Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:02:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Abusing the word 'objectively' to describe things that are subjective

Started by the, July 17, 2018, 06:41:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sebastian Cobb

Some things are objectively shit though. The alternator in the early delorian's outputted less power than the lights and air conditioning unit consumed meaning you could flatten your battery on a long drive. That's an objectively shit design.

popcorn

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 17, 2018, 02:22:19 PM
If someone said that it'd be pretty obvious to me that the word they were looking for is 'ostensibly' and in your dedication to pedantry you've probably chose to overlook that.

I think this is unlikely.

Quote from: Kelvin on July 17, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
Taking out the word objective, I think that's a slightly different argument. It's possible to think something is better made (in your subjective opinion), but to prefer the thing that you believe is more flawed or inconsistent. I like loads of bad films, and it's not because I think they're "better" films than somethign else - even by my own standards - it just means I enjoy them in spite of any failings.

Yes, I understand what you're saying here - but I think it still speaks to a kind of intellectual dishonesty. Or an intellectual dishonesty with oneself, at least.

However you spin it, it's a fudge. If you prefer A to B, then there are reasons for that. Examine those reasons, interrogate them, articulate them. When people say a film is "objectively" bad they're usually identifying some abstract (and inevitably subjective) thing like, oh, you can tell the special effects are fake, and yet they like them, and they mistake this for a contradiction somehow. Well, what if the fact that the special effects are obviously fake actually makes them good?

In other words, people who are able to clearly articulate why something is good or bad - whether we are persuaded by them or not - don't use terms like "objectively" or "subjectively", which only throw sand in everyone's faces. They also don't say things like "well, this is just my opinion", because we know that, or "arguably" (which is used to make an argument you want to make right now but hide it by implying that the argument is actually being made somewhere else and isn't your fault), or a host of other wishy-washy obfuscations.

Appreciate that the human heart is mysterious and fickle and contradictory thing and make your claim about the universe clearly and boldly! This is the internet!!!! We are all anxious to hear your opinion!!!!!!!!!

popcorn

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 17, 2018, 03:09:21 PM
Some things are objectively shit though. The alternator in the early delorian's outputted less power than the lights and air conditioning unit consumed meaning you could flatten your battery on a long drive. That's an objectively shit design.

It's objectively shit design when measured by a fixed, objective metric (power use per minute or whatever). We've yet to invent a reliable objective metric for films, or video games, or your mum's arsehole.

colacentral

Quote from: Kelvin on July 17, 2018, 02:52:07 PM
No, I'm saying I know the show has huge faults, by my own standards. Obnoxious hosts, crap inserts, terrible scripts, the hokey atmosphere - none of which I like, even ironically. I actually think they're bad, not because I think society deems them bad, but because I do. And yet, I like other things about the show; basically the dancing. The phrase simply means that, despite knowing something is flawed (by your own standards), you still enjoy it in spite of this. It's not "cowardly" to say that I like it in spite of things I - me - deem wrong with it.

Because I think loads of things about it are crap, arguably most of the show. I basically like it, in spite of most aspects of it being, imo, crap. And I'm not really judging myself. Again, I think that's taking the phrase too literally.

But I don't think you would necessarily apply this to all genres of television: you could say you don't like the cast of The West Wing, think the music is a bit cheesy but overall you enjoy it despite those flaws - but it wouldn't be considered a guilty pleasure.

You just enjoy the dancing in Strictly so why is it a guilty pleasure? You like the dancing so you sit through the rest of it, which you think is shite.

Kelvin

Quote from: popcorn on July 17, 2018, 03:14:38 PM
I think this is unlikely.

Yes, I understand what you're saying here - but I think it still speaks to a kind of intellectual dishonesty. Or an intellectual dishonesty with oneself, at least.

However you spin it, it's a fudge. If you prefer A to B, then there are reasons for that. Examine those reasons, interrogate them, articulate them. When people say a film is "objectively" bad they're usually identifying some abstract (and inevitably subjective) thing like, oh, you can tell the special effects are fake, and yet they like them, and they mistake this for a contradiction somehow. Well, what if the fact that the special effects are obviously fake actually makes them good?

