I really do like your litmus test, and in most situations it will work
very well. None the less, please allow me to politely put on my "faker"
hat for a moment to pick apart a straw-man corner case.
I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when
giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an
idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls
to avoid and the weaknesses to address. It is simply a matter of
learning and stating both the potential risks and the potential rewards
so a more informed decision can be made.
The finding of fault, or better said risks and caveats, is equally
important to finding positive ways to interpret, implement and express
an idea. The most important thing is how you express your findings,
both the positive and the not-so-positive. There really is a difference
between being critical and critical thinking.
For example, in terms of rhetoric, your post is stunningly beautiful.
You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you
without being a "faker" but in doing so, in terms of logic, your
argument is fallacious (similar to Suppressed Correlative [1]). The
fallacy might weaken your statement but it doesn't make your statement
entirely wrong, and the clever rhetoric actually makes you look rather
sharp.
The people who can interpret an idea in a positive light are wonderful
to work with, so we agree on your main point. None the less, the people
who can interpret an idea in a positive way while still spinning an
iteration to politely address short comings are even better.
The point I'm trying to make, hopefully by example, is both the
interpretation and iteration are important, but the most important
part is fair and polite expression of both the good parts and the
not-so-good parts. You may not agree with my result, but at least you
know why I proposed a change to your idea, and hopefully you were not
offended by my proposal.
Personally, I hope someone here will take my post, find my faults, and
politely respin an iteration with their proposed improvements. I'll
gain something from their efforts. Even if I disagree with their
results, I'll still learn a valuable new perspective that I've probably
overlooked or unfairly discounted.
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your
idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was
iterating actually what you were talking about when you said
"interpreting" and running with it?
There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking
This is essentially the point I'm making.
You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker"
Uh, no. Where am I saying "everyone" or "all"? I'm saying that certain admirable people do X and other not-so admirable people do Y. Nowhere do I say that everyone falls into one camp or another. Points deducted for trying to put words into my mouth!
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was iterating actually what you were talking about when you said "interpreting" and running with it?
EDIT: And no, I won't be offended by your opinion. I actually just like to know.
I'm talking about an honest iteration. But since you just blatantly tried to put a false dichotomy into my mouth, either you just tried a slimy rhetorical trick yourself or your thinking/writing was a bit confused, or there's another explanation I missed. In the first instance, it looks a lot like "faking."
I deal with feasibility assessment, or at least I used to, so when giving an idea some love, I'm not only expected to find various ways an idea can work (if possible), but I'm also expected to find the pit-falls to avoid and the weaknesses to address. It is simply a matter of learning and stating both the potential risks and the potential rewards so a more informed decision can be made.
The finding of fault, or better said risks and caveats, is equally important to finding positive ways to interpret, implement and express an idea. The most important thing is how you express your findings, both the positive and the not-so-positive. There really is a difference between being critical and critical thinking.
For example, in terms of rhetoric, your post is stunningly beautiful. You crafted a rhetorical statement where no one can disagree with you without being a "faker" but in doing so, in terms of logic, your argument is fallacious (similar to Suppressed Correlative [1]). The fallacy might weaken your statement but it doesn't make your statement entirely wrong, and the clever rhetoric actually makes you look rather sharp.
The people who can interpret an idea in a positive light are wonderful to work with, so we agree on your main point. None the less, the people who can interpret an idea in a positive way while still spinning an iteration to politely address short comings are even better.
The point I'm trying to make, hopefully by example, is both the interpretation and iteration are important, but the most important part is fair and polite expression of both the good parts and the not-so-good parts. You may not agree with my result, but at least you know why I proposed a change to your idea, and hopefully you were not offended by my proposal.
Personally, I hope someone here will take my post, find my faults, and politely respin an iteration with their proposed improvements. I'll gain something from their efforts. Even if I disagree with their results, I'll still learn a valuable new perspective that I've probably overlooked or unfairly discounted.
Additionally, stcredzero do you think I'm a "faker" for iterating your idea with a minor addition to address a small oversight? --Or was iterating actually what you were talking about when you said "interpreting" and running with it?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_correlative
EDIT: And no, I won't be offended by your opinion. I actually just like to know.