Nicola Staff asked 2 years ago
This kind of thinking is, on its face, very shallow. It might be accurate in some circumstances and be enough to deflect criticism or questioning and enable a person to escape an ongoing contest they want to avoid, and that is the purpose, it is often a kind of habitual default, a go-to comment that can cover seemingly many encounters with opposition, and then out of habit becomes a kind of default response. The danger in such strategies is that the person doing it may well not realize when that is not really sufficient to cover the issue at hand, and where they have more responsibility to give credence to what someone confronting them is saying may mishandle the situation and cause a strained relationship, or even a worsening by seeming to ignore serious concerns and a potentially quite valid complaint and justification. This is all a manifestation of an ego defense using an array of strategies to simplify the task of keeping others at bay when challenged, so it is very much akin to carrying not only a spear but a shield so one can deflect incoming attacks and stay safe.
The fault with having a shallow discernment and appreciation is that by going to a simplistic dismissal, as this represents in some situations, will be seen as unsatisfying and will not truly serve the person using this tactic if they leave a difficult situation unresolved. That can compound things and grow resentment within someone who feels slighted in being dismissed as though they themselves lack common sense, and that should be obvious when their perspective is the opposite. At a minimum, when people are challenged it will serve them, as well as the challenger, to think about what is said and at least meet them halfway with a reasoned argument, and not a kind of generality that is dismissive in being so general, and presupposing fault in the challenger as well.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
