I’m writing on this topic currently, and from a slightly different perspective. I love your focus on the social aspect of the inherent goodness of a thing – well in line with where I feel my article is headed. 🤝
Great Post! I think this rings pretty true, While some of the enjoyment of art is purely individual I definitely get a lot of fulfillment from discussing a movie, an album, etc, with friends. I wonder if a good way to maintain balance and avoid as you say "losing our grasp on quality and goodness" is just to reduce the social network that we share art with. so rather than posting on some web forum with a million people you just share with 10 friends in some group chat. That way you still get the human aspect of experiencing art together but don't get swept away by the crowd.
Thanks for the piece. I think that, at the end of the day, it's sometimes really tough to know whether something apparently "good" is actually good for us, say a particular new government policy or a new technological advancement. That's why we defer to experts for the judgement, but we should always keep a skeptical mind, just in case.
Agreed. Value judgments are often complicated webs of opinion and social conditioning, which makes it hard for us to remain open-minded. But recognizing our own tendencies and limitations is an essential first step. Thank you for reading!
Yes, our opinions often feel like extensions of our more essential selves -- which leads us toward the confirmation bias and this sort of social chain reaction of opinion.
Rose, I agree with Michael and others below that this is an interesting article. I do not think I've come across this idea of how the individual interacts with the social to create (or influence) a shared understanding of what good might look like. There's kind of an idea then that anything or idea might look good, if we trusted the person who is telling this to us. It explains to lot! and also somehow creates a path as I try to do good work in my own neck of the world. Thank you!
I think we underestimate our tendency to be influenced by the world around us, thinking that we’re often operating independently and autonomously. To me, it’s very valuable to acknowledge our highly interconnected existence and move forward with a sort of radical acceptance of it. So glad to hear that the piece got you thinking — thank you so much for reading.
It’s a challenge to live authentically — but there’s so much value in carving out a space for our own idiosyncratic identity. Great take — thanks for reading.
I was thinking a couple of weeks ago about taste. And I was trying to come up with an "equation" for how to think about what good taste means. As in, what makes something aesthetically or technically pleasing or worthwhile across time.
What I came up with is,
Taste = (mass appeal * time span of mass appeal) + (people who are known to have good taste * their opinion of the thing)
Basically what you're saying here. When a group of "elites" or experts (or whatever other term you want to use), who are known for liking great, interesting, or useful things, like a thing, that lends it compounded credibility.
An example of something that doesn't have lots of elite taste for it, might be superhero movies. Because they're just uninteresting, artistically. Then you'd basically be adding zero in the second half of the equation.
Something like The Beatles would be the opposite - everybody who's anybody in music agrees that they're the all time greats, which lends them incredible appeal and credibility even for young people who weren't around to hear them.
And of course sometimes these elite opinions can differ from consensus or from those of the masses.
And this also doesn't account for the third S, self.
I think our taste is so much more heavily influenced than we initially believe — and most of the modern world’s incentives revolve around “appealing to the masses,” which drives us to respond very closely to the people around us (aka the market). So it becomes very challenging to disentangle some core essence of value from all the social forces that mold our opinions and our work. Thanks so much for reading, as always.
I am a fan of your writing and your outstanding ability to describe and articulate abstract topics with fluidity and becouse of this I like to challenge your thoughts about this part of your writing,I think there is a flaw in your argument when you mentioned When we evaluate something — whether a restaurant or a book or a political policy — we’re rarely claiming to announce a personal preference. No, we’re announcing our judgment of the overall merit of something, its intrinsic value as an object of public consciousness. it misunderstands the subjective nature of human evaluation. Evaluations are inherently shaped by personal preferences, past experiences, and individual expectations, making it inaccurate to claim that we "rarely announce a personal preference." Even when we attempt to judge something's merit, those judgments are filtered through subjective lenses. Furthermore, the concept of intrinsic value is entirely distinct from public consciousness. Intrinsic value refers to something’s inherent worth, independent of external opinions or societal awareness. Public consciousness, however, is subjective, varying across cultures, time periods, and individual interpretations, making it impossible to serve as a reliable measure of intrinsic value.
