Comment by peterlk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterlk | Hacker News Reader

Excellent article

> When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?"

This is one of my favorite things to do, though the list of people who will talk to me again after I do it is very short. (Edit: To be extra clear... While this is a bitter pill - I do not like it when others do it to me - I do find it to be very effective for reinforcing good faith in close, trusting relationships. I also do appreciate when others use this question on me; the temporary frustration/discomfort is worth reminding me to center myself.)

When someone is feeling outraged about something (often politics) simply ask: "but are they correct?" The answer is almost always: "I'm not sure" (myself included). When doing this to myself, this is often enough for me to shrug off the outrage and realize that I actually do not care. It really doesn't matter to me what political statements a mayor from a town in another state made.

> In the most independent-minded people, the desire not to be told what to think is a positive force.

This subject implies another that is closely related, and is my biggest complaint about ads. Ads try to tell you what to think, and they are sometimes successful. But more importantly, they tell you what to think _about_, and they are much more successful at this. I like being focused on the problems that I have, and ads try as hard as they can to take that focus away.

While this activity can be useful, I think it is simultaneously at the root of many of our social problems today.

You cannot ask this question about literally everything. Well, you can, but you'll end up questioning things that are universally accepted (Which way is North? Is gasoline flammable?). So naturally you dial it back, and you ask questions only about things that seem wrong, or that you particularly care about.

The corollary is that you are going to decide subjectively (and somewhat arbitrarily) that some things are not worth questioning. And just like that, everybody has made their own independent assumptions about the truth, and we can no longer have discussions about a common set of facts.

The cure is not just questioning facts "more". The cure is actually aligning as a society about what we accept as true so that we can converse about the other things. But, that means less independent thinking, paradoxically.

> that means less independent thinking, paradoxically.

This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "independent thinking" leads them down dark alleys for which they simply don't have the necessary preparation (conspiracies, flat earth, etc), but from which they cannot get out (because admitting your own reasoning is wrong is extremely difficult).

How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...)

I guess it's a balance. Society simply would not hold if we all were radical independent thinkers, since we'd be constantly questioning everything that we cannot individually and immediately determine as true. A degree of conformism is actually necessary for progress of any sort.

> How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...)

Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution. But watch out for that first step, it's a doozy.

This essay provides a lot of the necessary advice to accomplish such a thing, but I suspect one must actually possess sufficient unconventionality to exercise it, not just perceive oneself to possess it.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of these examples. They're not meant to be typical representations; they're meant to be non-controversial representations, allowing us to discuss the thought processes involved without having the conversation derailed by people who honestly believe the example.

Perhaps. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that as true...might it be also true that they are other things, simultaneously?

Who knows what ideas (and communications of ideas) really are, how they really work, what influence they exert on the very fabric of the environment (this infinitely complex, magical soup that we refer to as reality) in which they (and we) are contained, and what the infinite, recursive downstream consequences are of this influence.

At the end of the day, they "are what they are" and "do what they do", and the same applies to their (unseen, unrealized, misunderstood) systemic consequences. We can culturally deny such things (just as conspiracy theory culture collectively denies many things) all we want, but this does not stop it from being actually true. Mother Nature does not require our agreement when organizing the structure and affairs of the universe, but we may mind a great deal when the system she has designed (that we rarely try to truly understand) serves up the consequences of any wilful ignorance that we may be guilty of (see: Planet Earth, 2020).

An extremely large number of people confidently (and sincerely) make claims that seem to suggest they have a deep, accurate understanding of all this complexity. My intuition suggests that these people may not actually be as correct as they perceive themselves to be.

>> Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate representation of the beliefs of the conspiracy world in general, and you may be well on your way to a universal solution.

This is but one instance of a much larger problem. But solve this one, and you may have unknowingly solved many others.

FTA:

You can also take more explicit measures to prevent yourself from automatically adopting conventional opinions. The most general is to cultivate an attitude of skepticism. When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" Don't say it out loud. I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say, but rather that you take upon yourself the burden of evaluating what they say.

"Saying things out loud" certainly has consequences (which come in many forms....loss of friends, ostracization, downvotes, etc). I wonder...might there also be some downstream systemic consequences to not "saying things out loud"...like for example when some of the things that are not said out loud are ~unpopular/unpleasant to ponder, but also true and extremely important.

Shared culture and norms are necessary for social harmony, and reduce the costs of law enforcement. Social harmony generally makes people happier as long as they are included in the mainstream, while internalized law enforcement frees up money for other uses. I see those as the main advantages of conformity.

I think however that it's generally true that conformity diminishes progress and positive change. Whether that's worth the loss of a shared culture depends. I think the current state in the US where there are two cultures which divide the population into two modes is harmful, since it makes society fractious and hostile. We could do for more conformity, now.

However if that were to shift back to a mass culture with various countercultures chafing against it, I think then more independent thinking would be good. I think mass cultures are the rule rather than the exception now, and most other places could do for more independent thinkers.

You ask when it actually matters and let the instinct go in most other situations.

What’s happening in our culture seems more like a case of several competing conventions, split on tribal lines, rather than individuals thinking their way to unique positions.

Seems like a combination of the two to me

Do you think this is only uniquely happening now? I can’t think of a time on earth that hasn’t happened, implicitly or explicitly. (Depending on your definition of “tribe”...tribe of one?). The exceptions don’t last long: Nazi Germany, Mao’s China (Xi’s?), Stalin’s Soviet Union...

