Your comment… seems weirdly intentionally dense at trying to somehow redefine those words to be about their purely denotative meaning, which is indeed the exact thing I am complaining about here.
You are the one who is trying to label Said’s words as saying his interlocutors are “stupid” or “evil.” You are the one who is trying to bring the connotations of those words into play when the most (and frankly, only) reasonable interpretation of Said’s literal language, which you quoted[1], is not aligned with what a neutral outside observer would understand as being “people are stupid/evil.”
Frankly, I really don’t like doing this kind of thing generally because it kinda sucks, but since I lack a lab setup where I can ask this question to 100 different volunteers and do some empirical study on it, the next-best alternative was this:
Asking GPT-4o about this (feel free to replicate it, I tried different prompts and ran it multiple times with the same general answer)
Me: “Of course people have such preferences! Indeed, it’s not shocking at all! People prefer not to have their bad ideas challenged, they prefer not to have obvious gaps in their reasoning pointed out, they prefer that people treat all of their utterances as deserving of nothing less than “curious”, “kind”, “collaborative” replies (rather than pointed questions, direct and un-veiled criticism, and a general “trial by fire”, “explore it by trying to break it” approach)?! Well… yeah. Duh. Humans are human. No one is shocked.”
Consider the following two interpretations: 1. the writer is saying (most) people are stupid or evil 2. the writer is saying (most) people have soft egos
Which interpretation seems more likely?
GPT-4o: Between the two interpretations:
The writer is saying (most) people are stupid or evil
The writer is saying (most) people have soft egos
Interpretation 2 — that the writer is saying most people have soft egos — is much more likely.
Here’s why:
The tone of the passage isn’t moralizing (calling people evil) or condescending (labeling them as stupid). Instead, it takes a matter-of-fact, even somewhat sympathetic view: “Humans are human. No one is shocked.”
The focus is on emotional comfort and social dynamics — people not wanting their ideas challenged, desiring kind responses, avoiding harsh critique. These are traits tied to emotional sensitivity or ego, not to intelligence or morality.
Phrases like “prefer not to have their bad ideas challenged” and “treat all of their utterances as deserving” suggest that the writer sees these tendencies as natural human biases, not as signs of stupidity or malevolence.
Summary:
The writer isn’t condemning people as evil or stupid — they’re observing that people don’t enjoy confrontation or criticism, and that’s a normal part of being human. So interpretation 2 (soft egos) fits best.
You are the one who is trying to label Said’s words as saying his interlocutors are “stupid” or “evil.” You are the one who is trying to bring the connotations of those words into play when the most (and frankly, only) reasonable interpretation of Said’s literal language, which you quoted[1], is not aligned with what a neutral outside observer would understand as being “people are stupid/evil.”
Frankly, I really don’t like doing this kind of thing generally because it kinda sucks, but since I lack a lab setup where I can ask this question to 100 different volunteers and do some empirical study on it, the next-best alternative was this:
Asking GPT-4o about this (feel free to replicate it, I tried different prompts and ran it multiple times with the same general answer)
Me: “Of course people have such preferences! Indeed, it’s not shocking at all! People prefer not to have their bad ideas challenged, they prefer not to have obvious gaps in their reasoning pointed out, they prefer that people treat all of their utterances as deserving of nothing less than “curious”, “kind”, “collaborative” replies (rather than pointed questions, direct and un-veiled criticism, and a general “trial by fire”, “explore it by trying to break it” approach)?! Well… yeah. Duh. Humans are human. No one is shocked.”
Consider the following two interpretations:
1. the writer is saying (most) people are stupid or evil
2. the writer is saying (most) people have soft egos
Which interpretation seems more likely?
GPT-4o: Between the two interpretations:
The writer is saying (most) people are stupid or evil
The writer is saying (most) people have soft egos
Interpretation 2 — that the writer is saying most people have soft egos — is much more likely.
Here’s why:
The tone of the passage isn’t moralizing (calling people evil) or condescending (labeling them as stupid). Instead, it takes a matter-of-fact, even somewhat sympathetic view: “Humans are human. No one is shocked.”
The focus is on emotional comfort and social dynamics — people not wanting their ideas challenged, desiring kind responses, avoiding harsh critique. These are traits tied to emotional sensitivity or ego, not to intelligence or morality.
Phrases like “prefer not to have their bad ideas challenged” and “treat all of their utterances as deserving” suggest that the writer sees these tendencies as natural human biases, not as signs of stupidity or malevolence.
Summary:
The writer isn’t condemning people as evil or stupid — they’re observing that people don’t enjoy confrontation or criticism, and that’s a normal part of being human. So interpretation 2 (soft egos) fits best.
Nobody forced you to, nobody referred to that particular paragraph in this very discussion until you selected your own example