The other day I was watching a video of a philosopher giving a lecture on important topics such as affection, recognition, and our current society, so connected and at the same time so lonely.
In the comments of the same video there was some criticism, including videos that were in some way fighting the ideas of this philosopher.
I kept diving into the debates until I came across a 45-minute video made especially by this philosopher to counter the criticism he had received from a certain person, but with anger and cursing.
And in the comments, a flood of people badgering each other at the poles of discussion.
Conclusion.
Two.
- Even a learned philosopher cannot stand criticism.
- There is a type of human gene that predominates in people who are deeply offended by others' opinions. I call this the offended gene.
The offending gene needs an adrenaline rush. It loves to get into arguments, and its radar is on the lookout for heated debates.
This is my academic and scientific conclusion postulated in the "Stavros Science Compendium" magazine
Joking aside, I wrote in another article, that criticism is like the broth of a wave: It's bad, but it passes quickly.
Why on earth does a person spend hours in innocuous debates, offending others and being offended? It can only be a genetic condition, I believe.
But the problem of criticism is much deeper, especially when one's fear of criticism creates a paralysis in one's productive capacity.
The person is afraid of being criticized so he lives hiding in a hole. His belief is, "I don't mess with anybody, nobody messes with me."
It turns out that to produce your best, you need others. As you live with others, differences come to the surface. And then, at the first split, the offended gene shouts "Go back to the den! It hurts too much to deal with people." And there goes the person back to his world, reducing his human interaction, because of the offending gene.
Others get addicted to arguments. The offending gene tells them to fight all the time. Life becomes a hunt for arguments. And one starts to interact with others on the basis of criticism, opinions (which often end in insults), debates, and the two signs, one in each hand: "I agree" and the other "I disagree".
You've just given an opinion on the beak color of the pelicans of the Seychelles Islands and here comes someone to tell you, "I agree. I think pelicans blah blah blah..." or with a "I disagree... Pelicans don't have a matte yellow beak to the point of ...blah blah..."
And there will begin a clash of arguments, which tends to deteriorate in form and quality, until one thinks he is the winner of the argument.
I imagined that this was childish, lacked emotional balance, and mostly I thought it was a matter of education.
But no. I was completely wrong. Today I believe it is a condition, just like Asperger's Syndrome and others. You are born with it.
How can you explain a septuagenarian philosopher who cannot stand criticism to the point of recording entire videos and lowering himself tremendously in innocuous debates?
How to explain hundreds of people taking offense in comments around controversial topics?
Polemic is an adjective that originates from the Greek word "polemos" which means "war".
A controversial subject is a subject that entails heated discussions. This is ok. Now, swearing at others, using pimp terms, and trying to reduce others, to me is just the offended gene.
It is the use and abuse of the fallacy Argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person), which is when someone seeks to refute the arguments of another with a criticism of its author and not its content.
João speaks: "I think Brazil should accept X as a social policy
Maria answers: "Not at all! But what to comment on a person, who doesn't even have a diploma.
Maria, you have no argument to debate X, so you resort to reducing the author of the argument, in an attempt to nullify the importance of that argument.
The stage for polarization is set: On one side will be John's defenders, and on the other, Mary's. A colony of offended genes will delight in adrenaline storms. A colony of offended genes will delight in adrenaline storms. The end result is nothing. The argument X was left in the corner waiting for "food", so important in dialectics.
And things can get worse. The press can catch in this sea of opinions, one of a notorious person, a soccer player, or a politician, an artist. And then it will print: "So-and-so said that X is equal to Z!" There, more food for the offended genes, more audience for the portals.
Debates are indispensable, as long as they result in the generation of alternatives and answers to the problem at hand and do not succumb to offenses and fallacies.
There are many thematic panels that discuss our problems in a broad and participatory way. But rarely do they go into depth.
You can tell this from the density of the arguments, their wealth of detail, cases and experiences elsewhere, strengths and weaknesses, a conjectural analysis of the environment under which new measures will try to prevail and their effects after being landed in the bosom of society, in short?
I like to watch TV Justice once in a while and see the Supreme Court justices debate. There you have high-caliber debates, most of the time.
But that is not my point.
When you deal with people, you will receive criticism. From an early age. At home and at school.
If you produce, you will receive criticism. If you don't, you won't.
Mother Teresa was criticized. Ghandi. Jesus. Socrates, Aristotle. Newton. All, without exception, received heavy criticism.
There will always be critics ready to refute what you say and do.
Put it this way, I want more and more people to know what you do and the value you generate. And let the critics go.
Now, how many people know what you do and produce? How many people know what value you generate for the market?
About 100, 200? ok. More than a thousand people? More than 10 thousand people? It doesn't matter this number. If it is 20, 50, or 500 thousand.
Let's zoom in.
It is not easy. But we have a clear path to do it.
The first step is yours.
Start crushing the offending gene of others, leaving them literally in a vacuum, while you walk around radiating the value of what you produce to those who have eyes for you and need your value.
They are the ones that really matter and are interested.
