Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xcelerate | Hacker News Reader

I find that my personal happiness is a lot higher if I don't watch the news. I tend to be a rather analytical person who obsesses over ideas, and I find that ruminating over news or politics drains my energy. Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out.

Part of the problem is that I feel most people underestimate the enormous complexity of social issues. There's so many variables and so many different types of interactions that my opinion on a lot of issues is "I don't have enough information" or "it's too complex for me to pick a side". A lot of people get upset if you say this to them though, and then they attempt to persuade you otherwise using some well-known argument that I've already researched in depth and found to be largely inconclusive. It's easier just to abstain from these conversations.

I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth"; the surface level conversation is much more interesting to them. How many people have actually looked at the original studies on climate change themselves? I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming. Strong opinions based on weak data seems to be the prevailing theme lately, but perhaps that's just my perception.

View on HN

Scott Adams has an excellent explanation of this today in his blog "The Illusion of Knowledge" http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-kn...

A snippet: "no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed.

So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science.

That is a massive public illusion."

There are plenty of debates in science. The debate over gravity would have been a good example because you had serious people in both sides of the debate and something approaching the truth came to be the consensus.

There is not a similar debate about climate change.

The debates on gravity didn't involve non-scientists most likely because the results of the debate wouldn't have public policy implications and so there was no incentive to choose a side besides personal ego.

I would assume that any scientific claim which results in a public policy change that creates losers and winners would create a very different kind of debate where scientists are subject to external influences and non-scientists feel the need weigh in in order to avoid being the loser.

> no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of [...]

To be more precise:

No non-expert in field X can evaluate claims with respect to field X.

The phenomenon you're talking about is with respect to lay people. But there is a parallel phenomenon that happens with intelligent people with expertise in unrelated fields. It's relatively easy to read a handful of papers in a field other than your own and convince yourself that you are qualified to pass judgement. But how can you be sure you'd see a problem in the methodology of a paper, even if it existed? And the larger problem: how do you know the set of papers you read is representative?

In the worst case, there could have been a shift in the field that no one bothered to document (perhaps because the shift was due to a lack of publishable results). This is my number one gripe reading old papers in computer science: sometimes an idea just disappears from the literature because frankly it didn't work, but you can't cite a paper that just says that outright, even though everyone (who works closely in the field) knows it to be true.

In my experience, both problems take time and experience to solve. Which means that if you don't have those, you're better off finding an expert you trust and asking them---in person---what papers are worth reading.

"I could be wrong about everything I’ve said about climate science and credibility. But would you feel confident betting against me?"

What kind of egomania is that? How is the prevention of a possible global catastrophe a question of "betting against" a cartoonist?

If the scientific consensus is right, we should do everything to avoid the disaster. And if it's not, we've invested in renewables and saved some single-use fossil fuels for a "rainy day". (These are the only fossil deposits for the lifetime of the planet -- does it make sense to spend them all within 200 years?)

There are no downsides to taking action here. But Adams thinks we should first engage in meta-discussion about "persuasion", so it's not time to do anything yet...? Sigh.

Scott Adams likes to describe himself as smart (as he does in the linked post), and I wouldn't argue with that. But his is the kind of non-constructive smartness that works to find flaws in everything and everybody without actually forming a rigorous holistic view of anything. It's an excellent basis for a three-panel daily comic, but not for global policy.

“The Illusion of Knowledge” is a very interesting post. The comments there are exhibit A of the exact fallacy Scott Adams describes in his article. One side of the debate celebrating as though they were finally proven right over their opponents.

The article is mostly BS.

And it is a strawman attack

"Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science."

Obviously you can't get down to climate science, no serious person is suggesting it. The same as with LIGO, you can't get down to gravitational waves and understand them. The reason is that these people have decades of experience and studied some really hard topics - not liberal arts. To get to the bottom you need to take the same route into the topic.

I might be the last person believing in the usefulness of experts in these days - real experts on a topic not those "experts" on CNN and Fox. I know this is unpopular.

It's also funny that people want to understand climate change when from my experience with people many can't even add simple numbers or correctly work with percentages, e.g. calculating VAT. This is the illusion of I-can-do-everything-if-I-want-something. No you can't. Sometimes it takes decades of training, say piano, to do something. Everyone thinks today he is entitled to understand this and entitled to have an opinion that is as valuable as the opinion of someone who did something for years. THIS is the illusion.

