Health and Diet Scottish Recipes Ferret for Ferrets


Re: [pf] Boy that word "teamplayerish" is a sensitive one!
by Holly R
01 December 2000 18:19 UTC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- John Andersen 
wrote:
> Maybe I missed something, but I can't believe I'm
> being accused of making a
> sweeping generalization.  First of all, could
> someone tell me specifically
> who I've generalized about.  Provide me some names
> please.

Precisely because no names were used, you have made a
generalization.  

> I thought I was just describing a type of behavior
> which most of us have
> probably observed many times.

Of course we have.  Everyday, I look at people around
me, and I wonder how they express their individuality-
many of them wear the same clothes, drive the same
vehicles, listen to the same music.  But I don't
automatically assume that they "seem to be incapable
of expressing even the faintest glimmer of
individuality" because I can't readily see it.  

>I wasn't referring to
> anyone in particular.

Exactly.  You made a generalization.

> And I wasn't the one who came up with that
> description anyway.  It was
> Sinclair Lewis who did it back in 1923.

But you've embellished on the concept with yor own
judgmental and pejorative language.
 
> I think the hot button here is the fact that I'm not
> unqualifyingly
> accepting the concept of team play.

The hot button (speaking for myself only) is that you
have unqualifyingly *judged* others for how they live
their lives.

> >And what *is*
> > "excessively teamplayerish" anyway?  This is a
> > randomly and subjectively drawn line that can be
> > changed at any time..
> 
> Yes, like any other concept.  So what's your point?

No, not like any other concept.  There are plenty of
concepts that are based on objective criteria (aah...
the beauty of science).  My point is that you have not
established any standards by which to define
*excessive* team play.  Subjective standards are not
inherently wrong- we all have them- but if you are
going to apply them, they should be well-defined. 
Please note that I do not believe that "well-defined"
precludes maturation or evolution of subjective
standards. 

> >Do you
> > now have enough information about me to decide
> that
> > I'm "excessively teamplayerish?"
> 
> I'm confused.  Where did a definition of a type of
> individual, one created
> by Lewis in 1923, become a personal attack on you
> (whoever you are) or
> anyone else?

I don't take your statements to be a personal attack
on me.  I do take them to be a personal attack on
multitudes of people.  Again, the distinction between
a specific observation and a generalization.  Yes, I
know, you're citing Lewis as having characterized a
particular type of person.  My point is that given
limited knowledge/observation, you seem all too
willing to draw (perhaps untrue) conclusions about
people based on the assumptions you make about their
lives.  I perform a job (receptionist, high-tech
company) which might suggest that I am a boring,
unintelligent, uncreative, "working for the man"
company girl (or "robot" as you suggested in your
original post).  Were you to decide I'm a babbitt,
you'd definitely be wrong, (and although we're not
talking about companies here, likely be wrong about
the company for which I work).  There's all sorts of
diversity out there, John.  Don't dismiss it before
you even see it.