Additionally, humans operate largely on subconscious patterns—up to 95% of the time—rendering objectivity nearly unattainable in evaluations. This subconscious dominance means judgments are influenced by ingrained biases rather than purely merit-based reasoning. Lastly, the notion of measuring public consciousness is ambiguous at best. Public consciousness is an abstract,unquantifiable concept, and using it to assess intrinsic value is speculative and ungrounded. The sentence, therefore, fails because it conflates subjective judgment with objective evaluation, misrepresents intrinsic value, and relies on vague, immeasurable constructs.
Nice articulation Rose, but, I think you have explicated goodness on the idea of our social behaviour, which practically is in today's world. But, we need to talk more on the concept that you slightly touched upon—self success.Though, it seems to be the ideal not pragmatic,but this is and should be the larger goal in anh individual life. Talking in comparative terms, there are different philosophical perspectives about life and its meaning(s). Like, western philosphy would tell you more on the material fulfillments , while oriental discussions are more pluralistic on the question of goodness and spiritual significance in life and world.. That's why, I believe this spectrum is too large to conclude..
Thank you for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts. I agree that social popularity is a poor metric for the inherent goodness of something but find that it has an immense amount of power to sway our opinions and judgments — and, in the end, disorients us enough to accept those opinions. There’s much more to the conversation of goodness — like you mention here — and look forward to addressing them in future articles.
Yes, humans are social creatures with interconnected lives, but the leap from "social" to the inevitability of collective buy-in as the ultimate metric for value is iffy. You assert that collective judgment shapes "goodness," yet offer zero framework for interrogating whether this judgment can be trusted. Is popularity inherently indicative of value, or just evidence of a successful feedback loop? Or just mass insecurity of not wanting to be left out of what the cool kids are doing?
Ah, social inertia is a very interesting analogy — or the idea that there’s a certain inexorable nature to our preferences and taste. But there is always the possibility of a catalyst for change, as long as they can capture our attention and hearts. I think much of our shared, social existence can be considered a chain reaction. Thank you so much for reading.
I’m writing on this topic currently, and from a slightly different perspective. I love your focus on the social aspect of the inherent goodness of a thing – well in line with where I feel my article is headed. 🤝
Great Post! I think this rings pretty true, While some of the enjoyment of art is purely individual I definitely get a lot of fulfillment from discussing a movie, an album, etc, with friends. I wonder if a good way to maintain balance and avoid as you say "losing our grasp on quality and goodness" is just to reduce the social network that we share art with. so rather than posting on some web forum with a million people you just share with 10 friends in some group chat. That way you still get the human aspect of experiencing art together but don't get swept away by the crowd.
Thank you for the kind words! I think your suggestion for shared experiences that don’t sweep us away in public judgment is a wise one.
Thanks for the piece. I think that, at the end of the day, it's sometimes really tough to know whether something apparently "good" is actually good for us, say a particular new government policy or a new technological advancement. That's why we defer to experts for the judgement, but we should always keep a skeptical mind, just in case.
Agreed. Value judgments are often complicated webs of opinion and social conditioning, which makes it hard for us to remain open-minded. But recognizing our own tendencies and limitations is an essential first step. Thank you for reading!
Very very thoughtful and philosophical! I love it Rose!
Thank you, I really appreciate the kind words. I’m glad it resonated 🤍
It all comes down to value in the end!
Reading this made me think about how we inheritingly believe our opinion to be good! And therefore, true or the truth.
Yes, our opinions often feel like extensions of our more essential selves -- which leads us toward the confirmation bias and this sort of social chain reaction of opinion.
So glad the piece resonated!
❣️ Sometimes it’s nice to go beyond small talk, you know?
Rose, I agree with Michael and others below that this is an interesting article. I do not think I've come across this idea of how the individual interacts with the social to create (or influence) a shared understanding of what good might look like. There's kind of an idea then that anything or idea might look good, if we trusted the person who is telling this to us. It explains to lot! and also somehow creates a path as I try to do good work in my own neck of the world. Thank you!
I think we underestimate our tendency to be influenced by the world around us, thinking that we’re often operating independently and autonomously. To me, it’s very valuable to acknowledge our highly interconnected existence and move forward with a sort of radical acceptance of it. So glad to hear that the piece got you thinking — thank you so much for reading.
> "Somewhere in our unapologetically social nature, we lose our grasp on quality and goodness, succumbing to our trusting and imitative impulses."
I've spent my life resisting that allure! The cost can be high, but I've found it well worth it.
It’s a challenge to live authentically — but there’s so much value in carving out a space for our own idiosyncratic identity. Great take — thanks for reading.
