Emotional installation of concepts

I think it's an identity thing. For basically political reasons, we're predisposed to believe that groups with which we identify can, at least to a first approximation, do no wrong -- and if that group organizes itself along aesthetic lines, as with science fiction fandom, then that means any respectable media it includes under its auspices must be seen as aesthetically enjoyable (plus whatever other criteria your group uses). When you run into some piece of media that you don't like but which otherwise mostly meets the criteria, the easiest way to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance is by confabulating some reason to disqualify it. Get a thousand people together with different standards of taste but a shared literary identity, and that gives you a recipe for some pretty vicious definitional disputes.

(It'd make sense to me if people formed those standards of taste from a few early emotional highs, but I don't think that fully explains their ardor for a definition. I propose you get that from taste plus identification with taste.)

This generalizes pretty well to non-fandom identity groups, too -- any group that aligns itself around (hat-tip David_Gerard) a fuzzy cluster in thingspace that's complicated enough for different definitions to identify most of the same cluster, and dear enough to its members to form a substantial part of their concept of self.

The LW concept of "fuzzy clusters in thingspace" has been most useful to me in thinking about these things.

Off-topic: how did you feel about Ballard and Moorcock? (The latter's SF-leaning stuff, not the fantasy-leaning stuff.) And the New Worlds bunch in general.

(I've been getting back into Ballard since rejoining the JGB list, a remarkably high-quality list. Full of Ballard's editors, translators and people who write books on him ...)

Reading the post title caused in me a knee-jerk association with the BSP episodes: Review of "The First Idea" by Shanker & Greenspan (based on The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, And Intelligence Evolved From Our Primate Ancestors To Modern Humans) and Bonobos with Dr. Stuart Shanker.

I used to read discussions of the definition of science fiction until I came to the conclusion that there was no point.

Is it just that the ramifications of one definition vs. another have little impact that makes you believe there is no point? I mean, definitions of sf are not a pressing concern for humanity, but if sf aficionados enjoy a healthy debate about the finer points of that particular genre, I don't deem it pointless. There are similar debates about whether or not Robinson Crusoe was truly the first example of what is known as a novel today.

I don't know the origin in a given person for the impetus to care about something like the definition of sf. It could be emotional experiences at a young age, or at an old age. Whatever it is has to give them a feeling of being invested in the topic.

I'm more interested in the generalization of this to other concepts. Imagine if someone said, "I used to read discussions (of the origin of life) until I came to the conclusion that there was no point," or "I used to read discussions (of concept-X-which-may-or-may-not-have-far-reaching-social-or-technological-consequences) until I came to the conclusion that there was no point."

I don't mean this as any sort of criticism at all. I probably would have the same reaction you do towards definitions of sf. I guess what I am asking is maybe we should be thinking about the dual of the question in your post. When can Concept-X be readily dismissed as inconsequential in its nuances, and what then to make of people who don't brush off Concept-X?