Never has it been easier to see this clearly, though, than in the current era of instant access and sharing of information and opinion.

But in the US, individuals thinking on their own is almost a core cultural value. Although more honor'd in the breach than in the observance in some circles.

Not just because the founding of the US was based upon a break with convention of colonization and an hereditary royalist system. Most immigrants (at least before the age of air travel) made a radical permanent individual decision to leave the Old World and come to the Americas, when most around them were staying. So it is in the DNA, so to speak.

Still a core value to most in the US, I would venture to say. We honor self-reliance and unconventionality when we read Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman for example. Might be a more significant core value for the heartland of the US than the coastals. Farming will do that to a person.

You folks are still reading Emerson and the like, right?

He mentions in the next sentence: "I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say"

> When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" Don't say it out loud. I'm not suggesting that you impose on everyone who talks to you the burden of proving what they say, but rather that you take upon yourself the burden of evaluating what they say.

I have found it useful to ask "why do you think this true?" instead. When there's enough time of course.

That sound like the classic "How Do You Know?" question in Theory of Knowledge.

Although it could act as a good filter, if they lash out it's a valuable red flag

Absolutely a clear signal that their belief is emotional. If you step on that toe just make it clear that you aren't questioning them at all, in fact, "you agree with them... you just wanted to know some sources to point to when those other nosey people who question our beliefs do so"... and diffuse the situation.

You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion, if that's the level at which they communicate.

Most people just want to feel some control over their lives, so telling them they're wrong and trying to reframe their reality might not ultimately be a positive, as long as their beliefs allow them to remain predictable and act within reason in their society.

What's their motivation? If it is to knowingly start and propagate lies, then you're obviously not going to get them to change. If it's to parrot falsities to feel control or look smart (what I believe PG is referring to as "conventional-minded"), figure out ways to subtly shift that without making it clear you're undermining them, if that's your motivation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing unless you're a cult leader or protecting a loved one from a con.

But then, hey, why is your reality the correct version of reality?

There's a side-effect here. If you're interacting in a place where straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable (HN, Wikipedia talk pages, many professional settings), then your first suggestion will simply take the place of calling bullshit and have the same effect.

Definitely agree. It's difficult to convey that level of charm / diplomacy via text, for me at least. Body language and other props being available also play a big role in making someone switch focus, and at least feel positively about the overall interaction, even if I ultimately agree to disagree (and state that, or not).

If I feel as though the online recipient of my messaging isn't receptive, there's really no need to contend in the first place. I don't have to change everyone's mind, nor is it really my place to do so ...

> straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable

I think it's not about social acceptance. It is unacceptable because if you call them bullshit without giving good reasons why you think so it is not advancing the discussion in any good way. You are not contributing anything except your personal opinion.

If you do have good reasons to explain why you think they are wrong you don't need to call them names because you can just provide the correct reasoning instead.

Exactly. It's definitely cognitively dissonant to say to someone, "You're wrong, let me see your facts... but I don't have facts about why you're wrong."

I think something to reiterate is that it never goes well when you tell the other person that you disagree with them. A person is not just one idea, they're made from thousands... You're merely disagreeing with one idea, and that should be made clear when you're speaking with them. Regarding the parent comment's terminology of "calling bs", that's a bit of a harsh way to put it, or approach it, if you're trying to reconcile a difference of opinion over a single idea, and not fundamentally pointing at another person and saying, "You are your one bad idea and I don't like either."

> hey, why is your reality the correct version of reality?

Exactly, it is about the question "why?". Why are your reasons for believing something more plausible. But that is not the mindset of an emotionally charged person.

Was the election rigged? A Trump supporter would say "Of course it was". But a judge in Pennsylvania had a good response to Giuliani (who was trying to argue it was): "... Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here".

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsy...

> Why are your reasons for believing something more plausible. But that is not the mindset of an emotionally charged person.

Unfortunately, that is so. But usually, that person's motivation is to feel understood, valued, respected, and safe within the reality / status quo they've come to understand is their best guess. When you realize their specific fears, it makes it easier to empathize and work with them on seeing from other perspectives, and that those perspectives don't threaten them, even though they are not innately familiar or intuitive initially... But that can be quite challenging.

I'm not sure what Giuliani's motivations are, but if they aren't emotional on a personal level, they aren't his own fears, which doesn't work the same way...

Good point. People are afraid of being wrong not only because they don't want to lose an argument, but because if they are wrong about one thing, it might turn out they are wrong about many things. Thinking that you understand the world gives you comfort.

Its enough to demonstrate nonsocial results, IMHO. Especially when dealing with mailed paper ballots, and computerized tabulators.

No way Biden outperformed Obama with Black voters in key swing states and underperformed him everywhere else!

The results in some of these ridings has the hallmarks of election fraud. This is why its still not getting certified by so many states. And I predict will go to legislature to pick electors in those states

I love (and identify with) the sentiment of your last paragraph. One of my favorite cities is Sao Paulo. All outdoor advertisements were banned in 2006.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

When it's appropriate to do so, and it's information that can be verified you can say, "Where did you get your information/Where did you learn that?" which may be slightly less confrontational.

If it's just an opinion, well, you might ask "how did you arrive at that conclusion?" or you might smile and say, "Oh, yeah?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com