The "Snowflake Argument"

It is less of an argument and more of a line of reasoning (such as it is).

The original saying (or some variant) is this: "Every person is as unique as a snowflake."

This reasoning is often used to justify claims or positions that have little practical validity when they are rigorously examined. These claims also tend to be based on little or no evidence, little or no experience, and little or no research.

Unfortunately, the popularity of the "snowflake argument" has devolved into the equally pernicious "snowflake rebuttal."

It looks something like this:
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile. ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 17

Unfortunately, Palahniuk's powerful words are often adopted to belittle and discourage reasonable ideas and discourse. This "snowflake rebuttal" presupposes or assumes that someone is irrational, ignorant, stupid, or a combination of all three. It has become a catchall rebuttal for those who prefer to respond not with reason, but with contempt.

I need not explain how this attitude discourages rational discussion.

---

Why is this important?
The prevalence of the snowflake argument/rebuttal reflects an unhealthy and unreasoning community. It is fundamentally "bad" rhetoric because it encourages compliance and discourages disagreement with the prevailing opinion.

Consensus is an important part of the decision-making process, but it should not be the sacred 'truth' by which all other opinions are measured.

---

How does this apply to XI?
The snowflake argument tends to overshadow practical results and encourage conformity to a set standard. It discourages innovation or rational inquiry in all forms. Innovators tend to be belittled before being lauded -- or even reasoned with!

This bothers me more than it should, but the conformist attitude runs rampant in this most common and unproductive of questions: How much CHR do I need?

What's wrong with this approach:
1. It assumes there is a set amount.
2. It assumes that once the 'quota' is met, no further reasoning is necessary.
3. It assumes that it is desirable to achieve this quota at all times and in all situations.
4. It creates an atmosphere in which general hedging overwhelms good, concise, specific discussion.

Summary: Everyone gives their opinion and no one learns much about how much CHR they need -- which is to say very little in some situations, and a moderate amount in others.

---

Ideally Speaking
In an ideal world people would use good judgment, test the advice they're given, and make informed decisions without being afraid to ask questions or to take unusual paths to improve their personal performance.

In reality?

People use the snowflake argument without thinking ... and move on.