Hacker News Reader

The overgeneralization that the author talks about is, I think, really at the crux of where the rational thinker may go astray (lawmaker, bureaucrat, waterfall process software developer, architect, ...). You can build up an argument which seems to be true, but is in fact irrelevant and wrong/harmful in the real world.

View on HN

By the time you get to 2 or 3 points deep in any rationalization, you've made such ambitious leaps of (subjective) assumption, that your view isn't more logical than any one else's. This is fundamentally different than the postmodern assumption that any given categorization (and following assumption) is as good as any other.

e.g. If you think that tigers are woozles, ok. If you want to attribute woozles with subjective properties outside of a label, you're very likely going to die when you try to interact with them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com