shw1n

7 ms·

1.
by shw1n 1y ago
One of my favorite quotes re: the classics: "Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago."
2.
by shw1n 1y ago
Would these letters be The Federalist Papers?
3.
by shw1n 1y ago
Coincidentally was just chatting about this to my wife. All of my productivity pretty much stems from blocking distraction. Rarely has the work been hard in itself. Sure I’ve been lost a few times, but imo you can almost always break it dow
4.
by shw1n 1y ago
> In the real world, however, votes tend not to be politically coherent. Instead, what we see in a hyperpartisan polity, is that a diverse set of views collapses after an issue achieves partisan identity status. Talking about a thing thr
5.
by shw1n 1y ago
Ironically this seems another perfect example of the tribalism the article is about, saying: - the right-leaning folks were just propagandized - the left-leaning folks were justified - that questioning this at all is indirectly responsible
6.
by shw1n 1y ago
The idea here is that some percentage of "the left" and "right"'s views are arbitrary, so the chances of someone independently coming up with a perfectly matching set to either side is low Agreed re: the center can
7.
by shw1n 1y ago
yeah fair, I added an explanation that each point is an average
8.
by shw1n 1y ago
I actually wonder this constantly, hence the footnotes about wondering what my tribe is, accounting for being wrong in probabilities, and even the purpose of this post: finding people that can spot mistakes in my thinking
9.
by shw1n 1y ago
Hmm maybe I'm misunderstanding, but each red dot represents the average of a collection of views The idea behind PG's article (as I understand it) is that "the left" and "right" have some degree of arbitrar
10.
by shw1n 1y ago
the difference is the person stabbing of their own independent accord can be convinced to stop the tribe-following stabber cannot
11.
by shw1n 1y ago
That's not what this is saying at all. "Understand my argument" does not imply correctness in the slightest. It's possible to understand an incorrect argument and show where it's going wrong, plenty of people can de
12.
by shw1n 1y ago
This entire argument is based on incorrect assumptions. I'm not just inferring this from different values. As I said in the article, people are openly and literally telling me they'd prefer to stay in the bubble: "I'll o
13.
by shw1n 1y ago
Neopets, created an account around 2nd grade. Eventually learned HTML to spruce up my profile. Then discovered running a “mall” to earn Neopoints and so I handcrafted a banner in MS Paint and manually mapped pixels for turning it into a lin
14.
by shw1n 1y ago
yep exactly
15.
by shw1n 1y ago
I'm not claiming moral high ground, or that my method is a better or happier way of living life, I'm only claiming it's better for finding out what's true, with the assumption some objective truth exists. The sentence th
16.
by shw1n 1y ago
I wrote about a lack of desire to find truths, not getting opinions en-masse from groups, and a method to find them very different
17.
by shw1n 1y ago
the idea's that we're so tribal these days (maybe it's always been like this) that it's largely impossible but here's how we can change that, etc
18.
by shw1n 1y ago
ty!
19.
by shw1n 1y ago
curious where you moved? I completely understand it could not have what we're looking for, which is why this was only one component among larger ones (family + new job)
20.
by shw1n 1y ago
> If that hypothesis is true, then probably the best thing for society is to provide cultural structures that let us indulge than impulse in non-harmful ways, instead of, say, giving it to religions that also tell us to murder gay people
21.
by shw1n 1y ago
> In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values perceived values -- if someone has the same values and rankings as you, but was exposed to different information, then with this logic you'
22.
by shw1n 1y ago
and if someone opposite the aisle from you believes the same thing about you, there's zero chance to flip them with direct discussion about values, it's possible basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you&#x2
23.
by shw1n 1y ago
I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for As someone said in this thread, in the US two-party system, coalitions are formed before the vote vs after in o
24.
by shw1n 1y ago
this is actually in the footnotes and addressed by the "thinking in bets" section "[9] Fully understanding I can be the one in the wrong -- however, when this is the case, the person explaining is usually able to: understand
25.
by shw1n 1y ago
it was a joke, didn't think I'd have to explain but the key difference is I'm open to being convinced this view is wrong
26.
by shw1n 1y ago
this is probably my favorite comment on this post so far, super interesting if you can find the article I'd love to read it
27.
by shw1n 1y ago
yep the purpose of the essay was to: 1) show the situations in which politics can't be discussed productively (dogmatic ideologies) 2) show how to avoid being dogmatic yourself I absolutely encourage people to discuss politics producti
28.
by shw1n 1y ago
you can be "not tribal" and still protest/put pressure on the system, has nothing to do with being moderate tribalism refers to how you get your beliefs, not what you do with them
29.
by shw1n 1y ago
as I like to say, "I'm tribal against tribalists" :)
30.
by shw1n 1y ago
I actually encourage discussion in the essay, as long as people are well-intentioned or until you hit a point of dogma But if anyone is closed to the idea of an idea being wrong, no discussion can really be had

More ›