I don't think I've been arguing that, though. I'm not saying I don't know why I think Strictly is good/bad. I'm saying I have a long list of reasons why I think it's a deeply flawed show, but I like it for reasons in spite of this. That's not dishonest. It's saying, openly, that I know something has flaws and qualities, and that even though the flaws are more numerous and often very significant to me, the few good thngs still win out for me.

QuoteIn other words, people who are able to clearly articulate why something is good or bad - whether we are persuaded by them or not - don't use terms like "objectively" or "subjectively", which only throw sand in everyone's faces. They also don't say things like "well, this is just my opinion", because we know that, or "arguably" (which is used to make an argument you want to make right now but hide it by implying that the argument is actually being made somewhere else and isn't your fault), or a host of other wishy-washy obfuscations.

I haven't done that, though. I've not said that Strictly is objectively bad. I've only added phrases like "in my opinion" to this specific discussion, to distinguish that I was the one identifying the faults, not other people I was being influenced by.

Kelvin

Quote from: colacentral on July 17, 2018, 03:19:55 PM
But I don't think you would necessarily apply this to all genres of television: you could say you don't like the cast of The West Wing, think the music is a bit cheesy but overall you enjoy it despite those flaws - but it wouldn't be considered a guilty pleasure.

No, because something like Strictly is, to my tastes, on a different scale of bad in most respects. It's genuinely cringeworthy, eye rolling crap at times.

QuoteYou just enjoy the dancing in Strictly so why is it a guilty pleasure?

Because, as I've said many times, I consider almost everything else about the show really bad. I honestly feel like you guys are taking the phrase very literally, and very earnestly, due to your principled objection to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, even though the phrase is really just a shorthand for "liking something you consider very bad in most respects".

popcorn

Quote from: Kelvin on July 17, 2018, 03:28:31 PM
I honestly feel like you guys are taking the phrase very literally, and very earnestly, due to your principled objection to the concept of intellectual dishonesty, even though the phrase is really just a shorthand for "liking something you consider very bad in most respects".

I think that's easily refuted by the abundance of arguments stating the inverse: not "X is objectively bad but I like it", but "X is objectively good but I don't like it".

It's not simple pedantry. People who make this kind of argument literally think things can be objectively good and bad about a film. It's like a sort of Catholic guilt. It gets in the way.

Soup

On the one hand I think kelvin is wrong.

On the other, Strictly is definitely dogshit and he should be ashamed for watching it.

popcorn

Quote from: Soup on July 17, 2018, 03:45:22 PM
On the one hand I think kelvin is wrong.

On the other, Strictly is definitely dogshit and he should be ashamed for watching it.

These are coherent beliefs.

Kelvin

Quote from: Soup on July 17, 2018, 03:45:22 PM
On the other, Strictly is definitely dogshit and he should be ashamed for watching it.

I'm not allowed :(

I once watched five episodes of Come Dine with Me in a row. I did enjoy it, but it's not wrong of me to think that there are greater aesthetic pleasures out there. It's right that we feel guilty about watching some things, the notion that we should scratch that idea and insist that all pleasure is good would lead us to only watching very unambitious, unoriginal things that are feeble replicas of other things we already like.

It's funny that we're talking about Strictly here, because the whole premise of that programme is that some people are objectively better dancers than others. The professionals are objectively better than the amateurs (at the beginning of the series). Otherwhise why not have the amateurs train the proffesionals? Rudolf Nureyev was objectively a better dancer than Ed Balls.

"Technically" will not do as a replacement for "objectively" in that sentence.

Here, "technically" suggests a greater degree of mind-independence than "objectively".
An objective judgement is a judgement BY A PERSON who is not being swayed by emotions or other feelings.


Also, people who enjoy watching dance of all kinds might watch Strictly because it's the only dance programme that's on. They might rather be watching the Russian State Ballet and think that Strictly is utterly feeble in comparison, but they have nothing else on a Saturday night to watch that scratches that dance itch.

Mister Six

Quote from: the on July 17, 2018, 02:02:23 PM
In that example, I'd say 'objectively' has been mistaken for a synonym of 'technically'. Maybe that's what's happening.

