Tabooing the word “status”, I simply mean that it is SAFE to guess your teacher’s password, but it is COOL to criticize. I expect most people to prefer SAFE to COOL. These are my expectations:
If group of people who know each other reads a new website… most people will not care (but may wait for group consensus, to be safe), some people will criticize it to be COOL.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor likes the website… most people will write savourless praise, because it’s SAFE, one or two will criticize, because it’s COOL. -- This is what I believe has happened.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor dislikes the website… most people will write hasty criticism, because it is both SAFE and COOL. Only an exceptional meta-contrarian will write careful praise, because he has a different definition of COOL. -- This is irrelevant to article, I just followed my thoughts further.
Now I am not sure if I did the tabooing thing correctly; seems like I just replaced “status” with “cool”. Well, at least it was a move in good direction, because “status” is a hypothesis, while “cool” is something we emotionally perceive.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor dislikes the website… most people will write hasty criticism, because it is both SAFE and COOL. Only an exceptional meta-contrarian will write careful praise, because he has a different definition of COOL.
I’m not so sure about the label “exceptional meta-contrarian”. I mean, I do this, but generally just because I disrespect my professors and enjoy getting in arguments with them if I think I can win. Does that count?
I am not qualified to answer this, because I do have no idea how dangerous your professors are or what are the possible consequences of disrespecting them. Or how socially dangerous is in your group to praise things that others criticize.
This is a general problem when speaking about real-life things—many words (e.g. “dangerous” and “cool” in my comment) do have meaning, but at the same time they cover such a large spectrum of intensity that what you can say about one end of spectrum is often not true about the other end of spectrum. Disagreeing with some professors is dangerous (can significantly lower your chance of successfully finishing the school), disagreeing with others is harmless, and there are many shades of gray between (e.g. they can make your next hours somehow unpleasant, but no long-term consequences).
On a second thought, I should not have used the word “meta-contrarian”. It just seemed cool and related. What I really meant was this—if professor likes the page, it is usually COOL to criticize it. But if the professor dislikes the page, then it is both COOL to criticize it (you oppose the page) and to praise it (you oppose professor), so in that situation the cool-maximizing crowd will be divided, resulting with less people who oppose the professor.
Agree about ‘spectrum of intensity’ - my first reaction to “I have no idea how dangerous your professors are” was “Well it’s not like they carry shivs or anything.”
what are the possible consequences of disrespecting them
I meant as a judgement, not an action. I actually find myself more conscientious about displaying signals of respect (addressing them as “Dr. Such-and-such”, quietly paying attention, etc) to a professor I think is stupid. To use the language of “status” just-so stories, if I believe myself demonstrably more intelligent than someone, I only benefit by making them out to be high status—because that must mean I’m even higher status.
Tabooing the word “status”, I simply mean that it is SAFE to guess your teacher’s password, but it is COOL to criticize. I expect most people to prefer SAFE to COOL. These are my expectations:
If group of people who know each other reads a new website… most people will not care (but may wait for group consensus, to be safe), some people will criticize it to be COOL.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor likes the website… most people will write savourless praise, because it’s SAFE, one or two will criticize, because it’s COOL. -- This is what I believe has happened.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor dislikes the website… most people will write hasty criticism, because it is both SAFE and COOL. Only an exceptional meta-contrarian will write careful praise, because he has a different definition of COOL. -- This is irrelevant to article, I just followed my thoughts further.
Now I am not sure if I did the tabooing thing correctly; seems like I just replaced “status” with “cool”. Well, at least it was a move in good direction, because “status” is a hypothesis, while “cool” is something we emotionally perceive.
I’m not so sure about the label “exceptional meta-contrarian”. I mean, I do this, but generally just because I disrespect my professors and enjoy getting in arguments with them if I think I can win. Does that count?
I am not qualified to answer this, because I do have no idea how dangerous your professors are or what are the possible consequences of disrespecting them. Or how socially dangerous is in your group to praise things that others criticize.
This is a general problem when speaking about real-life things—many words (e.g. “dangerous” and “cool” in my comment) do have meaning, but at the same time they cover such a large spectrum of intensity that what you can say about one end of spectrum is often not true about the other end of spectrum. Disagreeing with some professors is dangerous (can significantly lower your chance of successfully finishing the school), disagreeing with others is harmless, and there are many shades of gray between (e.g. they can make your next hours somehow unpleasant, but no long-term consequences).
On a second thought, I should not have used the word “meta-contrarian”. It just seemed cool and related. What I really meant was this—if professor likes the page, it is usually COOL to criticize it. But if the professor dislikes the page, then it is both COOL to criticize it (you oppose the page) and to praise it (you oppose professor), so in that situation the cool-maximizing crowd will be divided, resulting with less people who oppose the professor.
Agree about ‘spectrum of intensity’ - my first reaction to “I have no idea how dangerous your professors are” was “Well it’s not like they carry shivs or anything.”
I meant as a judgement, not an action. I actually find myself more conscientious about displaying signals of respect (addressing them as “Dr. Such-and-such”, quietly paying attention, etc) to a professor I think is stupid. To use the language of “status” just-so stories, if I believe myself demonstrably more intelligent than someone, I only benefit by making them out to be high status—because that must mean I’m even higher status.