Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

My pet theory: Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic phony in what will almost certainly turn into a battle of wits instead of a battle of facts.

Our entire society deifies charismatic phonies. They are the ones that get elevated to the highest positions in politics and the C-level business suite. They're always the heroic Main Character. They build up cult followings. They often look so good, speak so smoothly and have those irresistible Ivy League mannerisms. You're supposed to like them and help elevate them even higher.

Do you want to expose this person? The Main Character? You better be right, and you better be ready to have the full force of his charm, persuasion, and cult following at your throat forever.

View on HN

> Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic phony in what will almost certainly turn into a battle of wits instead of a battle of facts

I’ve met some incredibly unlikeable fraudsters. The bottom line is pursuing them would mean giving up months of my life in a tedious process. In many cases, the fraud seems stupid enough that it’s not okay, but just not worth sacrificing life time over.

This. It takes tons of energy especially if your surrounded with admirers (I suppose these types tend to gather undiscerning yes men).

I have fled a renowned institute for this reason. You are probably going to sacrifice your career over it either way, because if you're not hopping on their gravy train...

This is a perfect example of “I’m sure it will work itself out naturally.” It’s going to continue happening and it really just makes me more confident in the process around reviews and science in general. It shouldn’t fall on individuals to weed this out but it should absolutely fall on the process to.

Far from being weeded out by the process the process encourages this type of behavior and rewards it.

The review process is completely broken because it gives the reviewers no actual ability to change anything so 99% of the time it's just a rubber stamp.

Interesting take. I’m genuinely curious, do you have examples of that or where the review process clearly fails?

What’s the solution? I actually don’t have a great grasp of how it all works right now. Is there a field-specific board that determines how reviews are done? Is there a feedback loop?

>just not worth sacrificing life time over.

Yep, ready to alienate 30-50% of your friends, even though you were 'right'.

Do this enough times and you only have a few percentage left. "These are your true friends". There is no correlation. I watched someone rage over chapstick usage, they were right, but it looked like a silly debate.

I like the Stoics and those of virtue that sacrifice themselves for everyone else. Its genuinely appreciated if I can take a 30,000 ft high view. Best of luck doing it when humans live on the ground.

> ready to alienate 30-50% of your friends, even though you were 'right'

If your friend is a fraud, that's a separate problem.

I'm not concerned with alienating fraudsters, though the people on their gravy train aren't as easily dismissed. The cost is in collecting the evidence, putting it in the right places, following up, and then continuing to be helpful as someone in a position of authority connects the dots and prepares their response.

The problem isn't friends who are fraudsters. The problem is that a lot of people are automatically and blindly loyal to anything that presents itself as "science", because they perceive it as being ideologically on their side. Such people aren't interested in details. If you attack fraud all they hear is that you're attacking good and noble scientists who are only trying to save the world from {cancer,misinformation,CO2,COVID,whatever} and what sort of monster would do that? Are you a right winger ... friend?

Yep. And, sadly, you can replace "science" with "Roman Catholic Church", or any number of socially-similar human social institutions, and the story is the same. There's a powerful hierarchy invested in the status quo, and a large mob of "little people" at the bottom - who can turn nasty fast if their simplistic worldview seems threatened.

I think it's less about institutions and authority - it's more about you attacking them. People eating up firehose of bullshit from YouTube influencers, or regurgitating nonsense about "chemicals" and processed foods, etc. don't stand on the side of any institutions. But if you try to disabuse them of their false beliefs, most people around you will side with them - not because they're loyal to the same institutions, but because you're the aggressor, the party that is not nice, that rocks the boat. It's that behavior, regardless of target or merits, I believe people have aversion to.

Or put in another way: the first person in a group to get agitated about something has to spend a lot of effort justifying their agitation to the group, because by default, the group won't support or even stay neutral - they'll get weirded out, and/or even shun the agitated person.

