Agreed. If nothing else, in a bargaining process, keeping the maximum/minimum price that one would accept private during the negotiation doesn’t fit into either category.
But if both parties were forbidden from keeping their reservation price secret the problem would be less bad, so it does kind-of fit into the spirit of the second category, though not its letter.
I agree with your disagreement. For context, here are those two reasons, with which Adams begins his essay. It’s only a click away, but I think it deserves to be dragged into the light:
There are only two reasons to have privacy and both of them involve dysfunction. You might want privacy because...
1. you plan to do something illegal or unethical.
or
2. to protect you from a dysfunctional world.
That pretty much condemns the rest of the article. If he can’t think of protecting oneself from other people’s criminal activities, protecting oneself from other people’s judgements, protecting one’s creative activities from dissipation, protecting one’s investigations from being scooped, protecting business secrets, and the basic feeling of GODDAMMIT THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, then what planet is he oh forget it. He’s writing this tosh just to get responses like that.
Scott Adams is a humorist, not a philosopher. Dilbert was worth reading. Since mining out that seam it’s been a downhill journey into clickbait. He even admits to the game at the end:
I know this sort of topic gets massive down votes because you don’t want to risk losing privacy. But please do me a favor and rate this post on the entertainment value alone. I’m trying to gauge how interesting this topic is to you. Thank you!
If he can’t think of protecting oneself from other people’s criminal activities, protecting oneself from other people’s judgements, protecting one’s creative activities from dissipation, protecting one’s investigations from being scooped, protecting business secrets, and the basic feeling of GODDAMMIT THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, then what planet is he oh forget it.
I think most of these (all with the exception of “protecting one’s investigations from being scooped” and possibly “protecting business secrets” or “THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS”) could fall under “protect you from a dysfunctional world”, depending on the definition of “dysfunctional”. That is a very broad reason, after all; almost as broad as “to protect you from negative consequences”.
Of course, that implies that a non-”dysfunctional” world would be some variant of utopia—presumably one where everyone more-or-less accepts Adams’ basic viewpoints.
Yes, if you label every reason to keep the world and his dog out of your business “dysfunctional” then the whole thing reduces to tautology.
Of course, that implies that a non-”dysfunctional” world would be some variant of utopia—presumably one where everyone more-or-less accepts Adams’ basic viewpoints.
As I say, Adams is not a deep thinker, he just plays one on the net.
Adams is not a deep thinker, he just plays one on the net
Well, first it’s much better to play a deep thinker on the ‘net than do the usual thing and play an idiot on the ’net...
Second, it doesn’t look like he necessarily commits to everything he throws out in his blog. He plays with ideas, tries them on for size, puts them on a stick and waves them at people, etc. I think that’s fine and useful as long as you don’t take everything he writes very very seriously.
Yes, if you label every reason to keep the world and his dog out of your business “dysfunctional” then the whole thing reduces to tautology.
Well, yes. I read his argument as less of an argument in favour of openness and more a sort of a whinge about how people make too much of a big deal about certain things (like homosexuality) which then leads to people keeping those certain things secret.
I’m not sure if that’s what he intended with his argument, but that’s what I got from it.
I disagree with the premise that there are only two reasons to want privacy.
Agreed. If nothing else, in a bargaining process, keeping the maximum/minimum price that one would accept private during the negotiation doesn’t fit into either category.
But if both parties were forbidden from keeping their reservation price secret the problem would be less bad, so it does kind-of fit into the spirit of the second category, though not its letter.
I agree with your disagreement. For context, here are those two reasons, with which Adams begins his essay. It’s only a click away, but I think it deserves to be dragged into the light:
That pretty much condemns the rest of the article. If he can’t think of protecting oneself from other people’s criminal activities, protecting oneself from other people’s judgements, protecting one’s creative activities from dissipation, protecting one’s investigations from being scooped, protecting business secrets, and the basic feeling of GODDAMMIT THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, then what planet is he oh forget it. He’s writing this tosh just to get responses like that.
Scott Adams is a humorist, not a philosopher. Dilbert was worth reading. Since mining out that seam it’s been a downhill journey into clickbait. He even admits to the game at the end:
I think most of these (all with the exception of “protecting one’s investigations from being scooped” and possibly “protecting business secrets” or “THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS”) could fall under “protect you from a dysfunctional world”, depending on the definition of “dysfunctional”. That is a very broad reason, after all; almost as broad as “to protect you from negative consequences”.
Of course, that implies that a non-”dysfunctional” world would be some variant of utopia—presumably one where everyone more-or-less accepts Adams’ basic viewpoints.
Yes, if you label every reason to keep the world and his dog out of your business “dysfunctional” then the whole thing reduces to tautology.
As I say, Adams is not a deep thinker, he just plays one on the net.
Well, first it’s much better to play a deep thinker on the ‘net than do the usual thing and play an idiot on the ’net...
Second, it doesn’t look like he necessarily commits to everything he throws out in his blog. He plays with ideas, tries them on for size, puts them on a stick and waves them at people, etc. I think that’s fine and useful as long as you don’t take everything he writes very very seriously.
I’m not sure about that given what happens when someone who’s not a deep thinker tries to play one.
So, what happens?
Well, yes. I read his argument as less of an argument in favour of openness and more a sort of a whinge about how people make too much of a big deal about certain things (like homosexuality) which then leads to people keeping those certain things secret.
I’m not sure if that’s what he intended with his argument, but that’s what I got from it.