A technical error is objectively wrong though.

colacentral

Quote from: Astronaut Omens on July 17, 2018, 04:09:41 PM
Also, people who enjoy watching dance of all kinds might watch Strictly because it's the only dance programme that's on. They might rather be watching the Russian State Ballet and think that Strictly is utterly feeble in comparison, but they have nothing else on a Saturday night to watch that scratches that dance itch.

That's not something to be guilty about though, is it? That's not in the true spirit of the term "guilty pleasure." If I like dancing and there's no other dancing on, I'll watch strictly. I'd rather watch something than stare at a brick wall. Usually when people use the term it means "it's shit but I like it" rather than "best of a bad bunch" or "better than nothing."

Quote from: colacentral on July 17, 2018, 04:18:22 PM
That's not something to be guilty about though, is it? That's not in the true spirit of the term "guilty pleasure." If I like dancing and there's no other dancing on, I'll watch strictly. I'd rather watch something than stare at a brick wall. Usually when people use the term it means "it's shit but I like it" rather than "best of a bad bunch" or "better than nothing."

Maybe not so relevant to the guilty pleasure thing, but "better than nothing" and it's ilk are very relevant to the objective/subjective distinction. I feel all of these examples bring the distinction out:

Objectively, it's a second-rate piece of derivative 90s indie-rock....
but I lost my virginity to it so I love it

but their's was the first gig I went to, when I didn't know much about music back then,  so I love it, and loving it and loving music are all intermingled, even though the lyrical shortcomings and desultory bass-playing are glaringly apparent

but I'm dancing right now and, subjectively I'm hell-bent on enjoying myself this evening and the beat is adequate enough, and the lyrical shortcomings and desultory bass-playing are not as important just now as my will to shake off this rut I've been in lately, and so, through my own will-power alone, I am subjectively loving, adoring this objectively third rate piece of Britpop-bandwagon jumping rubbish.

People don't have their art critic hats on all the time.

popcorn


Zetetic

Quote from: popcorn on July 17, 2018, 03:16:05 PM
It's objectively shit design when measured by a fixed, objective metric (power use per minute or whatever). We've yet to invent a reliable objective metric for films, or video games, or your mum's arsehole.
I think it's reasonable to look at whether a film, a video game, or your mother's arsehole is producing either 1) the effect intended by the author or 2) any effect whatsoever on its audience.

Yes, neither of those are entirely uncontroversial standards to hold works of art to and you can only ever infer the true intentions of the author, but so long as you're clear that this is the standard that you're holding art to then I think that's fine. It's an objective standard (insofar as it's one that's open to investigation) and one that's at least bit useful and interesting.

the

Quote from: gilbertharding on July 17, 2018, 03:09:06 PMIsn't it more accurate to describe this as misuse, rather than abuse?

I used 'abuse' because, at the time, I couldn't work out if this was all a product of a deliberate intention to misuse it (as Angrew Lloyg Wegger suggested).

Quote from: Mister Six on July 17, 2018, 04:10:11 PMA technical error is objectively wrong though.

Not as a judgement of technique, it's not.

If you literally meant to write "X" but you wrote "Y" instead, that would be an example of an objective technical error.

Quote from: Astronaut Omens on July 17, 2018, 04:55:59 PMObjectively, it's a second-rate piece of derivative 90s indie-rock....
but I lost my virginity to it so I love it

but their's was the first gig I went to, when I didn't know much about music back then,  so I love it, and loving it and loving music are all intermingled, even though the lyrical shortcomings and desultory bass-playing are glaringly apparent

but I'm dancing right now and, subjectively I'm hell-bent on enjoying myself this evening and the beat is adequate enough, and the lyrical shortcomings and desultory bass-playing are not as important just now as my will to shake off this rut I've been in lately, and so, through my own will-power alone, I am subjectively loving, adoring this objectively third rate piece of Britpop-bandwagon jumping rubbish.

Every example given there (and the Strictly ones earlier about 'objectively better dancers') represents a misunderstanding of what the word actually means.

QDRPHNC

Back when I used to be into photography, I became aware of a very clear divide between two different types of photographer.

