SHUSHULAB / THOUGHT KNOWLEDGE

On the futility of assuming romance is a shared premise

The issue here is not whether romance itself is good or bad. It is the breakdown of discussion and evaluation that occurs when a criterion is applied to others as a shared premise even though they do not share it.

An evaluation cannot hold in the first place if its premises are not shared.

DEFINITION

Definition

If one person uses romance or romantic popularity as a criterion and the other does not have that criterion at all, they are not evaluating things within the same framework, even when they use the same words.

Continuing to evaluate others or debate in this situation creates misunderstanding caused by mismatched premises, rather than a difference of opinion.

STRUCTURE

Structure

People sometimes unconsciously treat their own values as shared premises. Romance in particular is often described as a feeling everyone has or as something important in life, yet not everyone necessarily shares it.

Your own criterion

Assume a shared premise

Apply it to the other person

Evaluation and discussion break down

The criterion is present

Treat romance as an important value and basis for judgment.

The criterion is absent

Do not have the same feelings or values in the first place, or do not use them as criteria for judgment.

What is happening here is a mismatch in the criteria themselves, rather than a difference of opinion.

FAILURE POINT

Where it breaks down

Discussion assumes that at least the criteria used for comparison are shared. When they are not, applying one person's conclusion to the other has no meaning.

This is not a conflict. The premises do not match.

COMMON MISREADING

A common misreading

With this kind of mismatch, the conversation may shift to another category of feeling: “If you have love for family or friends, you should be able to understand romantic love too.”

Substituting a different category of feeling, however, does not resolve the original mismatch in premises. Having similar elements does not necessarily make them the same concept.

Offering a different category of feeling as a substitute does not establish a shared premise.

REPEATED COST

What happens in practice

When explanations are repeated without shared premises, the conversation returns to the same point. More explanation does not necessarily build understanding, because the criteria still do not match.

Explanation

Explain the difference.

Reinterpretation

The explanation is brought back into the other person's existing framework.

Another explanation

Explain the same difference in premises again.

What accumulates

It may be the cost of explaining and fatigue, rather than understanding.

DECISION RULES

Decision rules

If premises are not shared, consider the discussion unable to hold at that point
Treat criteria as valid only within the scope where they are shared
Do not treat evaluations based on unshared criteria as useful reference information
Treat different categories of feeling as not interchangeable
If you end up repeating the same explanation, stop at some point

OPERATION

Putting it into practice

You do not need to explain everything exhaustively. Once you determine that the premises do not match, choosing not to pursue the matter further is also valid.

Making it a goal in itself to gain understanding can leave you dealing endlessly with criteria you do not share. Depending on the situation, ending the conversation may be more reasonable.

Rather than trying to gain understanding, avoid adding unnecessary explanation costs.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

The core issue is not romance. It is applying unshared criteria to others as though they were a common premise.

An evaluation with mismatched premises does not hold. After recognizing that, you need to choose how far to engage and where to stop explaining.