Site note to Scott Adams: Reality - climate in this case - does not care the least what you think of it.

[Edit] In short: I don't care about the opnion of a comic writer about climate science.

Sorry but that's ridiculous. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" laid out the facts in an easily consumable way for the public over 10 years ago. We have photography showing massive ice loss over the poles. We have solid data on average temperatures and CO2. How much clearer could it be exactly?

There aren't any "sides". There's the science, and there's a propaganda campaign that's driven by energy corporations, and to a smaller extent deluded conspiracy theorists like Adams. Framing it as a debate at all is intellectually dishonest and just makes public confusion worse.

You're not wrong that politics is enormously complex, but I think you are wrong that the average person is able to pick a side perhaps only because they lack analytical depth or consideration. Rather, it may be that most people are more comfortable than you are at making judgments in these fraught, ambiguous scenarios, and that this is not at all a bad thing.

Most art, politics, and even sports (physical qualities being considered equal) are all areas that can't really be solved by a complete analysis because, as you say, there are too many variables. Nonetheless, some people are much better at these things than others due to qualities that are hard to describe exactly. This ability to make good split second decisions without a complete analytical understanding of the problem or even the current state is one of those qualities.

I don't think this ability is superficial, or without value. Rather, it just goes to show how different people are from one another. So I would encourage you not to suggest to others who do have strong political views that their views are unfounded just because they are strong and the domain is complex.

do you have "strong political views"?

While I partially agree, some of these people will also actively ignore information when presented and do not have a skeptical mind. Many people do not change their mind after they first form an opinion on a subject or it takes a lot of effort to change it afterwords. Forming opinions quickly and never revisiting the underlying assumptions, I would argue can be dangerous as well and is probably more normal that either of us care to acknowledge.

Some people are in very high positions of power and can make decisions that impact peoples lives. Ignoring them and letting them do whatever they want may not always lead to good outcomes. But I will agree that purely ruminating on it does not improve one's situation.

Practicing skepticism and always being analytical is a lot of work. Listening to the SGU podcasts shows that even when people are actively trying to be skeptics they still catch themselves shortcutting to opinions.

Let me ask you this. Take something you believe 100%, how much evidence the other way will it take for your opinion to change? Now imagine that item is somehow part of your identity. It's not an easy fight every single day.

The reason I bring this up is instead of saying 'some of these people', it's better to say all of us.

I totally agree with you on the complexity of the issues. The news won't help much with that. News are mostly about sentiment.

I don't want to hear all those people trumpeting their simple "truths" on all news channels ever more aggressively.

But I fear if I stop listening to those sentiments I could miss the moment when it's time for me to leave or warn others.

I have often wondered how my ancestors could have missed what was going on and end up in a nazi death camp.

Did they not get the news? Did they not believe it? Did it all sound too similar to what had come before until it was too late? Was it too complex to predict?

I don't know, but I can't take my eyes off the ball now even though my eyes hurt.

I stopped watching the news for similar reasons. I got tired of the polarization, spin, editorializing, and vilification. I got tired of politics too, since most people simply play team-sports, and couldn't care less what the facts are.

Having said that, I can speak to your comment on global warming. People reject it because:

1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.

3. In 2005, climate scientists predicted that by 2010, global warming would cause oceans to rise to the point that populations would be decimated, and we would have 50 million "climate refugees" fleeing these flooded areas of the globe. Didn't happen.

4. NASA, CRU, NOAA, and other government and scientific organizations have been caught falsifying data.

5. There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas.

Sure, if you only look at scientific climate data, it may look like climate change is an issue. However, if you look at government behavior, scientific scandals, evidences of falsified data, historical climate facts, and even current temperatures, there is more than enough evidence to cast a serious doubt on the accuracy and even legitimacy of climate change data, don't you think?

Did you live through people claiming the ozone layer was disappearing? And the ensuing global action to remedy it?

At the current rate and compliance with the Montreal protocol we should be back to pre-CFC levels in 30 years or so

Yes, I did. How does this even remotely refute what I wrote?

The parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming."

To answer his/her question, I provided multiple reasons why people, in fact, do reject climate change.

