Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mikrl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mikrl

Since we love categorizing, here is a quick taxonomy for what you are describing:

Dogmatists: unthinking, inflexible

Weathervanes: unthinking, flexible

Skeptics: thinking, inflexible

Pragmatists: thinking, flexible

The names are adhoc and should be taken with a grain of salt. The thinkingness axis we can attach a notion of good/bad to, since it is generally better to think things through than not.

Flexibility, not so much, but we can contrast the skeptic’s “I need more information before I can make a judgment” to the pragmatist’s “how can I use this right now?” and apply this to our workplaces. Certainly some of us are more skeptical than pragmatic, and vice versa.

View on HN

I'm referring thinking in this context as "thinking for yourself" and the ability to distinguish lies from truths and being able to accept some as undetermined.

And flexibility as having gone through the "thinking" phase and arriving at a conclusion and opinion, the ability to defend, bend or uproot the previous conclusion or opinion as supported by newer evidence and experience.

Then there's people who pretend to be one but are another, some who don't know who they are, some who are splendid pragmatists in some areas and astute dogmatists in others.

And then you come across some weathernerves who've done much better for themselves simply by following , some dogmatists who've done well for themselves by leading the skeptics. While the pragmatists, sit around gathering and categorizing others and themselves, and some others commenting on such comments, thinking they've finally; finally figured it out.

Oh! The variety. Such is life...

I think this two-axis system misses the difference between "weathervanes" and "partisans", who sit in the same place on the two-axis system but function very differently in practice.

I can understand "partisan" as someone whose primary adherence is loyalty to a party and will comply with the latest party talking points. I don't know what a "weathervane" is.

Weathervanes point in the direction of the prevailing wind.

You could call them trendies, or in cybercultural terms: NPC, I SUPPORT THE CURRENT THING, etc

Weathervanes reorient themselves based on the direction the wind is blowing.

I took this to mean: “weathervanes” are people who attach themselves to some popular sentiment without giving it much thought.

Wouldn't partisans fall under the dogmatists?

Dogmatism is more about ideas and ideologies, while partisanship is more about in-groups and out-groups.

Dogma is -- by its very denotation -- inflexible. Partisans have no issue with flexibility.

Don’t the weathervanes oscillate?

I am all of these at once. I try to be pragmatic especially at work because that helps with working with others. But I'm really a skeptic as a default position. However, a lot of things in life aren't as important at one time or another and I'll unthinkingly be dogmatic or a weathervane.

Sometimes it's good to take a weathervane approach if you don't know much about an area and get blown around a bit before you're able to form an opinion. And yes that might make you look silly, but that's ok.

>Skeptics: thinking, inflexible

Skepticals are fairly flexible given that you can convince them with accurate, fact based information. IMO this is probably the best default for all of them. Pragmatists by your definition sound too trusting.

I have objected in the past to the characterization that someone who changes their position on an issue is a waffler or flip-flopper or whatever.

There are times when changing your position is absolutely the right thing to do.

I wonder if this in some way analogous to the 4 quadrants resulting from Carlo Cipolla's law of stupidity or if it is orthogonal.

I think flexibility is orthogonal and turns this into a cube.

What describes being dogmatic about not being dogmatic?

Paradoxical dogmatism.

It's a paradox because dogmatism typically implies a fixed perspective, whereas a refusal to be dogmatic typically suggests an openness to various perspectives.

It's worth noting that this form of dogmatism (e.g. ironic or paradoxical dogmatism) can lead to intellectual arrogance or self-righteousness. If taken to an extreme, an individual can become close-minded about their own beliefs regarding open-mindedness. I see this a lot in today's society, especially amongst many young people who may not have accumulated enough life experience to understand why others might have come to think differently than themselves.

I find myself constantly checking for this pattern. I see it as self delusion.

Average Joe Rogan fan.

This is sort of the twist at the end of Unstable Orbits in the Space of Lies [1]. Turns out that avoiding belief systems is an unusual variety of belief system.

[1] https://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumb...

Contrarianism?

There is a subtle ambiguity here. What does it mean to "not be dogmatic"?

Full contrarianism would be to reject the dogmatic beliefs. "If authority X claims it is true, it must be wrong." You would seek out beliefs that are in opposition to the dogma.

But not being dogmatic might just be aiming for immunity to dogma? "Whatever authority X claims is irrelevant." You might try to evaluate ideas on your own and form beliefs that are uncorrelated with the dogma.

In addition, I'd add that "not being dogmatic" includes the potential of adopting the dogmatic belief. That's because the idea itself was evaluated for more than just the fact that it was dogmatic; though, the associated dogma can still be considered a variable in the evaluation.

Agreed, I meant that as part of uncorrelation. You don't align with or against the dogma, so your beliefs might overlap in some placed and not others.

I forgot to mention a third form of "not being dogmatic" which is closer to my own idiomatic understanding of the phrase. Rather than focusing on your consumption or reaction to prevailing dogma, it is also a useful not to try to be a source of dogma. Don't consider your own beliefs to be "facts" and don't try to become an authority who promotes or evangelizes a new prevailing dogma...

When I think, it leads to thought that is not the first, which immediately leads back to the first thought. What prevents the initial thought? What prevents it from becoming what it was not, before? Why did the thought become what it was not? How much thinking do I do for the next thought to lead back to the first? Which of those thoughts are the first thought and which of them are not?

Its what makes an initial thought lead into the same thought. gasp

  Of the one, or that fiery death that never ends
  To the heart of its description
  Go through great changing of conciseness
  It becomes what becomes the lesser, not to much more and not of us.

  And without whining (or any sad crap)
  One crappy song, you know is very much like this place
  Goes the same way and that is:
  “Thanks to you, and me, it’s super awesome!
  I’m leaving all the bad times behind.“

2π inf^(1/2)

Where the center is everywhere and the perimeter nowhere. Or positronium.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com