”regurgitating nonsense about chemicals and processed foods, etc”

That is not nonsense — you are doing yourself a huge disservice here by ignoring ideas categorically on ideological grounds.

I would like to know what they were right about regarding chapstick usage...

Pretty sure he meant chop.

Damn I really really want to know which.

could be lip balm addiction. It's a thing apparently

I'd still say you surround yourself with... mediocre incompatible folks to keep things polite, a friend is a too strong and overused word that should actually mean something.

A lot of people, I'd say most, desperately want friends and will take quantity over quality anytime. Beggars can't be choosers? It works till it doesn't, and life brings SHTF situations from time to time. You can do serious compromises just to keep them, but I wouldn't call that a proper friendship. Freedom of mind and action that certainly isn't.

I'd take 1-2 good friends with similar life views over an army of acquaintances anytime. But that's me. Its extremely hard to find them, most of childhood friends don't qualify since we end up very different and sometimes incompatible people. And nobody is perfect, neither me nor you, so its good to keep it just a bit humble within all that.

Psst. Anonymous leaks with hard evidence (that doesn't lead to you) is best

That only works when the fraudster already have enemies at the top who are happy to weaponise any anonymous tips about wrongdoings. Otherwise they will be ignored and forgotten, and in certain cases a witch hunt for the traitor inside will be started.

Well, duh, speaking out non-anonymously also has a witch hunt, it is just a very short one.

IMO the witch hunt is a feature.

If you are dealing with sociopaths of this degree, and institutional tolerance of them, you should have VERY ACTIVE plans to divorce yourself from the situation.

Witch hunts frequently only bring the malfeasance to light and accentuate the magnitude of the problem to the social network associated with the sociopath.

Sociopaths and sociopathic organizations function either on outright control and fear, or lies and misplaced trust. Paranoia is the weapon against both of those, and especially places extensive stress on the sociopath who is working mightily to maintain the web of lies.

Hmm. I agree it's best to run away as far as possible from these people, but what if they hurt you and you seek revenge?

>Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic phony in what will almost certainly turn into a battle of wits instead of a battle of facts.

There's a difference between somebody bullshitting at a party and doing so in a professional setting.

I've seen several baffling instances of universities taking years to investigate obvious things and then in the end effectively doing nothing. Like really clear falsification situations that should just get several people fired and other people sanctioned for not noticing.

https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-plan-ret...

Like here, there's people there who should just be booted from the university. It took two years for anybody to even retract the paper. The professor in question had several black marks for what I'd call fraud, and yet still hold a position at the University of Minnesota. Which at this point isn't the researcher's fault but the university's.

"There's a difference between somebody bullshitting at a party and doing so in a professional setting."

It is, but I would say the people in the former basket, are also likely to be found in the second basket.

Most people bullshit at parties, either by embellishing or by exaggeration. It might not always be about their profession but it is a storytelling technique to make their story more interesting. It's a poor indicator I'd argue.

"Most people bullshit at parties"

Many do, but not most. At least not at the parties I attend. And in my experience, it is a strong indicator. Some might manage, to vent out everything BS at parties, but for most their general attitude about appreciation for truth will show in a private setting just as it will show in a professional one. In the professional setting people just care more about hiding that BS.

It’s their willingness to make up shit to appear more interesting that is at the heart of this. Being interesting or rather, being perceived as interesting, is core to their personality and they think that’s normal, but it is not.

I don’t know about “everybody”. It depends on your circle I guess. I know very few of these people and none of my friends are like that. I don’t give a shit about being interesting and nobody I value does either.

> and other people sanctioned for not noticing.

This is often by design by the fraudster, if one can compromise enough their own governing body, the people in there will need to protect the fraudster out of self preservation.

I think that in Anglo-American culture it's also usually a faux-pas to confront a 'phony' in casual conversation. I've met lots of phonies in my time, and I feel as though calling them out on their BS stories, even in a subtle way, would have been a bigger faux-pas than telling it in the first place. It makes sense, I guess. Forcing the person to lose face and admit their lie would sour any social occasion.

