I am like this guy with most things. I like good tools. Though one thing that the author does not mention is that expensive is not necessarily better.
As a student I used a cross pencil because they provided the most comfortable pencil(The cushion tip is a mandatory feature in my mechanical pencils). Now I switched to a cheaper draft/matic mechanical pencil that provides a superior writing experience at a more reasonable price point.
Liking good tools isn't the same thing as being an upyourself arse.
Being the most discerning doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you less happy more of the time. The recent X-Men: Origins film is a good point - look around the net at some reviews, there's an awful lot of criticism going on.
I enjoyed it, discerning people didn't. We're both out two hours and the cost of a ticket. Which is a better situation to be in?
I would agree, even though I consider myself one of those people (for certain things). My problem isn't with the discerning characteristic, it's the attitude of superiority that often comes with it.
Of course I probably give off that attitude sometimes...
The person who is discerning has a more active and challenging experience. Plus, a person with critical ability (one step further) can discuss the experience with another such person. For instance, I can't really talk about a cup of coffee I just drank, but I can talk about a movie I just saw. That adds an extra dimension to seeing a movie with someone: talking about it afterwards.
Of course a lot of the motivation for being discerning, especially in regard to food and drink, is class aspiration. Money isn't enough. Urban and suburban Americans engage in a lot of competition to see who can live the most enlightened and refined lifestyle. It isn't the most productive way that energy could be channeled, but considering it's an expression of some of our basest, most ruthlessly hierarchical human tendencies, we could do a hell of a lot worse.
The person who is discerning has a more active and challenging experience
Eh? Surely it's more challenging to enjoy a mediocre film than a really enjoyable one? To create a good picture from a point and shoot camera than a $4k DSLR? To be happy with a $800 used car is more challenging than being happy with a $60k luxury car. Isn't it?
Discernment is about perception, about recognizing a difference between things. It's only harder to enjoy an inferior product if you can discern the difference.
Discernment can offer some advantages, though. A movie can be bad in interesting ways, or simply interesting in spite of being bad. Plus, the more qualities you can appreciate about something, the more likely you are to find something redeeming about it.
Calvin was talking about his expectations of himself, not of the products he consumes, a completely different thing morally, though not psychologically, which is quite unfortunate.
Because you can be happier with better things. For example, if you never tasted adult foods you'd still be "happy" eating baby food, and be completely unaware that you're missing out on greater happiness available from other foods.
Upthread the point's made that this means you'll be dissatisfied a lot of the time, and that's true. But when you are happy, you'll be happier.
In the context of the article, you might have to drink crappy coffee from time to time, but when you get great coffee you'll have a better drink experience than somebody with no palate will.
I have a little bit of taste in coffee (not much) and despite not especially liking Starbucks coffee, I drink a lot of it. When I'm late to work or needing to wake up to get a bunch of stuff done on my lunch hour, I don't really care what it tastes like. Starbucks is reliably strong, convenient, and ubiquitous. When I'm enjoying a nice leisurely morning, I much prefer the stuff I brew at home, but how often does that happen? Rarely more than two mornings a week. Likewise, when I want to sit for a while, I strongly prefer the coffeehouse down the street, but sitting quietly and enjoying myself happens far less than deciding to sleep in and rush to work.
On another note, I don't understand the connection between Apple and Starbucks. It seems impossible for someone to think of one without thinking the other. Why? Starbucks has no snob appeal and no fan base who sincerely believes it has the best product. McDonald's and Starbucks long ago identified each other as their primary natural competitors. The only thing I can think of is the sterile styling and image of superficiality, which is to say, the connection is made by people who are fans of neither.
of course, there's a difference between being discerning and simply being a victim of marketing aimed at people who like to imagine themselves as discerning.
I think this fellow is the later, as evidenced by his cited taste in products.
If you are carrying around five pounds of camera gear to take vacation photos, UR DOING IT WRONG.
Today's point 'n' shoots are cigarette-pack-sized and take fantastic photos. Unless you have e.g., specific lighting or fstop or depth-of-field needs (i.e. you're an actual pro), you aren't going to need the advantages of pro camera equipment, and you are making life more difficult by giving yourself more shit to carry and more knobs to puzzle over when you take a photo.
I disagree with your statement. Even if all you do is use the camera in auto mode the ability of the better lens to let in more light will produce the better picture all other things being equal. If you also have a camera that has a larger light sensitive "film" area you will also get a better picture with the same inputs. Size is a factor in the enjoyment spectrum but the point-and-shoots do not have the clarity and depth that a decent digital SLR has and that is also a factor in how much you enjoy using your camera.
