Swedish human rights activist Anna Ardin is glad Julian Assange is free.
But the claims she has made about him suggest she would have every reason not to wish him well.
Ardin is fiercely proud of Assange’s work for WikiLeaks, and insists that it should never have landed him behind bars.
“We have the right to know about the wars that are fought in our name,” she says.
Speaking to Ardin over Zoom in Stockholm, it quickly becomes clear that she has no problem keeping what she sees as the two Assanges apart in her head - the visionary activist and the man who she says does not treat women well.
She is at pains to describe him neither as a hero nor a monster, but a complicated man.
This, to me, is less important than the fact that this woman is publicly talking about how someone can do a bad thing but still be a public good, something not talked about enough in a world where when someone does something bad, it makes people ignore everything else they’re doing.
“Oh, Andy Capp. You wife-beating drunk.”
– Homer Simpson
“Oh, Bobby Hull. You wife-beating drunk.”
– my take
That’s fair. That isn’t where my own head is currently but I do appreciate nuance for once. People can be complicated, and I’m certain she knows the real Assange better than most.
I have struggled with this a lot in recent years. For example, I grew up with Ender’s Game as my favorite book. Orson Scott Card is a racist/misogynistic/etc POS, and it has tainted my view of his books. People are experiencing this with J. K. Rowling right now.
I like to think I can keep the artist separate from their art, but it’s hard.
I had the same experience with Scott Card. I loved the Ender books, the books about his older brother trying to be a good person when he was a “bad child” really resonated with me.
I was so disappointed when I looked him up and saw how hateful he really was.
I had the same experience with Arthur C. Clarke.
He moved to Sri Lanka to dodge all the accusations of pedophilia. It was all hushed up. As was the custom at the time.
I dealt with that as a kid with Roald Dahl because he was super antisemitic, but he also wrote amazing children’s books. I guess for me it depends on how much they put such ugliness into their work. Lovecraft, creative as he was, had no problem being racist in his writings and I just can’t read them even though I love the mythos. Dahl didn’t do that.
Card and Rowling are somewhat different cases because they didn’t start by writing terrible things, but they got to the point that their ugly beliefs began to seep into their books.
Dahl is another great example. I loved his book as a kid, and still read them to my kid now.
Me too, but I couldn’t get through Great Glass Elevator. I try my best to voice all the characters, and I couldn’t get through the president’s phone calls with China, even toned down.
The Rowling shift is a gut punch in particular for me because I also long admired her specifically. A single impoverished mother writing her drafts on napkins while taking the train to work. Her work for Amnesty International. Her fierce rejection of right-wing extremism and fascism…I remember saving her Harvard commence address as being the most powerful one I’ve ever heard. The road to hell is paved with good intentions? I don’t know. Frustrating because INFJ-to-INFJ I relate to her personality type.
Meanwhile her books were incredibly impactful of my upbringing and my relationship with my mother as well.
Controversial though this may be I don’t view her as some evil anti-Semitic trans-lynching nazi in lieu of her views. Misguided, sure, but in the aggregation of all she is I’m still struggling with the mixed bag of her character. Maybe that’s my own cognitive dissonance; maybe it’s hers.
Edit: Side-note, Ender’s Game and Ender’s Shadow were incredible books. I’m only heartbroken that the opportunity was missed to have Anton Yelchin cast as Ender in a better film adaptation we shall never see.
Exactly the same way I felt reading your comment when you inserted astrology for nerds into it!
How could you ruin your previous work so profoundly?
In what realm does a personality test compare to predicting the future with horoscopes and star patterns, lol?
I’d be happy to discuss because you don’t seem particularly informed on this subject. Perhaps be a bit more humble? I find it kind of amusing how worked up this can get people. Did I ever tell YOU to subscribe to it? lol.
Now sure nobody should view such things as utterly conclusive or written in stone, but it was honestly incredibly eye-opening for me in terms of introspection. More helpful than therapy in my case. To each their own.
It’s pseudoscience in both cases, saying you’re so and so because your personality is INFJ has almost as little value as correlating to being a gemini. Now if you find some sense in those personality types, maybe that contains some lessons.
Well naturally, I think that’s the entire point of such tests, is it not? Entertain me for a minute, please:
First of all, you would agree that you can aggregate clusters of people based on how each answer a variety of probing questions, right?
Naturally, one must say, “yes, of course.”
To which the next question is, “So once you’ve arranged clusters of similar responses under banners, how can you interpret those results?”
Well once you actually pool a group of people into these boxes and see where these subsets are, you can then analyze these population subsets further, right? To which most would say, “of course. Scientists do this all the time.”
… And if those subsets are analyzed and their commonalities generalized, what would be the problem with that?
… To which any reasonable person would say, “Nothing, really, except for how that may impact edge-cases,” which is fair.
Now those clusters coalesce and find community with each other and reflect, “Hey wow, yeah I can totally relate to that, too!” It’s kind of remarkable to see.
The only substantive arguments that I’ve seen made – and the only “debunking” aspects to this test revolve around veracity and validity – which is understandably concerning. But let’s unpack that: Do the results bear repeatability, and do what the results say reflect the reality of who that person is?
Edit: I should say there is legitimate concern that the overlap can lead to crossover into other categories quite easily.
This is of course difficult because a lot of people get some things wrong about said tests: These tests are not immutable. People are fluid; they can change. Moreover if you take the test when not at your emotional and cognitive baseline with average sleep, average temperament, and no major life events influencing this, then of course that will change from when these are not accounted for. Similarly, some people struggle to take the test honestly: They respond with whom they want to be as opposed to who they are. In this case, sometimes it’s good to take the test side-by-side with a loved-one who knows you intimately and can see you from the outside-looking-in. Some answer candidly but get results they don’t like. Reality contradicts who they want to be. So they get upset.