My gut tells me we need a charismatic pro standup comedian to get out of the political morass. It’s the only profession with an obligation to call out or even transmute BS. Think Jon Stewart, or Gervais at the Golden Globes, but kindlier and bipartisan. In science, its often enough just to publish.

> I think that in Anglo-American culture it's also usually a faux-pas to confront a 'phony' in casual conversation.

I think it's typically a faux-pas to call out someone's bullshit/faults/shortcomings in mixed company in most situations. It's also not very likely to result in anything constructive or make you look good. Sometimes the truth just needs to be said, but generally you're better off telling people that truth in private or (when it really matters) raising concerns with someone who can do something about it.

Calling someone out in public is high risk with little benefit. Rolling your eyes, biting your tongue, and letting someone dig themselves into a deeper hole is usually a smarter move.

> Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic phony

It's not the charisma that's a problem, it's the zealotry, usually driven by uninformed press looking for the right "type" of story.

> They build up cult followings

Which came first? The cult or the charlatan?

> Do you want to expose this person?

Which, in my estimation, is why people usually fail at the task. Your goal isn't to denigrate the other person for being a liar, your goal is to ensure that people can see the truth regardless of their lies. And the very last thing you want to do is engage of lies of your own to pursue the former goal.

Exactly, if you call them out, they’ll paint you as a mean jerk, and discredit you.

I blame the society that elevates hurt feelings above truth.

It's not the hurt feelings that are elevated, it is the direct personal attack that is elevated.

They’re only considered attacks if feelings are “hurt” in the process. An “attack” could potentially be looked at as constructive criticism, then by some witchcraft, it is no longer an attack.

It’s the classic “if you’re attractive you’re not creepy, otherwise you’re creepy” where attractive is wholly subjective. The GP is right.

==They’re only considered attacks if feelings are “hurt” in the process.==

I don't follow. Someone can "attack" me verbally, but not "hurt" me in any way because I know their attack is false.

Your stance feels like saying a crime only exists if the criminal was successful. Attempted attacks are still attacks even if they aren't successful in hurting someone.

==An “attack” could potentially be looked at as constructive criticism, then by some witchcraft, it is no longer an attack.==

Different people can interpret the same event differently. We see this in politics all the time. When called out, they say "I was just joking."

Exactly, you’re allowed to attack others if you do it indirectly, if you’re sneaky about it. Straight up pointing at someone’s bullshit is considered a direct attack and not OK. Being indirect is not strong enough to get that person out of a position of power.

This is one of the reasons I left academia. I never wanted to lay down when one of the demi gods profs was having a toddler fit.

An example was when I was a phd student and He came to us to discuss what we were doing. I told him that I was doing simulations and neutral networks in physics (mid 90s'). He laughed and said that this is for the weaker/dumber ones, the ones who can't do theory. To which I said that indeed, this requires to be actually intelligent, not just pretend like the ones who do <his topic>. I looked him in the eyes with a "wanna go that road, pal?" kind of eyes.

Long story short, my phd defense was done when he was on vacation :)

Doesn't the charismatic phony lives in a society where most people. are just barely making it by?

Advertise publicly how huge of a fraud this charismatic phony is.

Look towards the deep south in the early 1900s for how many charismatic phonies (as well as unfortunately many innocents) were treated: lynch mobs, property destruction, exile on fear of permanent injury or death.

It's a worthy model.

Even harder when people want to believe the lie (recycling, magic diet pills, etc.)

great comment. As an example, you don't need to look further than tiny IG fraudsters either, they're so obviously grifters/liars but their comment sections are filled with (likely paid) sycophants. Detractors are torn apart before their comments can gain traction. Honest folk don't have the time or resources to do fraudster takedowns. For fraudsters that's their entire business model

Reply on news.ycombinator.com