8 ms·

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way t

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way that Paul does. What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. For example, let's say that someone points out a flaw in a plan. Person A responds by saying "That's not a real problem. It doesn't matter." Person B says "Ok, that's interesting. Let's dig into it." Person A (the obstinate person who doesn't listen) usually comes across as more confident in this encounter, even though Person B (the persistent person who is engaging) may actually end up learning something new and getting a better result. This is especially true in public forums. If you go up on a stage and do a debate, the obstinate person comes across as more confident to more people. This doesn't mean that their plan is any good. But people will vote for them, give them money, etc. For the record, I agree with Paul's assessment that persistence is a great quality and obstinacy is not. However, it's hard to actually get this across to the public.

arp242 2y ago
There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure I would have done better in the moment. On reflection? Sure. But in front of the king, presented with a completely unfamiliar argument stated with great confidence and demanding a reply? Yeah, maybe not. Even on topics where I have reasonable in-depth knowledge I sometimes really doubt myself when someone says something very wrong with great confidence, and sometimes I really double and triple-check things to make sure I'm not making a right fool of myself. Few years back I ordered a sandwich at a deli. Still looking at the menu, the lady asked what I wanted. "Ehhh, well, ehmm, I don't eat meat, so, ehhh, something without that". "Oh, I have chicken!" And she said this so quickly and with such confidence that for a few seconds I was genuinely doubting whether "chicken" was meat or not and wasn't really sure what to answer. I guess she had a bit of "a moment" and we had a laugh about it afterwards, but I thought that was a pretty interesting and harmless example of how you can really start doubting yourself. NFTs are another example. When I first heard of it, I thought I had not understood it correctly because "surely it can't be this dumb". And for months when all the NFT hype was raging I thought it must be some very complex crypto bonanza I wasn't really understanding. All the obscure jargon and lingo the NFT people confidently use aided that notion. I'm not really interested in crypto in general, but finally gave in and did some more in-depth reading on it. I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. [1]: I read about this years and years ago, I can't find anything about it right now and this anecdote may be false, but it seemed trust-worthy enough at the time to remember.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. My brother is an artist and absolutely refused to believe that the hype around NFTs was just bullshit. I'm sure if I called and asked right now, he'd still give me some word salad about how it's going to start paying off any day now. Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them. When someone talks to you about a topic you don't want to engage in you send them a link to a 2.5 hour long video? I mean, can't the point be made in 3m?
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      Making the point over and over and over for two and a half hours gives you time to run away and hide.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Well, it gets them out of your hair for 2.5 hours... Unless they don't bother to watch it. Then it gets them out of your hair permanently, because they know they're supposed to watch it before hassling you about it again.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >I mean, can't the point be made in 3m? Honestly, it can be made as fast you can say 'NFTs are bullshit' but some people don't want to hear it from a friend or family member.
  - scubbo 2y ago
    I have a friend who's still convinced that GameStop's going to the moon. Any day now...
stcredzero 2y ago
What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. The problem with that method of evaluation, is that it's not First Principles. Basically, pg's essay in this case just reduces down to, "Is that person steered by First Principles thinking?"
- yellowapple 2y ago
  Most people ain't steered by first-principles thinking, though, and that's the problem. To most people, first-principles-driven thinking lacks sufficient actionability; they just want definite answers, and first-principles-driven thinking tends to produce answers that are anything but definite.
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    First principles are great in principle, but what really makes for greater thinking is focusing on the reality and details of a problem, then picking applicable first principles. Often when I hear principled stances they’re entirely devoid of links between the real world and the utopia in the person’s head.
cassepipe 2y ago
Could we say that biologically/culturally receptive to performed dominance and being dominant has nothing to do with rationally understand the world. I think this is the whole point of the jock/geek binary opposition in culture even though, as all oppositionnal pairs in culture, they are often porquenolosdossed : Some people can perform dominance and do master rationality quite well and some can do neither. Maybe we don't notice it either because they don't fit the cultural mental map or because they are not part of our social milieus (too high or too low status) ? https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA?feature=shared&t=276 https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA?feature=shared&t=276
- wkcheng 2y ago
  Yeah, "performed dominance" as you call it definitely is orthogonal to rationally understanding the world. The problem is exacerbated by content and replies trending shorter over time. It's hard to have a nuanced and thoughtful take in 10 seconds. It's much easier to have a simple, easy to understand, "dominant" take in the same amount of time. I wonder if there's a social solution to this, somehow.
senthil_rajasek 2y ago
There are certain areas where the popular opinion is irrelevant. Warren Buffet said this in a more folksy way, “It’s very important to live your life by an internal yardstick,” he told us, noting that one way to gauge whether or not you do so is to ask the following question: “Would you rather be considered the best lover in the world and know privately that you’re the worst — or would you prefer to know privately that you’re the best lover in the world, but be considered the worst?” source: https://time.com/archive/6904425/my-650100-lunch-with-warren-buffett/ https://time.com/archive/6904425/my-650100-lunch-with-warren...
- autoexec 2y ago
  > “Would you rather be considered the best lover in the world and know privately that you’re the worst — or would you prefer to know privately that you’re the best lover in the world, but be considered the worst?” Both of those options sound terrible. It's a curse either way. I'd rather be known as publicly as "better than average" and privately know that I'm doing pretty well/my best. If forced to pick between the two though, being publicly known as 'the best lover in the world' would seem most likely to present more opportunities to improve my skill/confidence. It's still a lot of pressure nobody needs.
  - Sammi 2y ago
    The options aren't meant to be realistic. They're only meant to tease out which side you personally have a preference for, by making you think about how these two extreme options make you feel. One probably feels worse than the other.
- Yodel0914 2y ago
  I mean, considered by whom? I'd like my partner's assessment of my ability as a lover to be more positive than my self-assessment. The reverse just sounds sociopathic.
burningChrome 2y ago
Just in case someone is wondering: Obstinate - Stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion.
mihaic 2y ago
This has been pretty much my experience as well, and honestly I think it's because most of the audience in any public forum hasn't ever needed to push through a complex project. I was talking to a friend about this, and I've come to see this as the opposite of real-recognize-real, something like bullshit-interfaces-with-bullshit. That is, often people that haven't executed complex projects have a skewed view of the factors of success, something that they try to imitate and at the same time is more easily misled by people emulating the same signals.

