10 ms·
The good part of this: don't fall into the trap of believing the proposition "an idiot disagrees with me, so I must be right". That's solid advice, idiots belie
by miyoji 1mo ago
The good part of this: don't fall into the trap of believing the proposition "an idiot disagrees with me, so I must be right". That's solid advice, idiots believe countless true things and geniuses believe innumerable false things. The intelligence of a random interlocutor has nothing to do with the validity of their opinions, really, so it shouldn't serve as evidence one way or another. Generally, I try to pay attention to good arguments against my ideas, not good arguers.
I think the advice for who to listen to is very bad, though. He calls it being "slightly elitist", but his bar is beneath the ground. The example for discussing politics is knowing what the three branches of government are - I knew that when I was 8 and I don't think I had anything interesting to say about politics back then. I definitely couldn't have given a meaningful critique on the latest policy debate, and neither can anyone possessing merely the most basic knowledge of rudimentary facts on the topic.
- imoverclocked 1mo agoI think knowing about the branches of your government is a prerequisite to having an opinion or good argument about it. It’s not sufficient to just know that but it’s a good filter in the USA where a surprising number of people have “opinions” but lack the most basic knowledge.
- miyoji 1mo agoIt's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient. The bar I like to use is pretty simple: do you know who represents you in Congress (I am American so this is my bias, but substitute your country's equivalent if there is one)? As in, your state's two Senators and your district's Representative? If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes, so you probably don't really care that much about whatever it is you say you care about, since you haven't done the easiest thing you can do to make a change. It's not perfect, and no criteria will be, but there are tons of people who can rattle off "executive, legislative, judiciary" who nevertheless don't know ball.
- dataflow 1mo ago> and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes Or, you know, you haven't lived at the same address for twenty years. In your imagined world where every single citizen either has something so pressing to call their representatives about or is just ignorant, you're still basically filtering out everybody who moved for a job/college/SO/whatever recently. I guess in your mind it's only fitting that they're disqualified from having an opinion? For reference about 12% of Americans change residence each year.
- EA-3167 1mo agoAs always everyone is entitled to their opinions, the question is how much should the rest of us care.
- galleywest200 1mo agoJust like how sometimes I consider how little I should care about a social media frequenter’s opinions. I am, for better or for worse, getting near the last willing comment I am going to leave on this, or any, social media site. That is not due to age or illness, it is due to enshittification. Not by the admin but by the populace.
- EA-3167 1mo agoVery bottom of the page, you can see links to the long and storied history of people saying “HN is bad now,” and why it’s an opinion you don’t really need to share. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I’d throw in for free that when you’re done at a party… say goodbye to your friends and leave. The party in general doesn’t need an announcement of your dissatisfaction and departure. Safe travels.
- miyoji 1mo ago[dead]
- 1mo ago
- MomsAVoxell 1mo ago[flagged]
- hackernud3s 1mo agoWe all learned what the 3 branches are in grade school. Some people forgot it. Liberals are more likely to remember it because liberal discourse (this thread for example) reminds them of it. It's a biased litmus test in other words.
- bot403 1mo agoIt's inconceivable to me that you could forget the three branches. There are still headlines and news articles about the president , congress, and the supreme court. Those three things , talked about constantly, are a basic reminder of the most visible aspects of each branch.
- hackernud3s 1mo agoThat's because your experience is siloed. People in other silos are seeing other headlines and other news articles, and wondering how you could not see them.
- marky1991 1mo agoThat makes me, a conservative, wonder what those other headlines are talking about and if those headlines are worthwhile or helpful. Because, regardless of what you are reading, the fundamentals of government are unchanged. So if people aren't reading about them, that to me just suggests they're ignorant.
- hackernud3s 1mo agoThe question is, is that a reason to not engage with them, or is it a reason to engage with them? The author seems to suggest we only engage with people in our silos which seems.. incestuous?
- marjancek 1mo agoYet a lot of people forgot about the most important thing about them: that they must be independent.
- slopinthebag 1mo agoIt’s probably not necessary to know what the administrative structure of your government is in order to hold an opinion on politics. It’s more important to understand things like the different ideas and ideologies, and what concrete evidence actually exists to support whatever legislation you’re interested in. And pretty much nobody has sufficient political knowledge to do this.
