Hacker News Reader

Comment by prettyStandard | Hacker News Reader

This is a value system disagreement.

I have a theory that there's basically two types of disagreements, disagreements on definitions, and disagreements on value systems.

In this case Microsoft values downplaying this issue, so when that is at the top of their value system their decisions should make sense following that.

Since this is just a pet theory I'm very interested to hear critiques on it.

Disagreements on definition are a little bit easier, because then you can just talk about the definitions and resolve your differences there... For example let's say IDK You're trying to sort out how to design a software system, and everyone is speaking in terms of design patterns, but they haven't yet spelled out the details of what those designed patterns are, then that could probably lead to a lot of confusion if when you say A I think of A', and another person is thinking of A''.

View on HN

I like this. I first noticed this with gay marriage. Some would say "gay people should be able to do what they want and form 'civil unions' with all the tax and contractual benefits and requirements of marriage, but they shouldn't be able to get 'married'". For these people, it was all about the definition of a word.

Other people opposed gay marriage because it went against their values. No matter what you wanted to call it, they were opposed to gay people living together and sharing their lives.

I chose this example because it's the first time I noticed that some disagreements are about the definition of a word, and it's an especially clear example of that. It's silly how huge disagreements about a single word can become.

There are also people who disguise their value disagreement as a definition disagreement. This is a form of bad faith arguing.

I think your example is accurate.

I think there's another example around trans-vocabulary:

The analog of the 1st half is "I'm not going to stop you from cutting off your man bits, but don't expect me to call you a 'woman'. 'Trans woman' is ok because that's a new word, but 'woman' already has a meaning and don't try to change it."

The analog of the 2nd half is "You shouldn't do that because you're a man and you need to act like one." Or perhaps it's an affront to nature or the divine.

Some of this may be due to a desire to transform an illicit desire for authority ("I declare that I shall not pay out a bounty") into a legitimate contest ("this bug is not a bug because I desire to clarify our communal understanding of the concept of a bug...").

Difference between the first and second there is basically the dividing line between the gender-critical feminists and the conservatives, on this topic.

> Some would say "gay people should be able to do what they want and form 'civil unions' with all the tax and contractual benefits and requirements of marriage, but they shouldn't be able to get 'married'".

> Other people opposed gay marriage because it went against their values.

This difference does not matter - the outcome was the same. Stop treating bigots with kid gloves.

> This is a value system disagreement.

Sorry, this is not a value system disagreement. It's definitions, pure and simple. As I mentioned in my sibling comment, the definition (and thus boundary) has been pretty sharp and clear for decades: the user group. If you're a standard user, such as in the "Users" or "Guests" groups, you're behind the boundary. If you're in the "Administrators" group, you're already past it.

That's all there is to it.

I see what you're saying...

I think the sibling comment accidentally put it better.

> There are also people who disguise their value disagreement as a definition disagreement.

Or maybe even more to the point: they are twisting their definitions to support their values.

I think we can agree on this.

>> There are also people who disguise their value disagreement as a definition disagreement.

> Or maybe even more to the point: they are twisting their definitions to support their values. I think we can agree on this.

I take it you're insinuating I'm one of these people here?

Hasn't group membership been the defining security boundary in Windows for over two decades?

> this is not a value system disagreement.

Yes, it is. The issue is not that people don't understand how MS defines what is and is not a security boundary. The issue is that MS's definition is for the benefit of MS, not for the benefit of the user. That's a value system disagreement.

> The issue is not that people don't understand how MS defines what is and is not a security boundary.

That's a communication failure, not a value system disagreement.

> The issue is that MS's definition is for the benefit of MS, not for the benefit of the user. That's a value system disagreement.

Just because two entities differ on their values that doesn't mean everything they disagree on is their values.

In this case, the fact that users and Microsoft differ on what constitutes a security boundary is 100% a definitional disagreement.

Now MS obviously has had their own values and reasons for not establishing other security boundaries people would like, and that is a value system disagreement. But even if their values agreed with yours and they hated the current design just like you, the fact of the matter would still be that user account groups are the boundaries in the current design, and that would still imply this isn't crossing a security boundary, making the disagreement on that definitional.

> that doesn't mean everything they disagree on is their values.

I never made any such claim.

> the fact that users and Microsoft differ on what constitutes a security boundary

I never made that claim either.

> MS obviously has had their own values and reasons for not establishing other security boundaries people would like, and that is a value system disagreement.

Thank you for agreeing with the claim I actually did make.

Socratic logic argues you must first agree on the meaning of terms and definitions. Next is determination of what the facts are. Lastly is logical arguments. Guess which part is the most difficult?

Religious logic is like this. It presupposes a greater mystery that has been partially revealed to us. It also presupposes that our fallible logic cannot on its own understand the truth. In other words it defines faith as believing in the greater truth even if the world and every one says we are foolish to believe in such fairy tales.

I think that's helpful for me and my theory. Informed by Socrates I will refine my theory. O:-)

There's three forms of disagreements.

1. Disagreements on definitions

2. Disagreements on facts

Kind of hard to disagree on logical implications

3. Disagreements on value systems

Not to be dense, which is most difficult?

Facts are the most contentious because the disingenuous will argue that’s not how they interpret term xxx. Even if you call them out for switching meaning during the argument, they will claim they had a mental lapse and say they really mean yyy.

This assumes Microsoft being a singular entity with a single set of values (or even a single set of definitions), which I believe is an incorrect premise. It’s misleading to think of organizations as if they were a single mind. (Not to speak of the fact that it’s quite common even for singular minds to have inconsistent values and beliefs.)

It makes sense if Microsoft's strategy is having a flexible self-serving value system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com