arp242 2y ago

There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure I would have done better in the moment. On reflection? Sure. But in front of the king, presented with a completely unfamiliar argument stated with great confidence and demanding a reply? Yeah, maybe not. Even on topics where I have reasonable in-depth knowledge I sometimes really doubt myself when someone says something very wrong with great confidence, and sometimes I really double and triple-check things to make sure I'm not making a right fool of myself. Few years back I ordered a sandwich at a deli. Still looking at the menu, the lady asked what I wanted. "Ehhh, well, ehmm, I don't eat meat, so, ehhh, something without that". "Oh, I have chicken!" And she said this so quickly and with such confidence that for a few seconds I was genuinely doubting whether "chicken" was meat or not and wasn't really sure what to answer. I guess she had a bit of "a moment" and we had a laugh about it afterwards, but I thought that was a pretty interesting and harmless example of how you can really start doubting yourself. NFTs are another example. When I first heard of it, I thought I had not understood it correctly because "surely it can't be this dumb". And for months when all the NFT hype was raging I thought it must be some very complex crypto bonanza I wasn't really understanding. All the obscure jargon and lingo the NFT people confidently use aided that notion. I'm not really interested in crypto in general, but finally gave in and did some more in-depth reading on it. I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. [1]: I read about this years and years ago, I can't find anything about it right now and this anecdote may be false, but it seemed trust-worthy enough at the time to remember.

