfortunate horse-laugh in the beginning of the post). However...this now begs for the question of how you
do define "groupthink".
Yes? It's not the values that are held, it's the reaction when those values aren't reflected in others that's at issue. I mean, I have fairly traditional values. 
