Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempguy9999 | Hacker News Reader

I'm ambivalent about this kind of thing. One one hand it takes advantage of people's stupidity, on the other, if people let themselves be that dumb then they deserve what they get.

I distinguish 'are that dumb' (children, some people with senility etc. who need protecting) from those who 'let themselves be that dumb' such as mystic belief in homoepathy, or that read up on the latest cancer cure in the Daily Mail (a right-wing UK rag). Elective credulity deserves no protection or respect IMO. But opposing views welcome.

View on HN

Incentivizing profit on elective credulity is a great way to drain tons of consumptive (and second-order productive) capacity out of your economy to the benefit of the ethically bankrupt.

"Idiots deserve to suffer" is a shaky assertion even in a vacuum. In the real world, where most of us are idiots about some things and are therefore surrounded by idiots at all times, it's just (self-)destructive.

> "Idiots deserve to suffer" is a shaky assertion

It is, which is why I added my rider at the end. But as they say, make a foolproof world and watch it fill up with fools. The ethically bankrupt may benefit from fools, but if we protect foolish adults from the consequences of their actions, we take away precisely that which makes them adults - the ability to make a meaningful choice, and to take responsibility for the consequences arising.

> where most of us are idiots about some things

Yes, me too, and lots. But I learn from it and where I get hurt, well that's just the price of being an adult. The alternative is perhaps living in china or communist russia and have the government run your life.

I'd prefer not to have that. I don't like the many scars (some physical, some psychological) I've got through life but each one is valuable where I chose to learn from it. Adulthood is choice.

I'd prefer to live in a world where the government doesn't run my life and where I don't have to constantly watch my back (both literally and financially). Neither of those is freedom.

Now, you may be tempted to say "Sure, and you'd like a pony, too". But in fact, there are societies that are much less fraud-prone. Ravi Zacharias talked about going to a dairy in Holland, and being surprised that you could just walk in, take milk, and leave money in a bowl. There was nobody there to watch you. He said that in India, there would have to be somebody there to watch customers, or they would steal the milk. He told this to a man from Egypt, who replied that in Egypt, they would steal the cows.

A society full of people who are looking to steal is an objectively worse society to live in than one with people who are not looking to steal. The trick is, how do you create such a society when you don't have one (without a heavy-handed government)?

That's a thoughtful answer. Thanks.

I think the difference between holland and india/egypt is a) relatively low prosperity of the latters leading to b) desperation leading possibly to c) a culture where theft is normalised (cos everyone else does it, why not me?).

The above is speculative but if there's truth in it then trust comes evolves where people aren't desperately poor.

That said there is a proportion of the population which are psychopaths and they are congenitally indifferent to such norms as are needed to make a trusting society work. They just don't care. It's how they are wired. It's not right or wrong, it's just biology - but having known a few, it certainly not pretty.

If that can be managed then you may have an answer.

> if people let themselves be that dumb then they deserve what they get.

That's how pretty much every con artist justifies being a criminal. In my opinion, it's a morally and ethically bankrupt argument.

And sometimes they maybe have a point. Ponzi schemes exist because people chose not to see what's right in front of them, that those returns are not credible.

See my answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21032129 elsewhere on this thread and rebut that, because if you can then we can perhaps, perhaps, suggest something better.

I sound like I'm arguing for con artists but |I'm not, they are maybe a price that has to be paid. I really don't know. Maybe there's a better way. I don't know.

> Ponzi schemes exist because people chose not to see what's right in front of them, that those returns are not credible.

I think we may differ in what counts as "choosing" here...

Ok, that may be a wrong word. What would be a better description?

"blind to", maybe?

The thing is that people who fall for scams (and make no mistake, all of us can fall for a scam if presented with the right one) honestly don't think they're scams. They're being lied to.

The fault for this lies entirely on the shoulders of the criminal.

> They're being lied to.

If the lie is obvious many people will look away out of greed. There's a saying that if you deceive someone then at some level they wanted to be deceived, and while that's pretty self-serving for the criminal there's also a fat grain of truth in it.

> The fault for this lies entirely on the shoulders of the criminal.

Well, technically yes but in reality people are willingly dumb, which rather abets the criminal, no?

I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.

> If the lie is obvious many people will look away out of greed.

Some will, sure. But what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others. As I said, we are all susceptible to this. I guarantee there are lies you and I will fall for that are obvious to others. Greed is not necessarily a factor.

> in reality people are willingly dumb, which rather abets the criminal, no?

I don't think more than a tiny percentage of people are willingly dumb.

> I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.

Fair enough!

Yes, children are not responsible for their actions until they turn 18, at which point they are magically instilled with wisdom and accountability regardless of upbringing.

Credulity is not "elective".

There's no way for the average person to distinguish between homeopathy and pharmaceuticals without running an experiment on themselves. It's a matter of what biases they were taught growing up.

> Credulity is not "elective".

Often it is.

> There's no way for the average person to distinguish between homeopathy and pharmaceuticals without running an experiment on themselves

There are plenty of scientific reports and examinations that have been done so they don't have to. If they chose to ignore those, they must have done so willingly. Your answer was not one of the better ones.

Well, here's a handy example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21034424 which leads to https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/17/healing...

Some quotes:

- The model Miranda Kerr has said that she filters all her skincare products through rose quartz “to give the vibration of self-love”.

- Believers say crystals conduct ambient energy – like miniature phone towers picking up signals and channelling them on to the user – thus rebalancing malign energies, healing the body and mind

- According to Pew Research Center data, more than 60% of US adults hold at least one “new age” belief, such as placing faith in astrology or the power of psychics, and 42% think spiritual energy can be located in physical objects such as crystals

- Last year, Paltrow faced (and settled) a misleading advertising lawsuit for claiming that Goop’s vaginal egg crystals had the power to balance hormones and regulate menstrual cycles

What's this if it's not stupidity-by-choice?

Let's have an answer instead of downvotes because I'd really like to hear what you think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com