Food for Thought, Advanced: Transitional Subjective to Objective

[Josh]

Transitional Subjective to Objective

The idea here is based on This post Food for Thought, Basic: Opinion, Fact and Subjective, Objective


Using the concepts

Opinion:
Calling something an opinion does not inherently devalue it.  Just as calling something a fact does not give it value.  You cannot, for example, say “Bats are mammals” is an opinion.  Because of this you should not declare something an opinion as a response.  If you disagree with it, say that, but calling it an opinion is at best pointless.

The other use of opinion is also confusing.  Better than saying “In my opinion” is to sate something as a value.  “I value ease of play” “Game X is easy to play.”  Now we can argue either angle, without conflating the two. 


The most commonly used definition of Objective is : not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
The most commonly used definition of Subjective is: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Going back to the concept of values, if you define something using a value, that is subjective.  If you define something without using values, that is objective.

So here is one way of bridgeing from Subjective to Objective, Opinion to Fact.

Instead of saying :”I value game X” say “I value payout Y.”  “Game X has payout Y.” 

Now we have a subset of “You to Value”(Subjective Opinion to an Objective Fact)  and “Value to Game” (Objective Fact to Objective Fact)

The first statement is personal and debatable, the second takes a stance and creates a possible fact and is subject to being questioned.

This opens two arenas of debate

1) The Value and You
2) The Game and the Payout

1) The Value to You

It may see odd, but this is a valid topic. 

Lets say as an example I say a value is “exciting.”  Well, one could argue, exciting can mean lots of things.  Christmas Eve exciting, Roller coaster Exciting or winning the jackpot exciting?

This differs from “Game x is exciting” because you are only talking about one layer and how it relates to you.

Also it more easily translates to comparisons. 

For example “I really value Intrigue, fighting and farming” “Game x has Intrigue and fighting but no farming.  Game Y has Intrigue and farming but no fighting.  Whats more important to me?”

2) The game to the payout

This really helps to divorce emotion and prejudgment from the discussion.  And helps things be very specific and seperate.

Game X has i, j and k.  That can be clearly debated and separated.  Whereas if we were arguing “goodness” you have to play everything at once.

Also these are objective discussions of fact.