I was thinking a couple of weeks ago about taste. And I was trying to come up with an "equation" for how to think about what good taste means. As in, what makes something aesthetically or technically pleasing or worthwhile across time.
What I came up with is,
Taste = (mass appeal * time span of mass appeal) + (people who are known to have good taste * their opinion of the thing)
Basically what you're saying here. When a group of "elites" or experts (or whatever other term you want to use), who are known for liking great, interesting, or useful things, like a thing, that lends it compounded credibility.
An example of something that doesn't have lots of elite taste for it, might be superhero movies. Because they're just uninteresting, artistically. Then you'd basically be adding zero in the second half of the equation.
Something like The Beatles would be the opposite - everybody who's anybody in music agrees that they're the all time greats, which lends them incredible appeal and credibility even for young people who weren't around to hear them.
And of course sometimes these elite opinions can differ from consensus or from those of the masses.
And this also doesn't account for the third S, self.
But still a useful heuristic.
Very interesting read.
I think our taste is so much more heavily influenced than we initially believe — and most of the modern world’s incentives revolve around “appealing to the masses,” which drives us to respond very closely to the people around us (aka the market). So it becomes very challenging to disentangle some core essence of value from all the social forces that mold our opinions and our work. Thanks so much for reading, as always.
I am a fan of your writing and your outstanding ability to describe and articulate abstract topics with fluidity and becouse of this I like to challenge your thoughts about this part of your writing,I think there is a flaw in your argument when you mentioned When we evaluate something — whether a restaurant or a book or a political policy — we’re rarely claiming to announce a personal preference. No, we’re announcing our judgment of the overall merit of something, its intrinsic value as an object of public consciousness. it misunderstands the subjective nature of human evaluation. Evaluations are inherently shaped by personal preferences, past experiences, and individual expectations, making it inaccurate to claim that we "rarely announce a personal preference." Even when we attempt to judge something's merit, those judgments are filtered through subjective lenses. Furthermore, the concept of intrinsic value is entirely distinct from public consciousness. Intrinsic value refers to something’s inherent worth, independent of external opinions or societal awareness. Public consciousness, however, is subjective, varying across cultures, time periods, and individual interpretations, making it impossible to serve as a reliable measure of intrinsic value.
Additionally, humans operate largely on subconscious patterns—up to 95% of the time—rendering objectivity nearly unattainable in evaluations. This subconscious dominance means judgments are influenced by ingrained biases rather than purely merit-based reasoning. Lastly, the notion of measuring public consciousness is ambiguous at best. Public consciousness is an abstract,unquantifiable concept, and using it to assess intrinsic value is speculative and ungrounded. The sentence, therefore, fails because it conflates subjective judgment with objective evaluation, misrepresents intrinsic value, and relies on vague, immeasurable constructs.
Nice articulation Rose, but, I think you have explicated goodness on the idea of our social behaviour, which practically is in today's world. But, we need to talk more on the concept that you slightly touched upon—self success.Though, it seems to be the ideal not pragmatic,but this is and should be the larger goal in anh individual life. Talking in comparative terms, there are different philosophical perspectives about life and its meaning(s). Like, western philosphy would tell you more on the material fulfillments , while oriental discussions are more pluralistic on the question of goodness and spiritual significance in life and world.. That's why, I believe this spectrum is too large to conclude..
Thank you for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts. I agree that social popularity is a poor metric for the inherent goodness of something but find that it has an immense amount of power to sway our opinions and judgments — and, in the end, disorients us enough to accept those opinions. There’s much more to the conversation of goodness — like you mention here — and look forward to addressing them in future articles.
Exactly..👍
Yes, humans are social creatures with interconnected lives, but the leap from "social" to the inevitability of collective buy-in as the ultimate metric for value is iffy. You assert that collective judgment shapes "goodness," yet offer zero framework for interrogating whether this judgment can be trusted. Is popularity inherently indicative of value, or just evidence of a successful feedback loop? Or just mass insecurity of not wanting to be left out of what the cool kids are doing?
Ah, social inertia is a very interesting analogy — or the idea that there’s a certain inexorable nature to our preferences and taste. But there is always the possibility of a catalyst for change, as long as they can capture our attention and hearts. I think much of our shared, social existence can be considered a chain reaction. Thank you so much for reading.
You’re not “subconsciously” drawing “parallels between concepts” if you’re literally drawing parallels between concepts.