I think your response, and the knee-jerk responses of those who down-voted me, are perfect examples of why I don't watch the news anymore. None of you bothered to read and understand what I said, or why I was saying it. You just assumed that my views on climate change differ from yours, and down-voted me based on your emotional views.

Instead of leaping to irrational conclusions, regarding my post, I invite you to read it and understand why I wrote it and what I was responding to. I believe it will give you a great insight into the matter at hand, and the challenges you must overcome in reaching those who refuse to accept climate change as an issue.

Or, you could just polarize the issue, down-vote those you assume don't agree with you, and keep things at the status quo.

It doesn't make any sense that your comments here were down voted.

You haven't said anything out of line.

I think people mistakenly felt that he was kicking their religion in the balls or something. It doesn't make any sense to me either.

That is a logical fallacy, coldfire. You cannot conclude that because the ozone layer was a legitimate issue that anything else is. All things must stand on their own merit.

In addition, the legitimacy of of climate change wasn't his point. He was answering the original posters question, as to how anybody could not believe in climate change. In this, his points were factual. Those are the exact reasons that naysayers give.

Do you actually believe these points or are you simply showing the flawed logic people use to justify climate change denial? 1. Maybe the sensationalist news was claiming an ice age was coming, but it was never really claimed by scientists. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 4. Is there any evidence of these claims? How do current temperatures cast doubt on the accuracy of climate change? Each of the first 6 months of 2016 were the hottest months ever recorded.

As I said a couple of posts down, the parent poster said, "I have a hard time imagining how anyone who actually reads these studies could possibly deny the occurrence of global warming," and I simply answered his question; both accurately and truthfully, I might add. Feel free to do a Google search on "why people reject climate change," if you believe my statement is wrong.

Nowhere in my post did I ever speak to, or infer, my views on the subject, since they are irrelevant. I merely answered a question with factual data.

I find the knee-jerk down-votes and negative commentary disturbing, since my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided, but rather based entirely on the irrational assumption that I don't think the same way others do. I would think, being the intelligent lot we're supposed to be here on Hacker News, we would see my commentary as a list of obstacles to overcome in order to reach those who reject climate change based on these observations, rather than killing the messenger, so to speak. Seems like the prudent course of action to me, anyway.

"my post is being judged not by the accuracy of the answer I provided"

Actually, it is. Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation. That's why you're receiving downvotes.

Phrasing things as e.g. "People are told that the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" would be a better way to put things, if you're merely stating factual information. Phrasing it as something like "the government is running a conspiracy to invent global warming" makes it sound as if you yourself believe it.

He clearly said, "There are claims that federal funding is biasing climate research; that the federal government isn't just funding research, but are buying science that promotes specific agendas."

Being a college-trained writer, I'm having a difficult time discerning the difference between, "There are claims that..." and "People are told that..." Both are passive sentences, suggesting that some unspecified entity is making claims, and others are believing them. Perhaps you could explain the difference between the two with whatever English degree you have. From my professional perspective, innocentoldguy literally said exactly what you just suggested he should have said, which leads me to believe that he is correct, and that you are judging his post based on emotion rather than rational thought.

As innocentoldguy said, whether people agree or disagree with climate change is not the issue. The issue is that many people don't agree with it, and they believe they have legitimate reasons not to (some of which innocentoldguy outlined in his post). As someone who thinks climate change IS an issue, and wants something to be done about it, you can either down-vote and insult those who you perceive as not agreeing with you (and I’m not convinced innocentoldguy falls into that category), or you can acknowledge their concerns, and work to fix whatever negative perceptions exist in your position. In other words, you can listen to their concerns, and then work to resolve them.

You're never going to convince anybody when you shout them down and down-vote them, but you might if you actually try to listen to what they’re saying and try to have a reasonable dialogue with them. Which seems to be the brightest course of action to you?

"Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age."

You wrote, "Every single point you list either is outright false or is twisted beyond recognition from the reality of the situation," but that is simply not true. The reasons innocentoldguy listed are EXACTLY the reasons that skeptics give for denying climate change; which is what he claimed, isn't it? Sure, his original post could have been written better. So could yours. innocentoldguy did go on to clarify his position though, yet you're still trashing him because of your perceptions regarding his original post, rather than the validity of what he said, aren't you?

