Hacker News Reader

> Paul has written quite a few essays on this subject, so by now I’m really curious what viewpoint(s) he has that he can’t say aloud (and whether I agree).

Discussing them here (in a public forum) isn't really an option. Because they are generally outside the Overton window, they are likely also outside the Overton window here on HN. Which means one would get voted down or flagged if one talked about it here.

The safe place to talk about such heretical opinions is between good friends you know wouldn't ostracize you for saying something blasphemous, or when talking to a person you know has a very low tendency for conformity.

There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum? If not, they’re likely going with “the current thing” of their preferred echo chamber, which may or may not be real.

> There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum?

Simple? What if they think the entire range to care about are “my conservative grandfather” and “my liberal in-laws”? In other words this isn’t a litmus test unless the person even knows what the spectrum is.

Which is the point at which you return to Orthodoxy Privilege, or rather Ideology as people other than Paul “Not Invented Here” Graham has been calling it for over a century.

Who said the test has to be self-administered? “This isn’t a litmus test unless the solution even knows what the pH range is”.

Who administers the test does not change the point I was making.

This heuristic would essentially lead one to believe that independent-mindedness is largely not possible would it not (the explicit "probabilistic" claim in the conclusion)?

I meant it in a more technical sense, as in “I start my morning by checking 4-5 news outlets from different corners of the political field and try to figure out what’s really going on by comparing the narratives”. That of course is not sufficient; one has to do their homework on prior history of whatever the contentious issue is.

And yes, probably it’s not an activity most people engage in.

That is certainly a fine practice, but my disagreement is with the claim that doing this is necessary for open-mindedness, and that those who do not are "probably" doing something highly silly.

There was a website aimed at something similar called “the factual” but they never really got the algorithm off the ground before they were bought - by yahoo news by all things.

Hello! I work in local politics as a side-hustle/volunteer effort. This litmus test is absolute bullshit because it ignores the massive swaths of issues that are party orthogonal and don't make headlines. When actually pressed the liberalest liberal who's ever liberaled with a car bumper full of stickers will actually have a unique set of political views once you move past the like six wedge issues and vice versa. And the more interesting one is the reasons behind a view vary wildly. I was taken aback when I talked to a very conservative gay veteran who said that trans people shouldn't be in the military because, "they won't get the care they need" and that people should all have guns to shoot crooked cops.

And the other problem is that those "unrelated" views on both sides of the spectrum are actually way more related than people assume and those common threads define the group so it's not at all surprising that you can see a theme and make predictions based on it.

An easy one for liberals, asymmetric power dynamics are bad. You can follow this theme to lgbt rights, blm, general anti-corporation, defund the police, drug decriminalization, generally anti-prison, supporting Ukraine, supporting Palestine against Israel, but also supporting Jewish populations at home, reducing the size of the American military, strong labor laws, unions, immigration, defunding ICE, civil rights, anti-insurance/single-payer healthcare, breaking up monopolies, taxing billionaires they all stem from this. You show me a sympathetic underdog and I'll tell you who the liberals will support lol.

Leaving aside your focus on political views (even though the test I proposed is more about getting better informed than diversifying one’s beliefs and prejudices), what’s the typical case you’re getting at: do people have unique sets of political views or are those views more clustered “than people assume”? You sort of started arguing for the former and then pivoted.

There are two groups of issues, ones that stem from the core defining beliefs of the groups that cause individuals to self-label as members in the first place and everything else. You'll see a lot of unity on the former and surprisingly little unity on the latter outside of transient political coalitions of convenience. Once you stray from things that are rooted in the core values of a group you'll find huge amounts of disagreement and that individuals have extremely varied views taken holistically.

Why does news even have a spectrum? In an ideal world, it shouldn't.

"seem to be independent thinkers, but they pretend to follow the in-group for the purpose of maintaining social harmony"

Preference falsification [0]. There's a book called Private Truths, Public Lies by Timur Kuran which delves into this.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification

> Paul has written quite a few essays on this subject, so by now I’m really curious what viewpoint(s) he has that he can’t say aloud (and whether I agree). I’ve noticed in Silicon Valley there are quite a few people who—after deeper conversation with them—seem to be independent thinkers, but they pretend to follow the in-group for the purpose of maintaining social harmony; this seems especially common among people born outside the U.S. living in the Bay Area.

Think about this a little more. When you see people being very opinionated against or for something it is most likely in public in broad daylight. They “toe the line” and rally the wagons. But maybe in private—when among friends and they don’t have to put up a front—they can be more nuanced.

It's less likely that those people are truly independent, and more likely that they simply brought the orthodox beliefs of their countries of origin to the Bay Area.

That’s a good point, although I would still maintain that they constitute a different “type” of person than those that reside in their country of origin, because most people don’t uproot their lives to move between countries. Whether or not that correlates with being more of an independent thinker, I don’t know.

There are millions and millions of people streaming across our border as you read this. Perhaps people moving between countries (or at least, from certain countries to certain other countries) is more common than you think.

Humans are tribal by nature.

We also use Motivated Reasoning to convince ourselves that the opinions we hold for tribal reasons are in fact good moral ones we came up with ourselves.

I doubt this will change. Act accordingly.

> Paul has written quite a few essays on this subject, so by now I’m really curious what viewpoint(s) he has that he can’t say aloud

One approach would be to list issues that can't be said aloud today...

Many sensitive topics are simply partisan: you can be pro-life or pro-choice, as well as pro- or anti- guns, death penalty, socialism, capitalism, science, war, even democracy! You can say anything on any of those topics without fear of being shunned by everybody. You will upset some people, but not all of them.

The only opinions that will get one instantly banned from pretty much everywhere, that I can think of, are sexism and racism. (And rightly so, may I add.)

So when someone says "there are things that are true that can't be said", I wonder if they're entertaining thoughts that I would find... unpalatable.

Some things could be true but still taboo. You may believe (with the orthodoxy) that they are false, but this doesn't change the possibility that they are true. And if they are, believing them can't be immoral.

(Arguably, even believing falsities can't be immoral, because beliefs aren't the type of thing that are morally right or wrong. It's rather intentions for actions than can be so.)

> Some things could be true but still taboo

Well yes, that's the whole discussion. It's possible that some things that are taboo, are true.

It's even likely! because why else would there be a taboo? Society doesn't need to put a taboo on things that are obviously, totally wrong, like "the earth is flat". Arguably, a taboo is only needed to hide a possible truth.

The question is: what are those things? Or if not the things themselves, the domains, the general topic?

I can't think of any subject that cannot even be alluded to, like Voldemort.

You just admitted you know of two things that will get you banned everywhere. Then you said that taboos (such as against the things that will get you banned everywhere) are only needed to hide possible truths. Connect the dots.

You can't think of a subject matter that is taboo?