Yeah, I get it. The thing is, I think there's also a difference between understanding on a theoretical level and understanding on an empathic level. Like, when I say I don't understand X thing that fans do, usually I understand the... psychological mechanics involved, its just that because I am me, I will never understand why they think thats a good thing and go with it instead of trying to stamp it out like the biasing vermin it is. (To me.)
But yeah, in terms of understand both sides, in a fandom context, obviously knowing a bit of each would be beneficial. I think... rationals often understand the mechanics of emotive thinking, they just also think emotive thinking sucks. On the other hand emotive thinkers often really literally don't believe that rational thinkers are actually differently thinking. And that can get kinda annoying and yeah I know you didn't say that. ;P
Anyway, I actually do find people's emotional responses fascinating - that's why I'm into social sciences. ;) It's just that I guess I view those responses from a kind of disconnected place where I like to pick them apart and see what they're reacting to and why? And I can usually say, "Well I see where this is coming from,' but it doesn't stop me from thinking it's silly, I guess, which is where all the I DONT GET IT stuff comes from.
Honestly, though? I think being of a fan mindset (and I include myself in this) warps the perception of the source material. fans by their nature tend to get very invested in specific things that poke them in the button spots, and in their head they come to overemphasize the importance of those things, which I think is why fans so often read things differently than the creators intended (and I mean, this isn't going into authorial intent really? I just mean that, in my experience, casual fans tend to see things very close to the intent of a fairly competent creator whereas FAN!fans often don't?) and also why so many fans find endings unsatisfying (unfulfilled expectations regarding whatever they were focused on) whereas casual fans are often easier to please.
This is really wandering far afield at this point but its 4am so um, that's how it goes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-16 08:16 am (UTC)But yeah, in terms of understand both sides, in a fandom context, obviously knowing a bit of each would be beneficial. I think... rationals often understand the mechanics of emotive thinking, they just also think emotive thinking sucks. On the other hand emotive thinkers often really literally don't believe that rational thinkers are actually differently thinking. And that can get kinda annoying and yeah I know you didn't say that. ;P
Anyway, I actually do find people's emotional responses fascinating - that's why I'm into social sciences. ;) It's just that I guess I view those responses from a kind of disconnected place where I like to pick them apart and see what they're reacting to and why? And I can usually say, "Well I see where this is coming from,' but it doesn't stop me from thinking it's silly, I guess, which is where all the I DONT GET IT stuff comes from.
Honestly, though? I think being of a fan mindset (and I include myself in this) warps the perception of the source material. fans by their nature tend to get very invested in specific things that poke them in the button spots, and in their head they come to overemphasize the importance of those things, which I think is why fans so often read things differently than the creators intended (and I mean, this isn't going into authorial intent really? I just mean that, in my experience, casual fans tend to see things very close to the intent of a fairly competent creator whereas FAN!fans often don't?) and also why so many fans find endings unsatisfying (unfulfilled expectations regarding whatever they were focused on) whereas casual fans are often easier to please.
This is really wandering far afield at this point but its 4am so um, that's how it goes.