Hacker News Reader

You might want to consider the idea that people who disagree with you politically might in fact not be dumb, but just have views that differ from yours.

Just a thought.

Philosophical question - why is that important to know? What added value is discovered by realizing your opponent's conclusion is not based off of bad facts or faulty reasoning, but different values?

Practical answer - how you engage is radically different.

My math prof likened it to the axiomatic frameworks: if a person has bad facts or faulty reasoning, but your core axioms (values) are similar, you are more likely to come to a point of mutual agreement or at least understanding. If your values (axioms) are radically different, chances are your entire frameworks are different and possibly incompatible. You'll be talking past each other, discussing methods while in fact your goals and assumptions are completely different.

Philosophical answer - depends on your philosophy and how you feel about philosophical zombie - i.e. is it only outward results or internal causes that make a difference to you.

Thanks. I'm also toying with the idea that it means that realizing it's about values could possibly engender greater respect for the other's conclusions. Because at least then the person isn't "wrong".

Although maybe that's only true if you find their values tolerable. Otherwise I suppose the advantage is in knowing you'll have to start strategizing if the conclusions from their values are incompatible with yours.

Either way it does seem valuable to know the other person's complete reasoning, just trying to quantify as many reasons why as possible.

How can you fully defend/understand your own beliefs if you don't fully understand your opponents beliefs?

It's pretty arrogant to assume there is only one way to look at things - your way.

That is interesting, how does understanding your opponents beliefs make you more fully able to understand your own beliefs? I would think it possible to fully understand one's own argument about something, without understanding all possible counterarguments.

Because seeing the world differently is different from being malevolent.

If someone is acting malevolently, then you can rationalize basically anything with regards to hurting them or their well-being.

If someone just views the world differently, you will be annoyed by them, but probably not able to rationalize to yourself that they should not exist.

It makes you more persuasive. You can align your arguments to their values.

What if they have no values/their views are not based in anything rational or rooted in fact?

I think the part after your slash is a different case than them having correct facts and reasoning, just with different values. In your after-slash case they are "wrong". You're looking at how to have them accept facts and correct their reasoning.

The first part is interesting, but ultimately, if their conclusions were based only on facts and reasoning, their conclusions would only be limited to the area of facts, "is" statements. They would not be able to derive ought/should statements. (If you believe in Hume's Guillotine.)

Not the OP, but while I'll agree with your sentiment in general, it's a bit straw man argument in this particular case.

I'm generally of liberal persuasion. I did not agree with almost anything that our Canadian previous conservative prime minister did... but I respected him. I thought he was intelligent, effective, and thoughtful. I didn't like that he was effective and productive about things I disagreed with, but I'd shake his hand and I can imagine having a thoughtful conversation and learning something, even if my mind may or may not be changed.

On the other hand, in theory, I "agree" with many of the things Michael Moore for example is fighting for. But I do not respect him, and I cannot watch more than 2 minutes of his programs before wanting to yell at the TV. Certainly, I wouldn't elect him. He is a propagandist, he cherry picks data, and presents a skewed picture. Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Michael Moore or Al Franken (the pundit; he may or may not have been more honest as a politician, but his prior books were awful) - it's not a matter of how much I agree with them, but that I find them all fundamentally dishonest.

Which brings us to Trump - my biggest concern is not that I disagree with him (which I do). It's that I have no respect for his mental faculties, honesty, abilities, consistency, beliefs, values, thoughtfulness, or any of the characteristics some of us believe a head of state should have. Further, I think not only is he doing a disfavour for those who disagree with him, I think he's doing a disfavour for those who agree with him / voted for him.

At the end of the day, I may disagree with somebody about what's the best colour to paint the room; I may disagree with somebody on what the best way to fix a education system is, or even what its goals should be; I may disagree on budget priorities, on a country's role in the world, and so on. There's fascinating discussion, debate and learning to be had with people of opposing opinions.

But if somebody wants to buy a bridge somebody's selling them, enroll in a cult, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute thinking it'll end well for them, dunno... I don't think it's in the "difference of opinion" category :|

I now doubt IQ, values, beliefs are even a factor.

A relation of mine went from studying marine biology to full on fundie. Creationism, climate denial, etc. Huge Trump supporter too, of course.

Can any one explain to me how a one time scientist now doubts evolution?

Intelligence amplifies a person's ability to construct a narrative that feels like a good fit to lived experience.

Complicated plot. It's all interconnected...

It's a belief system that is naturally selected for, for one thing.

How many liberal atheists do you know with 4+ kids, versus conservatives?

Ah yes, the Idiocracy[1] effect.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

is being a genetic dead end really all that smart though?