- narrator 1mo ago[flagged]
- thrance 1mo ago[flagged]
- narrator 1mo ago[flagged]
- adduced 1mo agoLindsay does not adhere to basic honest critical inquiry. Marxism deserves much better critics! As a sample this text by Matt McManus shows some of the deep problems with one Lindsay's books https://archive.is/psCEw https://archive.is/psCEw
- narrator 1mo ago[flagged]
- nixon_why69 1mo agoThis is a great comment on a post about people going ideologically crazy.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- blks 1mo agoThe notion “he read all the leftists books” is so childish.
- zahlman 1mo agoHow so?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- burnt-resistor 1mo agoThere are zillions upon zillions of domain specific smart people with many totally batshit beliefs (pick a billionaire, any billionaire except Buffett). There are also plenty of approaching polymaths also with wackadoodle beliefs on particular subjects too. I'd say that well-rounded reasonableness and "common sense" in more areas than most is rare and skews towards wide-ranging life experiences, average intelligence, and advanced age. There are only a few wise elders who have figured out many things, not everything. And no one will ever agree with you on everything. Anyone who agrees with you on everything is lying to you a priori or you're hallucinating them.
- joenot443 1mo agoMacKenzie Scott? Jensen Huang? Bernard Arnault? The Walton siblings? Even ol' BG - he may be a billionaire but I think he's in general a very reasonable, liberal, secular, and fairly moderate guy. I guess he believed Windows Metro was a good idea... :) Obviously we hear the stories about Musk, Zuck, Ellison etc. but I think there are plenty of grounded billionaires out there.
- joenot443 1mo agoAbout 70% of American adults can name all three branches of government. That leaves about 81m Americans who cannot. I'm sure you were a very clever 8yo, many of the people here spent a lot of their childhood being told they were clever. That said, suggesting that the other 30% of the country less clever than 8yo you should be excluded from political discussions is somewhat illiberal in my mind. Perhaps the notion we're creeping toward is that people less educated don't deserve a political voice or to take part in political exchange, which is a tenet I wouldn't agree with. [1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/americans-knowledge-civics-increases-annenberg-constitution-day-civics-survey-finds https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/americans-knowled...
- mindslight 1mo ago> his bar is beneath the ground I agree. In general you're pointing out one failing of this post, but I think there are a whole host of things that are missing from it to be anywhere near a substantial guide. Don't fall into the trap of "an idiot disagrees with me, so I must be right" is a great observation/rule! But it's like the first level of the reasoning game (if the game even has linear levels). There is value in that, and trying to provide even more observations would likely make the post fall flatter when readers disagreed with at least some (and/or the author didn't do a good job on some in favor of his primary point). But "If you can’t find those people in the real world, turn to the internet and find them there" is especially fraught, as this subjects you to much different memetic hazards that the article doesn't touch upon at all. Meaning if you seek out online discussion communities and find their more-reasoned arguments refreshing, you're right back at the entrances to rabbit holes of extremism [author's usage] that are emotionally attractive rather than rationally considered.
- zahlman 1mo ago> ... and find their more-reasoned arguments refreshing, you're right back at... emotionally attractive rather than rationally considered. How do you figure?
- mindslight 1mo agoJust because someone can find or create lengthy logical rationalizations does not mean they're arriving at universal truths. Gödel's first theorem says that a logical system can either be incomplete or contradictory. The comprehensiveness of natural language (our primary tool for communicating), especially with the prevailing over-reliance on Boolean logic, points to the results from our use of them being readily contradictory. So with Internet forums (especially when you're first exposed to them), you switch from getting half-baked reasoning in meatspace interactions (the focus of this article, and easy to spot!) to long chains of fully-baked reasoning that are logically consistent. But yet they ultimately still lead to some pretty terrible places - due to what they've left out of their starting assumptions, and then tacitly reject by closed-world-optimizing for the assumptions they did make.
- illiac786 1mo ago>Generally, I try to pay attention to good arguments against my ideas, not good arguers. I agree, but it’s so much harder, you have to evaluate every argument, you can’t outright filter out idiots. I admire you, but I can’t manage this, it’s exhausting.