On one side where the gearheads, who fetishized the equipment, and whose definition of a good photograph was one that was perfectly sharp, composed and lit. The other side were the artists, where the equipment was secondary to the intention of the finished piece. I'm more the latter, but the former have their place too - you don't want some arty type shooting wolves for National Geographic with a Holga and out of date, cross-processed film.

I think most art forms have a similar divide. Some people will always get more of a rush out of listening to highly technically competent music, rather than something more raw, where the gestalt itself is the point. It depends where you find the value, I suppose - and as humans, I guess we're inclined to prioritize the things we value and defend them.

One example is the White Stripe's version of Death Letter. I was listening to it on YT, and a bunch of comments were saying, you know, Jack White is a shitty player, go and listen to this guy's version of the same song. And I went and listened to it. And even to my untrained ear, yeah, this guy was clearly a better guitarist, but fuck me did I have no interest at all in listening to it, there was no thrill, the life of the song had been sacrificed to the technique.

Same reason that - despite loving black and white landscape photography - Ansel Adams' work bores me to tears. Technically impressive certainly, but absolutely cold in my opinion.

It goes for attraction too. I see plenty of women who clearly meet out objective cultural standards of beauty, but do absolutely nothing for me. But whether you're talking about a person, or a picture, or 2001, I think it's important to be clear on the fact that 2001, for example, may be an objectively well-made film (derived enjoyment aside), but only by current cultural standards of what well-made means.

popcorn

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 17, 2018, 05:57:02 PM
I think it's important to be clear on the fact that 2001, for example, may be an objectively well-made film

Prove it.

QDRPHNC


popcorn

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 17, 2018, 06:07:14 PM
I'm so glad I took the time to post.

I'm serious. Objective things can be measured, objectively. How do you measure 2001, objectively?

QDRPHNC

Quote from: popcorn on July 17, 2018, 06:08:43 PM
I'm serious. Objective things can be measured, objectively. How do you measure 2001, objectively?

I guess my entire point was that any objective measurement depends entirely on what is considered to be objectively good at this point in time.

But I'll go with it, and I'm at the office, so I don't have 2001 to hand. And this is all rhetorical, personally I'm not a fan of 2001, so I don't really care. But anyway. We know that the rule of thirds is an effective composition technique, and when combined with an eye for visual hierarchy, proximity, balance, tension and visual storytelling, will most likely have the desired effect, to one degree or another, on the majority of viewers.

So if a movie were composed according to those principles, then I think it would be fair to say that it is an objectively well-composed film. But again, objective according to prevailing western cultural norms of what well-composed means.

I think I'm agreeing with you, so I don't know why you're getting arsey about it.

popcorn

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 17, 2018, 06:13:10 PM
I guess my entire point was that any objective measurement depends entirely on what is considered to be objectively good at this point in time.

Sounds awfully subjective to me.

QDRPHNC

Quote from: popcorn on July 17, 2018, 06:15:52 PM
Sounds awfully subjective to me.

Is that your objective opinion?

(also, yes, that's kind of my point. I would disagree with someone who says 2001 is an objectively well-made film)

monolith

Quote from: monolith on July 17, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
No but I'd chuck weed killer on their lawn so that it spelt out "I am a prick".
Fucking hell, thought I'd lost the plot, was sure I posted this and then checked on the hosepipe ban thread earlier and didn't see it. Never mind. I'm an idiot.

popcorn

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 17, 2018, 06:16:33 PM
Is that your objective opinion?

(also, yes, that's kind of my point. I would disagree with someone who says 2001 is an objectively well-made film)

Then I don't understand your point.

QuoteI think it's important to be clear on the fact that 2001, for example, may be an objectively well-made film (derived enjoyment aside), but only by current cultural standards of what well-made means.

Is this your point? Because it's is a clearly self-contradictory claim. It can't "objectively be a well-made film" ... "by current cultural standards". Then it isn't objective.

QDRPHNC


Sebastian Cobb

There probably is a unit to describe the elasticity of a bumhole, my mums or otherwise.

popcorn

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 17, 2018, 06:32:35 PM
.

Can't be arsed, need to work.

That's a shame, I thought your pre-edit reply was quite illuminating.