Species evolve into local optima all the time. Clonal reproduction is a common evolutionary dead end.

OP is talking about a public figure, not an ideology or policy.

WRT to the votes he did get, it's pretty obvious- people dumber than he is, who are apparently blind to seeing his completely obvious con artist act and voting for him, that's how.

Talking about people's opinions of an individual, not of a policy...

> people dumber than he is, who are apparently blind to seeing his completely obvious con artist act and voting for him, that's how.

Or, you know, people who didn't want to see Supreme Court seats go to the extreme left for the rest of their lives.

> it's pretty obvious- people dumber than he is, who are apparently blind to seeing his completely obvious con artist act and voting for him, that's how.

Bay area engineer here. Did Google for a few years, did a B2B startup, acquired by FANG, now lead a team of 30. Good relationships with family and physically fit.

I voted for Trump. Statistically, I'm not dumb.

Can you talk a bit about how you came to that choice?

I've noticed that that a few acquaintances with the same trend... they like to take risks and optimize locally rather than globally. Not dumb but just narrow focused like most of us in technical areas.

> he got 3mil fewer votes than his opponent, so you can thank the dysfunction of the EC

Why is the electoral college dysfunctional when it goes against the popular vote, even though it's designed to be able to do so? This has happened several times before without issue.

Not all Trump voters are "people dumber than he is". That's a ridiculous generalization and little more than morally-superior posturing. People are much more complicated with their choices then you may believe.

TL;DR : Trump is a 'mixed bag' but for right wingers the cost-benefit analysis surpassed that of Hillary Clinton, even though there were heavy costs.

I'm not sure we should be delving into politics on hacker news. But if it's okay for the goose, allow the gander to retort.

I hear you expressing your frustration and believe me I am fully aware that many Americans are very frustrated. Especially people on the left who have suffered a series of depressing defeats. On an emotional level, I'm worried and empathetic.

I think you are correctly recognizing certain behavioral characteristics of Trump that are unpleasant and possibly harmful such as lies, bragging, and narcissistic behavior. Many (probably most) people on the right who voted for him also see those characteristics. They are as you say "completely obvious." It is not that people on the right are "blind." So the question is why did they vote for him anyway? Why wouldn't these characteristics rule him out?

Your conclusion is that they are (if not blind) dumb. That might be true for some people, but it cannot possibly explain it for everybody. Take myself for example. I have had my IQ tested three times, and the lowest value was 147. I would say that objectively speaking I am not dumb. I must qualify this with the fact that I was a child all three times so there was a correction factor involved which would not apply now, so my IQ is probably lower today. I hate to put this paragraph in because it sounds like bragging, but I need evidence to demonstrate my point.

Here is part of the answer to the mystery we are presented with:

  1) Trump did in fact do very well in business, contrary to various articles that argue he would have done better in the S&P500.
     Their calculations are off because they don't value his business as a going concern, did not apply top tax rates to the
     dividends, and often picked the market bottom which is unfair as nobody can time the market. The methodology was flawed
     because it is a sector comparison (stocks to real estate). The conclusion is flawed because it presumes being on par with
     the S&P500 is what "any idiot could do in an index fund" but the proper conclusion is "being on par with the very best
     companies" because it's not sharing in someone else's created wealth, it's actually creating the wealth.
     EDIT: I forgot to add, they completely ignored expenses.
  2) Trump's lies are mostly inconsequential bragging. Everyone can see through them. Successful deception would actually be
     damaging, but unsuccessful "first grader stuff" isn't damaging because we can all see through it.  We know full well why
     he lies in most cases (narcissism or negotiation, in both cases we are okay with it). Also, we like that he just says what
     he thinks openly rather than being careful with his words which makes us suspicious of dececptions that we might not be able
     to detect.
  3) He has openly promised things that right-wingers want and have been pounding the table about for generations.  And we believed
     he was serious about it and wouldn't let politics or being politically correctness get in the way.  We were right, he didn't.
     He just storms ahead damn-the-torpedoes, ignoring the news, ignoring the 'game'.  Most republicans would have restrained
     themselves based on political chicanery.  Right-wingers love it and left wingers hate it because he is "unmitigated."

I'm going to stop there because I don't want to write a diatribe.

> Take myself for example. I have had my IQ tested three times, and the lowest value was 147. I would say that objectively speaking I am not dumb. I must qualify this with the fact that I was a child all three times so there was a correction factor involved which would not apply now, so my IQ is probably lower today.

What you say is a great explanation, and makes sense, but then you go on about IQ as if it means something?

Thanks for the first part of your comment. I assume you are arguing that being "dumb" is not coorelated with IQ because IQ isn't meaningful. If so, I politely disagree but I'm not motivated to take on that argument.