When I make posts like I made today, I often include extra information, about my thought processes and context and things. Why do I do that? It’s not by-example (i.e. learning from a role-model; or if it is, it’s not because curi does that, so it’s some{one/thing} else).
I think it’s a pre-emptive defense mechanism – against criticism. I’m trying to provide mitigating factors that would explain ideas that might otherwise seem irrational and/or wrong.
Is sort of thing related to defensiveness? (mb mine specifically?) IDK.
ya lots of ppl show up and want to already be good and dislike challenges to that such as criticism that shows they make errors and have a lot to learn.
It helps if you can spot and analyze other people being defensive in real cases, especially with a reviewable archive of it (like writing or video).
There are many signs, including voice tone changes and trying to give more arguments to justify themselves. Trying to give more arguments can result in messages being written more slowly and being longer.
I think this is something I’m going to look out for and collect. The opposite (ppl not being defensive when other ppl might) might be worth collecting too. I remember one thuderf00t vid (can’t find it now) where someone was attacking him and making personal accusations/claims and he doesn’t engage with the attacks at all. It stuck out to me as a case where I probably would have been defensive.
It’s easier to come off as not being defensive when you’re reading a script. Thunderf00t is more like an actor rather than someone responding to stuff in real time. Sounding cool, calm and collected (with some special exceptions that audiences like, like sometimes sounding a bit angry at bad people) while reading the script is part of his job as a YouTuber, and being able to do that well is one of the reasons he got popular. It also helps that he has 1 million YouTube Subscribers – that kind of public recognition and status helps people feel right and confident instead of getting defensive or upset about attacks. It makes it easier to think like “A million people agree with me; I’m right; the guy attacking me is dumb; and the audience knows it.”
If thunderf00t sounded defensive in a video, he could do another take. Though I’m guessing he’d probably recognize the issue in advance – that he’s in a bad mood or however he presents it to himself – and decide to record later.
I’ve been on the look out for examples of defensiveness during everyday-stuff (like watching yt). I haven’t found many good ones, but this is something that stuck out to me just now:
The tone of the prosecutor puts her on the defensive, and she tries her best to avoid agreeing with what he’s saying.
This seems significant (and concise). The idea of avoiding agreement feels like a crucial part of defensiveness. If someone is defensive, they are going to feel that they’re defending, something, right?
Is it generally the case that a defensive person feels that they’d be harmed by agreement with the counterparty?
The other example of defensiveness that I thought was good is the following: (both links are from the same video, but different timestamps). It’s the 2nd-in-command of NSW’s (my state) government responding to questions about his involvement in the counter-terrorism unit arresting the producer of a youtube channel (satire + investigative journalism). The channel (friendlyjordies) has done multiple journalistic[1] videos about corruption in state-level politics, with a particular focus on this politician in the videos. FYI friendlyjordies is left-leaning, but pretty moderate in the scheme of things (here at least).
Another example from that same true-crime channel: (seems like a decent source of examples, which is why I’m watching it atm)
…, this form of aggression is a commonplace response from the innocent being directly accused; he comes off aggressive, but in a defensive manner. He is not being hostile, but highly combative when professing his innocence.
That channel I linked, JCS - Criminal Psychology, seems to put a lot of effort into their videos compared to similar vids. Lots of analysis and commentary and heavy editing-down of source material. However, there’s a sorta subgenre loosely called JCS Inspired with similar but much lower quality vids.
I think I got lucky with the first few vids I watched. The broader genre and jsc-inspired subgenre is basically crime-porn and substantially lower value WRT quality of analysis.
(exploratory notes; I am still trying to understand defensiveness)
does defensiveness always involve dishonesty? it seems like it usually involves some dishonesty.
mb not outright lying (tho I think that might be common), but at least being disingenuous about feelings, motives, desires, etc. I think there are some red flags (that one can self-detect) in those things that indicate defensiveness. Like, sometimes, when I’ve been defensive, I have like a niggling doubt that gets suppressed. I guess part of the defense strategy is deliberate non-engagement with the idea (which reminds me of static memes).
Some things that maybe need to be answered before being okay with ‘defensiveness always involves dishonesty’:
is auto-pilot deflection dishonest? I think – for a philosopher – yes (but mb not for other ppl). Like shouldn’t a philosopher know how to recognize that situation and not auto-pilot-deflect?
if person A is protecting person B (e.g., by withholding private info) is it dishonest if person A gets defensive when questioned about something private? Presumably there must be a way for person A to respond honestly or at least with integrity. “protecting” here is mb too specific; like someone might find themselves in that situation after signing an NDA. Mb dishonesty is always part of defensiveness, but neither of those situations necessitate being defensive. (Then there’s the q of how does one decide on a response, but that’s a diff topic I think)