In description, Herman pushes a lot for bare bone state-what-you-see-and-no-more phrasing. This works as an absolute baseline for worst case scenarios where all that you and the other party have in common are understandings of what a cup and saucer look like and not what a coffee shop looks like. However, a lot of people know what a coffee shop looks like or could look like, and if they knew what an Automat was they could probably connect the two descriptions. Simplified factual descriptions often communicate less than a slightly subjective description could in the event that two parties share some social psyche.

I think I realize that what has been irking me about this objectivity section: ultimately, there is still some assumption to be made. Herman makes it out to sound as though observing all available information bears the secret to eliminating biases from assessments, which is just not possible thanks to how deeply rooted biases are in our lives. Even in the examples she offers in this reading, there exists a demand for subjectivity, however little, once we have been as objective as can be.

This point, along with many that Herman brings up throughout this reading, really do come off as common sense. We as humans have always known the threat of recklessness, impatience, and a lack of attention towards a scenario. Sloth and Pride, two of the destructive Seven Deadly Sins, cover most of these threats. I guess a reminder is never a bad thing, but some the situations she lists rely on trust to make a fact more than observation.

I get what Merkin is saying with this and why she might end up at this conclusion. At the same time, I think this stance magnifies the situation past reality. Plenty of people take photos of art to have for later reference or to use as a wallpaper (as I do). I don't end up "dissociated" from my experience at the museum; if anything, seeing the photos takes me back to the museum and instills much of the original awe back into me.