Here's a HuffPo article you can read that outlines many of the same issues innocentoldguy brought up, if you still have doubts as to the validity of his statement:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-ps...

Sad you're being downvoted. I have many climate-change denying friends and family members, and these are exactly the arguments they use. So much of it basically boils down to them perceiving the left-wingers as crying wolf for many years. Now we're in a position when most scientists agree the wolf is actually coming, but the right is desensitized and politically incentivized to oppose action. We have to thoroughly understand both sides of a debate if the truth is eventually supposed to win out.

I have a question for you as well. One argument I've heard from climate-change skeptics is that the earth has gone through ice ages in the past without any intervention from humanity, so who's to say we're responsible for the changes we're seeing now? There are some obvious counterarguments, but I'm curious of your opinion and others here.

Why would his opinion matter? Doesn't what he has already said stand on its own merit?

In my experience, the reason people usually want to know someone's personal opinion is simply to further their own fallacious, ad hominem arguments. I hope you had something more noble in mind.

I think it's sad that you've been conditioned to assume that, but I agree it does happen a lot. But in this case I am literally curious what parent thinks about this argument, because they seem to have a good grasp on the POV of many of my friends, and I want to understand better ways of engaging in dialogue.

You're right. It does happen a lot. Far too often, in fact. Not only is it as annoying as hell, I think it also hinders progress. Glad to hear you're above it.

Not above it or any of the traps we all fall into as humans, but try to keep an eye out and recognize when I'm doing it.

My apologies for leaping to conclusions. As you said, it does happen all too often though. I'll try not to let that taint my judgements in the future.

Hello, anderspitman. Thank you for attempting to have an honest and intellectual discussion. I'm not sure my answer will help, but I'll give you what I can.

I typically don't take sides on issues, because I feel very few issues are defined well enough to do so without blinding myself to other information and possibilities. I find no intelligence in rejecting information, simply because it does not fit into my world-view, so I choose not to do so. I also like to reevaluate information frequently, since things are rarely, if ever, static. This may not be for everyone, but I like living in an ever-changing world of uncertainty, discovery, and reevaluation. It works for me.

Therefore, rather than take sides, I act. I do what seems right for me, given my current understanding. With regards to pollution, and its effects on our climate, I drive an electric car, ride public transportation or walk when I can, use renewable sources to heat my home (solar, Trombe wall), insulate my home beyond spec, do not use air conditioning, have replaced all my lights with LEDs and skylights, etc. I live in a fairly large home, but I consume less than half the energy of my neighbors, who live in homes half the size. That's what I chose to do about pollution. It seems to be a lot more effective than getting worked up over nothing and down-voting people online, but to each their own.

Maybe you can understand now why I said my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. They don't fit into the polarized, team-sport camps of believers vs. non-believers. Yes, I can read and understand scientific papers, charts, and other data. I can even act upon them, as I've explained. What I won't do, however, is marginalize people and blind myself to the legitimate concerns of others. For example, the federal government has been a huge propagator of lies, fraud, and other evils around the world throughout my lifetime, so when someone runs from climate change based solely on the federal government's involvement, I can only agree that they have a legitimate concern. I believe it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

I doubt that has been of much help, but that is the way I approach most things.

Thanks for the reply. Definitely an interesting approach, and I appreciate your efforts to play it safe with respect to the environment. But you're correct that this didn't really address my question. Maybe I can ask another way. If someone used the ice age argument, how do you think a well educated and articulated person who disagreed with them would open up a meaningful dialogue?

Regardless of what the argument is. If you disagree with someone, and want to persuade them to your way of thinking, you CANNOT make the conversation a you're-wrong-and-I'm-right discussion or you'll lose every time. Facts are going to be of little use as well. The only way to convince someone of something is to figure out how to present it in a way that benefits them.

I think this will be quite hard with climate change, considering the myriad other issues in life that are much more immediate concerns for people.

Interesting and provocative. That may be difficult for folks today.

> 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent.

> 2. Many of us lived through the late 1970s and 1980s when the media and environmentalists claimed that Earth would be a lifeless rock by the end of the century due to deforestation. Didn't happen.

Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this.