Not related to the overall point, but I love this quote:
"Apple products are great because Steve Jobs and much of Apple’s upper staff has exceptionally good taste."
Come on now: dude knows his computer cases and his shiny gadgets, but that doesn't mean he has universal "good taste". Have you seen his wardrobe? Well... unless the author of the article wears jeans with no belt and a tucked-in turtelneck...every day...in which case, he's entitled to his opinion, I suppose. But I'm guessing not.
I don't personally give a crap what Jobs wears, but let's not label him the king of good taste because his company produces purty hardware.
There is a scale that goes much like this: common - undiscerning - discerning - snob
You are somewhere on this scale. Those below you aren't as sophisticated as you, and so you're better than them. Those above you are snobs who are valuing form over function, style over substance, and so you're better than them too. How lucky for you: You've ended up at exactly the right place on the scale, everyone else is wrong, and consequently, you have no need to feel insecure.
--
Worthy of a quick snigger was the mention of audiophiles from a guy who seem to discern exactly what he's told to discern by advertising.
17 comments
[ 36.2 ms ] story [ 896 ms ] threadAs a student I used a cross pencil because they provided the most comfortable pencil(The cushion tip is a mandatory feature in my mechanical pencils). Now I switched to a cheaper draft/matic mechanical pencil that provides a superior writing experience at a more reasonable price point.
Being the most discerning doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you less happy more of the time. The recent X-Men: Origins film is a good point - look around the net at some reviews, there's an awful lot of criticism going on.
I enjoyed it, discerning people didn't. We're both out two hours and the cost of a ticket. Which is a better situation to be in?
Of course I probably give off that attitude sometimes...
Of course a lot of the motivation for being discerning, especially in regard to food and drink, is class aspiration. Money isn't enough. Urban and suburban Americans engage in a lot of competition to see who can live the most enlightened and refined lifestyle. It isn't the most productive way that energy could be channeled, but considering it's an expression of some of our basest, most ruthlessly hierarchical human tendencies, we could do a hell of a lot worse.
Eh? Surely it's more challenging to enjoy a mediocre film than a really enjoyable one? To create a good picture from a point and shoot camera than a $4k DSLR? To be happy with a $800 used car is more challenging than being happy with a $60k luxury car. Isn't it?
Discernment can offer some advantages, though. A movie can be bad in interesting ways, or simply interesting in spite of being bad. Plus, the more qualities you can appreciate about something, the more likely you are to find something redeeming about it.
I used to think it was funny, now I wonder if that's the secret behind Buddhism.
Upthread the point's made that this means you'll be dissatisfied a lot of the time, and that's true. But when you are happy, you'll be happier.
In the context of the article, you might have to drink crappy coffee from time to time, but when you get great coffee you'll have a better drink experience than somebody with no palate will.
On another note, I don't understand the connection between Apple and Starbucks. It seems impossible for someone to think of one without thinking the other. Why? Starbucks has no snob appeal and no fan base who sincerely believes it has the best product. McDonald's and Starbucks long ago identified each other as their primary natural competitors. The only thing I can think of is the sterile styling and image of superficiality, which is to say, the connection is made by people who are fans of neither.
I think this fellow is the later, as evidenced by his cited taste in products.
Today's point 'n' shoots are cigarette-pack-sized and take fantastic photos. Unless you have e.g., specific lighting or fstop or depth-of-field needs (i.e. you're an actual pro), you aren't going to need the advantages of pro camera equipment, and you are making life more difficult by giving yourself more shit to carry and more knobs to puzzle over when you take a photo.
"Apple products are great because Steve Jobs and much of Apple’s upper staff has exceptionally good taste."
Come on now: dude knows his computer cases and his shiny gadgets, but that doesn't mean he has universal "good taste". Have you seen his wardrobe? Well... unless the author of the article wears jeans with no belt and a tucked-in turtelneck...every day...in which case, he's entitled to his opinion, I suppose. But I'm guessing not.
I don't personally give a crap what Jobs wears, but let's not label him the king of good taste because his company produces purty hardware.
There is a scale that goes much like this: common - undiscerning - discerning - snob
You are somewhere on this scale. Those below you aren't as sophisticated as you, and so you're better than them. Those above you are snobs who are valuing form over function, style over substance, and so you're better than them too. How lucky for you: You've ended up at exactly the right place on the scale, everyone else is wrong, and consequently, you have no need to feel insecure.
--
Worthy of a quick snigger was the mention of audiophiles from a guy who seem to discern exactly what he's told to discern by advertising.