> pretty much entirely just generalizations of their own experience, but phrased as if they're objective truth
I mean you're describing 90% of blog and forum posts on the Internet here.
This (IMO - so it's not ironic) is the biggest leap most people need to make to become more self-aware and to better parse the world around them: recognizing there is rarely an objective truth in most matters, and the idea that "my truth is not your truth, both can be different yet equally valid" (again in most cases, not all cases).
I think my issue is that the blog post comes across to me as in essence an argument that the person communicating shouldn't be dissuaded by potential reactions to what they say, but it fails to account for the difference between good-faith and bad-faith reactions. There's a huge difference between a bad-faith misinterpretation and a good-faith misunderstanding in my opinion, as the latter seems to come just as often from a failure on the part of the communicator to be clear as from any fault on the listener. It's hard for me not to get the impression that the author either can't or doesn't seen the value in differentiating between those cases based on the fact there's such significant room for improvement in clarifying their views in their paragraph about remote work, which is why I called it out.
I mean you're describing 90% of blog and forum posts on the Internet here.
This (IMO - so it's not ironic) is the biggest leap most people need to make to become more self-aware and to better parse the world around them: recognizing there is rarely an objective truth in most matters, and the idea that "my truth is not your truth, both can be different yet equally valid" (again in most cases, not all cases).