It's people with high self confidence that tend to respond to it poorly over having the ego to lash out rather than internalize it, while people with low self confidence by contrast usually don't trust compliments instead.
Do you think the criticism would help them more than it would hurt them?
Poorly if it was with him caught off guard, uncomfortably if he heard about it in advance.
Do you believe Spatial is the type of person that doesn't want to hear criticism? Why?
Consistency, there's more than enough history and the guy's on a loop.
Other people tend to remember their own prior experiences, which can dull the blow should the same information come up again. Spatial by comparison, after a few months of not thinking about it, takes hearing the same thing coming up as if it were new and then proceeds to loop through surprisingly similar reactions as if the former timeframe never even happened for him.
What do you think would make Spatial change his mind? What do you think would make you change yours?
The difference there is that there is far more information on this site to suppose a theory, compared to this farmer/librarian coin flip. FFS both of those occupations have reason to appeal to a shy or meek person with little interest in people and a vast imagination, my point is that we'd need more information.
What information, if any, do you think is missing on this site? How do you think your own personal experiences bias your judgement, if they do?
It was with a group of doctors where I was being tested over various criteria for disorder.
It was overall a very strange experience for something so otherwise standard in appearance.
What else did they ask you?
Now when you say "concrete", I can't help but feel that the word'll be used to push for more and more digging with you in the position of always being able to say "I'd need more".
How about an example without it needing to be concrete? A link would be fine. Now I can't tweak the standard after the fact.
There is otherwise no standard for establishing what is and isn't concrete beyond your opinion as things stand now, and that's a surprisingly common trap people try to play here: The 'If I don't believe it then they're either wrong or need to work harder' angle where they can sit there and just say 'Nah, try again' repeatedly, yielding overtime how much more and more it's not about proof, but rather about feeling convinced.
This was my question to you. How do you ensure that the philosophy guiding yourcriticism is rooted in skepticism and not cynicism or pessimism? How do you ensure your level of criticism stays roughly constant among all topics and people as opposed to varying your level of criticism based on convenience?
I'd think that it'd inhibit you from saying like 80% of what's really on your mind, and that it'd offer challenges when it comes to proving something someone else hasn't already proven for you. There has to be a range of half-baked ideas that have enough going for them to eventually stumble upon if not become with more information fully baked ones, but in such cases it's better to err on words like "think" or "feel" rather than "know".
How do you deal with that? How much do you trust your assessment of Spatial? What is your confidence level? What are your conclusions?
Do you mean judging actions as opposed to judging people?
No, I mean literally referring to their own mistakes in the third person layman to force them to look at it without feeling like it's about themselves.
Does this work in practice?