I find 'many of us' to be a problematic phrase. You're making a claim beyond your personal experience using this phrase and it sure doesn't apply to me.

It may be your experience, and that's fine. But I'm not giving you a pass on claiming it was anyone's experience beyond your own.

I am interested in where you encountered these perspectives; I am aware I may be retro-fitting my own memories.

[edit: as per usual fixing mobile autocorrect and formating ]

> I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this.

Really? I do: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970...

> Again, I just don't recall ever hearing this.

I think he's referring to either the "acid rain/forest die-off: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac...

or the rainforest (this article contains a bunch of environmental scares that didn't happen): http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/05/1980s-dire-warnings-of-ac...

Or maybe the forest fire commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH_MW0Bi7L4

Or maybe conflating them to make a point.

The first article you linked seems to indicate that most scientists in peer reviewed papers were actually predicting warming, not cooling (42 papers vs 7 papers). Also, I didn't read it carefully but I did not see anything mentioning the government claiming these things.

However, I think it's still an important point that climate change skeptics CLAIM to have been told these these in the 70s, and use it as an important part of their argument.

> > 1. Many of us lived through the 1960s and 1970s, when the government and scientists claimed we were heading into an ice age. Didn't happen.

> I lived through the 60's and 70's and I do not recall ever hearing this. You're going to have to provide examples of this to bring me into this tent.

(I believe climate change is real, is happening, and is caused by human activity).

It's weird that people say warnings about ice ages were non existent, because they really weren't.

We can talk about whether they were taken seriously by relevant scientists, or if they were just pop-sci nonsense, but we can't say they didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I guess I'm responding in particular to your words:

> and I do not recall ever hearing this.

when perhaps I should be reading

> and I do not recall ever hearing this from scientists.

> I don't think the average person actually likes exploring topics in extreme depth to figure out "the truth"

That is because the average person believes they are playing a zero-sum game, in which competition is inescapable

And because each side has a set of values that must be protected, anything that threatens those values needs to be defeated.

Whether the thing threatening the values has an underlying "truth" that matches up with the surface is less relevant.

* EDIT - also, enlightenment-rationalism is a liberal value; just present people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion (science!)... false — people don't think so literally about things (they think metaphorically); they think inside a frame shaped by the value framework.

"Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out."

I feel exactly the same way.

I can't tell if this is an introvert trait, or whether it arises from the kind of problem your mind is attuned to solving (perhaps both).

Reading social news makes me pessimistic for the future, and feel more withdrawn from the world. Reading about mathematics or science excites me, makes me more optimistic for the future, and makes me want to engage with as much as possible.

I would guess it is an introvert trait. I believe introverts are emotionally drained by activities that involve other people, and are energized by activities that don't.

> and I find that ruminating over news or politics drains my energy.

To many people it's entertainment. Just like watching football or any sport. Political drama is interesting and lends itself to speculation and monday morning quarterbacking and plenty of drama and personalities.

> Thinking about math or science for a few hours energizes me, but doing the same for social issues wears me out.

I think your exhaustion comes from the moral labeling always connected to social issues. Strip out the morality and social issues really are just math and science.

You don't have to make up all your opinions from scratch. Pick a person who you trust and who you think shares your values. For me, that could be President Obama. Whatever position Obama has on a given issue, I will find that position reasonable virtually 10 out of 10 times. If I happen to be expert in some issue, I might presume to disagree. Outsourcing the problem to someone who does think about policy all day is a big time saver.

This also results in people thinking Obama is a good president and electing characters like Donald Trump. Not everyone has time to educate themselves about something that will provide very little personal return (rational ignorance), but it would be great if people at least put in more initial research to find their initial "intellectual champion," and then trusted them from there, with perhaps an annual update to make sure your values still align. Then you might come up with someone like Glenn Greenwald, instead. Granted, Obama sounded a lot more promising in 2008.

It is a good idea to choose the person carefully. Think of it like choosing a lawyer or a doctor.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be Obama. It could be almost any Democrat, like the Clintons, Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi. They all agree on 99.9% of issues, because they have a common set of values.

Theoretically, that sounds reasonable, but in reality, they tend to agree on issues due to political alliance, not values. Politicians in both the Republican and Democratic parties have almost unanimously been on both sides of issues depending on who put it forward/who was in power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com