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.
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.