I agree with the sentiment, but this part seems a bit weird:
Let’s say I meet a fellow Doctor Who fan, and this fan’s favorite Doctor is David Tennant. Nothing wrong so far. However, upon further discussing the subject this fan tells me that he or she has never seen any of the pre-2005 episodes or heard any of the radio plays.
In a perfect world someone confronted with this would simply say, “Well, David Tennant is my favorite that I’ve seen.”
Should we really"confront" people for admitting they have favorite things?
"My favorite book is --"
"HAVE YOU READ ALL THE BOOKS?!"
I feel like the "-that I've seen" part of the sentence is useless because it's implied. For example, nobody would say "The Hobbit is my favorite book that I've never read". It makes no sense
I think you may be reading a little too much into that. David Tennant ranks up there with Tom Baker for me as the Doctor, but there have been thirteen actors total to have played the role in one capacity or another, two of whom only got to appear once or twice. People tell me they love Doctor Who and think Eccleston was the best Doctor, or Tennant or Smith or Capaldi and that's fine. But it's also valid to say "have you seen any of the others?" A lot of people don't know that Doctor Who was the longest-running science fiction series in television history before Christopher Eccleston starred in the reboot.
So I don't think the author is claiming that someone can't possibly prefer David Tennant as the Doctor. I think he's pointing out that having a favorite is an opinion, and that opinion may not be fully informed. So when someone expresses an opinion like that it's okay to point out that the world might be a little bigger than they realized.
I think he's pointing out that having a favorite is an opinion, and that opinion may not be fully informed.
At what point does the opinion become fully informed? When they've seen all the Doctors? When they've seen all the episodes? When they've read all the extended universe comic books?
Hypothetical Guy says David Tennent is their favorite -- not "the best", just a personal favorite. The author suggests this person should be confronted. And then, in a perfect would, the person would immediately amend it to, "The best I've seen."
The problem is, this "best I've seen" stuff goes for every opinion:
* X is my favorite horror movie, that I've seen.
* Y is my favorite food, but now that you've reminded me I have yet to eat all the foods, there might be other foods out there I prefer
* Y is my favorite vacation destination, though I fully admit I have yet to traverse every known location on Earth, and, in a future where space travel becomes affordable, my solar system.
Edit: I mean, in a polite conversation, maybe it just goes without saying that no one has ever experienced all their is to experience, and at this point we can't even agree on what being fully informed even means.
The author suggests this person should be confronted.
That's where I think you're reading too much into it. I didn't get that the author advocated confronting people over their opinions. I think he was trying to make the point that opinions are frequently made without all the facts. He's not arguing that someone who touts their favorite Doctor is wrong because they haven't seen all the Doctors. He's saying that making such a claim without knowing all of the choices is inherently self-limiting. It may not be the fault of the fan because they didn't know there were other doctors or because they didn't have the opportunity to view every single episode (plus three movies, soon to be four!). So there's nothing wrong with saying, "I'm glad you like David Tennant. Did you know that Tennant's favorite Doctor was Peter Davison, or that there were nine others before him?"
What the author is ranting about are people who then turn around and say, "I don't care about that! David Tennant was the only Doctor as far as I'm concerned!" In other words, people who treat their opinions as unassailable fact and that you're somehow wrong for either expressing a counter opinion or pointing out that there's more to the topic than they may have realized.
What the author is ranting about are people who then turn around and say, "I don't care about that! David Tennant was the only Doctor as far as I'm concerned!"
Er, is he? Because if that were the case, maybe he should have used that example in the article.
Then it wouldn't come off so much like:
Person 1: David Tennant is my favorite Doctor.
Person 2: Making such a claim without knowing all of the choices is inherently self-limiting!
Meh. Nobody's perfect. I'm still going back to essays I wrote decades ago and realizing I could have phrased something better. In this case I think the rest of the context is pretty clear about the author's point.
I agree with the sentiment, but this part seems a bit weird:
Should we really"confront" people for admitting they have favorite things?
"My favorite book is --"
"HAVE YOU READ ALL THE BOOKS?!"
I feel like the "-that I've seen" part of the sentence is useless because it's implied. For example, nobody would say "The Hobbit is my favorite book that I've never read". It makes no sense
I think you may be reading a little too much into that. David Tennant ranks up there with Tom Baker for me as the Doctor, but there have been thirteen actors total to have played the role in one capacity or another, two of whom only got to appear once or twice. People tell me they love Doctor Who and think Eccleston was the best Doctor, or Tennant or Smith or Capaldi and that's fine. But it's also valid to say "have you seen any of the others?" A lot of people don't know that Doctor Who was the longest-running science fiction series in television history before Christopher Eccleston starred in the reboot.
So I don't think the author is claiming that someone can't possibly prefer David Tennant as the Doctor. I think he's pointing out that having a favorite is an opinion, and that opinion may not be fully informed. So when someone expresses an opinion like that it's okay to point out that the world might be a little bigger than they realized.
At what point does the opinion become fully informed? When they've seen all the Doctors? When they've seen all the episodes? When they've read all the extended universe comic books?
Hypothetical Guy says David Tennent is their favorite -- not "the best", just a personal favorite. The author suggests this person should be confronted. And then, in a perfect would, the person would immediately amend it to, "The best I've seen."
The problem is, this "best I've seen" stuff goes for every opinion:
* X is my favorite horror movie, that I've seen.
* Y is my favorite food, but now that you've reminded me I have yet to eat all the foods, there might be other foods out there I prefer
* Y is my favorite vacation destination, though I fully admit I have yet to traverse every known location on Earth, and, in a future where space travel becomes affordable, my solar system.
Edit: I mean, in a polite conversation, maybe it just goes without saying that no one has ever experienced all their is to experience, and at this point we can't even agree on what being fully informed even means.
That's where I think you're reading too much into it. I didn't get that the author advocated confronting people over their opinions. I think he was trying to make the point that opinions are frequently made without all the facts. He's not arguing that someone who touts their favorite Doctor is wrong because they haven't seen all the Doctors. He's saying that making such a claim without knowing all of the choices is inherently self-limiting. It may not be the fault of the fan because they didn't know there were other doctors or because they didn't have the opportunity to view every single episode (plus three movies, soon to be four!). So there's nothing wrong with saying, "I'm glad you like David Tennant. Did you know that Tennant's favorite Doctor was Peter Davison, or that there were nine others before him?"
What the author is ranting about are people who then turn around and say, "I don't care about that! David Tennant was the only Doctor as far as I'm concerned!" In other words, people who treat their opinions as unassailable fact and that you're somehow wrong for either expressing a counter opinion or pointing out that there's more to the topic than they may have realized.
Er, is he? Because if that were the case, maybe he should have used that example in the article.
Then it wouldn't come off so much like:
Person 1: David Tennant is my favorite Doctor.
Person 2: Making such a claim without knowing all of the choices is inherently self-limiting!
Meh. Nobody's perfect. I'm still going back to essays I wrote decades ago and realizing I could have phrased something better. In this case I think the rest of the context is pretty clear about the author's point.