All of these are of course suggestive that it’s not a one-size-fits-all test and should be taken with a grain of salt but the vast majority of criticism resides under user error and a misunderstanding of the test’s objectives.
At this point I can only speak for myself, but it’s a harmless test that impacts nobody else and it was deeply, emotionally revealing for me. I’ve truly never felt more understood in my whole life and my wife looked at it confirmed every piece of it while her own test reflected her to a T.
Now I’m a non-religious trained Engineer who pushes away superstition and things like astrology, balks at homeopathy and pseudoscience and broscience alike but I’m telling you, there’s something worthwhile here, even if science hasn’t sufficiently shined a light onto what.
Now if I missed anything, please, by all means.
I’m not going to replay an ontological debate that has been happening in the fields of sociology and psychology for decades with an engineer on the internet, who claims his own rationality a bit too hard. MBTI is considered pseudoscience because of its weakness against proper scientific validation processes, as well as its lack of support among both practitioners, theorists and researchers in the academic circles.
But to be clear, just because knowledge isn’t scientific doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, there are tons of example like that that we use every day. The main issue I have with MBTI is that it takes the appearance of scientific knowledge, which I find deceitful and thus suspicious.
I’m aware i’m cherry picking here.
They do, with strict guidelines about how they can strictly control the context to eliminate bias and gaming (as much as they can anyway).
I could very well be reading this incorrectly but are you saying that veracity and validity are known concerns and then follow that up with “Can we verify? Are the results useful?”
I wouldn’t consider restating the questions that represent the known concerns as unpacking said concerns.
Genuine question, what would you consider to be the test’s objectives ?
Thanks for the fair comment. Would you mind elaborating on “control the context to eliminate bias and gaming” under this situation?
To your second point, yeah I could’ve made that more clear. At that point in my comment I was still unpacking what veracity and validity could mean in the context of a personality test. For example, it’s hard to discuss repeatability in the context of personality that can change under life circumstances. If you take the most reputable personality tests out there (and they’re all with a grain of salt), they will of course be impacted if you take it, for example, the day after your mother dies. Or you are exhausted from an 18 hour shift. Or you just had a newborn child, etc. These are more extreme examples just to convey the idea. Naturally one can say, “well of course if you choose the same answers and your personality is consistent, then yes the test itself will be repeatable.”
For the same reason people will say, “But (scientific) polls of elections aren’t accurate!” it’s because they view them as predictive and immutable when they, like personality tests, are explicit snapshots in time.
The more substantive question to me is: do the questions asked by this test sufficiently cover most aspects of one’s personality? That’s hard to say. Obviously the more questions asked, the more granular the results can become, so I’ll grant that.
This relates to your final point: What would I consider to be the test’s objectives? For me, it’s an exercise in gleaning insight into one’s own personality; to help with reflection and introspection. To identify your strengths and weaknesses. In some sense, to provide some identity. I can’t tell you how I felt understood. I actually teared up while reading the analysis for the first time. As something of an outsider for much of my life it was like it filled in the missing pieces I long suspected and yet always doubted. Like I said I can’t speak for what others got out of the test, but it was the best therapy I ever received. (And for context, I read every other generalized group to make sure it wasn’t generalized astrological bullshit where every description could match every person, for which nothing came close).
For those who wish to try to get something out of these tests, I advise:
Take the test multiple times over weeks, months, years; see if you find a pattern or what comes up at your most neutral, baseline, normal, average state of mind on an average day in your life.
Ask yourself if it feels like this test is you, but also:
Ask close friends, loved-ones if they believe this is you (better yet, give them a control, then give them the actual results for you). Alternatively do it alongside your partner so you get external feedback.
I was with you until you called her misguided. She is way beyond misguided at this point. She’s gotten so hateful that even Elon Musk told her to tone down the anti-trans bigotry.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/elon-musk-jk-rowling-trans-obsession-rcna151323
Sure, substitute whichever word you’d like in place of misguided. I’m not sure if that changes the rest of my points. Especially within the context of this entire thread discussing nuance and not painting people in black-and-white.
I wouldn’t substitute any word in that case because there is absolutely no excusing her at this point. Her actions are indefensible. Love her books, fine, but she is a horrible, horrible person and her bigotry does not deserve to be excused by calling it misguided or anything else but bigotry. If she said about black people what she says about trans people, that wouldn’t even be a consideration in terms of talking about her.
Well now I’m a little confused. Did I find a point of cognitive dissonance in you? In one breath you defend Assange under fire for sexual assault and to consider nuance, but this is too far?
And since when do we care what Elon Musk has to say? He called someone a pedophile, too, remember? Should we jump on the bandwagon with that just the same?
I am literally talking about separating someone from her work. I don’t know how I could have been clearer on that point. But that doesn’t mean what she says is in any way excusable or defensible. Bigotry is bigotry.
Okay I see what you’re saying, I think. I went back to re-read your comment:
So your general perception of Assange is that he is an irredeemable rapist asshole who’s done good work and you respect his accuser for distinguishing those in the same respect you view the character of Rowling as irredeemable and a hateful bigot who’s done good work. Do I have that correct?
The worst part with Rowling is she just keeps doubling down, and directly uses her money and influence to make other peoples lives worse.
I was a big fan of the Belgariad growing up… that one is fucking rough.
Uuh what? What did Eddings do? (Genuine, I don’t know)
Honestly, it’s pretty fucking rough so I don’t want to post it here - if you Google “Eddings abuse” you’ll get the results.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eddings
TL;DR: child abuse of their adopted children in the 1970’s.
You can’t, but in some cases the art stands for itself without the artist. Basically, you can separate the Art from an Artist, but not the Artist from the Art. (if that makes any sense…)