Suppafly 2y ago
>I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. My brother is an artist and absolutely refused to believe that the hype around NFTs was just bullshit. I'm sure if I called and asked right now, he'd still give me some word salad about how it's going to start paying off any day now. Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them. When someone talks to you about a topic you don't want to engage in you send them a link to a 2.5 hour long video? I mean, can't the point be made in 3m?
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    Making the point over and over and over for two and a half hours gives you time to run away and hide.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Well, it gets them out of your hair for 2.5 hours... Unless they don't bother to watch it. Then it gets them out of your hair permanently, because they know they're supposed to watch it before hassling you about it again.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >I mean, can't the point be made in 3m? Honestly, it can be made as fast you can say 'NFTs are bullshit' but some people don't want to hear it from a friend or family member.
- scubbo 2y ago
  I have a friend who's still convinced that GameStop's going to the moon. Any day now...

stcredzero 2y ago

What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. The problem with that method of evaluation, is that it's not First Principles. Basically, pg's essay in this case just reduces down to, "Is that person steered by First Principles thinking?"

yellowapple 2y ago
Most people ain't steered by first-principles thinking, though, and that's the problem. To most people, first-principles-driven thinking lacks sufficient actionability; they just want definite answers, and first-principles-driven thinking tends to produce answers that are anything but definite.
- throwaway173738 2y ago
  First principles are great in principle, but what really makes for greater thinking is focusing on the reality and details of a problem, then picking applicable first principles. Often when I hear principled stances they’re entirely devoid of links between the real world and the utopia in the person’s head.

cassepipe 2y ago

Could we say that biologically/culturally receptive to performed dominance and being dominant has nothing to do with rationally understand the world. I think this is the whole point of the jock/geek binary opposition in culture even though, as all oppositionnal pairs in culture, they are often porquenolosdossed : Some people can perform dominance and do master rationality quite well and some can do neither. Maybe we don't notice it either because they don't fit the cultural mental map or because they are not part of our social milieus (too high or too low status) ? https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA?feature=shared&t=276 https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA?feature=shared&t=276

wkcheng 2y ago
Yeah, "performed dominance" as you call it definitely is orthogonal to rationally understanding the world. The problem is exacerbated by content and replies trending shorter over time. It's hard to have a nuanced and thoughtful take in 10 seconds. It's much easier to have a simple, easy to understand, "dominant" take in the same amount of time. I wonder if there's a social solution to this, somehow.

senthil_rajasek 2y ago

There are certain areas where the popular opinion is irrelevant. Warren Buffet said this in a more folksy way, “It’s very important to live your life by an internal yardstick,” he told us, noting that one way to gauge whether or not you do so is to ask the following question: “Would you rather be considered the best lover in the world and know privately that you’re the worst — or would you prefer to know privately that you’re the best lover in the world, but be considered the worst?” source: https://time.com/archive/6904425/my-650100-lunch-with-warren-buffett/ https://time.com/archive/6904425/my-650100-lunch-with-warren...

autoexec 2y ago
> “Would you rather be considered the best lover in the world and know privately that you’re the worst — or would you prefer to know privately that you’re the best lover in the world, but be considered the worst?” Both of those options sound terrible. It's a curse either way. I'd rather be known as publicly as "better than average" and privately know that I'm doing pretty well/my best. If forced to pick between the two though, being publicly known as 'the best lover in the world' would seem most likely to present more opportunities to improve my skill/confidence. It's still a lot of pressure nobody needs.
- Sammi 2y ago
  The options aren't meant to be realistic. They're only meant to tease out which side you personally have a preference for, by making you think about how these two extreme options make you feel. One probably feels worse than the other.
Yodel0914 2y ago
I mean, considered by whom? I'd like my partner's assessment of my ability as a lover to be more positive than my self-assessment. The reverse just sounds sociopathic.

burningChrome 2y ago

Just in case someone is wondering: Obstinate - Stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion.

mihaic 2y ago

This has been pretty much my experience as well, and honestly I think it's because most of the audience in any public forum hasn't ever needed to push through a complex project. I was talking to a friend about this, and I've come to see this as the opposite of real-recognize-real, something like bullshit-interfaces-with-bullshit. That is, often people that haven't executed complex projects have a skewed view of the factors of success, something that they try to imitate and at the same time is more easily misled by people emulating the same signals.