Can you split the act from the actor?

This is about judging an act beyond the intertwining relationship of the person and their act.

Can you objectively value what someone does or say purely based on that and without asking about the doer? I don't mean the intentions of the person, but who they are? their socio-economic and demographic attributes? their personal, emotional and life stories?

I had a discussion over a letter written from one acclaimed international figure to another one, that I found to be unintelligent and not well-delivered. I formed an opinion based on the content and tone of the letter, and ignored who was on each side of the letter. People opposing my opinion, focused on the status, experience, fame, and characteristics of each individual, such as their sensitivity levels, their life suffering, etc., and valued and viewed the letter very differently than how I did.

This is very interesting as it can be manifested in many forms. For example, the artist and their work of art have a very intimate relationship but conventional wisdom suggests that works of art should be evaluated based on the work and not who the artist is. On the other hand, in the legal system, the actions of individuals are evaluated based on the harm they purport on others and the society, but in assessing a punishment, the perpetrator is evaluated as well. Anything that can justify why the bad act took place eases the judgment and the sentence.

We can see similar situation in politics, in relationships (both personal and professional), and in business. Is this a cultural issue where some culutres tend to mix the two more than others? If so is one way superior to the other? and should we try to become 'person-blind' when it comes to our judging an act, a thought, a work of art, a policy, a word, and an idea?

"Intelligence is really a kind of taste ...

... a taste in ideas."

Taste and intelligence! two key characteristics that often play as bonds for relationships.

We tend to attract and be attracted to like-minded people, to those with the same curisosity, taste, and 'intelligence' as us, and is that done consciousely or not? maybe a mix of both.

What is 'intelligence' anyway? Susan Sontag thinks it is just "taste for ideas". I usually see it as having curiosity and judgment, not taking any answer as-is. To be able to see the abstract and to inquire and ask about facts, to see them from other angles and to always ask, why? There are numerous studies and school of thoughts on the definition of it, but is 'intelligence' something we can improve on? benchmark and thrive for a higher level of it?

And as we move up the 'intelligence' ladder, do we have to adjust our relationships with others accordingly?

* Quote by Susan Sontag.