6 ms·

>There is a large chunk of society who're easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups I think this sentence is the biggest ind

>There is a large chunk of society who're easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups I think this sentence is the biggest indicator of the problem. The Problem being not that there are large parts of society swayed by emotional rhetoric, but that to most people, the emotional swaying happens to others. It's never me who's swayed by emotions, it's always less rational people, and if only those people could get their shit together, like me, we'd be in a much better place. You're just as swayed by emotion as those non nerds, you're just swayed on different values. Pretending like you're above it gets us nowhere, because it perpetuates an unhelpful me vs everyone else mentality. It's very satisfying to the ego but it just serves to further drive a wedge between you and everyone else.

mannykannot 11y ago
We should indeed recognize that we are all prone to the effect, but here you have replaced one sweeping generalization with another.
- fsloth 11y ago
  All positions have a political dimension into them. Real world is not computable - hence, opinions and beliefs dominate. From a purely mathematical point of view, any political grouping is arbitrary and non-exact. Until someone figures out a social calculus - in effect, an algorithm to compute what is good and what is evil - there really is no scientific high ground for thinking fascists are in absolute terms worse than 'computer geeks'. What we can do - and improve on- is recognise we have different opinions and that's ok (although pathological behaviour which sometimes stems from certain political beliefs is not).
  - decayza 11y ago
    You beautifully illustrate Bertrand's point. Of course we can think geeks is better. We've got a ton of data to look at.
    - fsloth 11y ago
      I would very much like to have this data :)
      - decayza 11y ago
        Its called the 20th century. Study it a bit.
        fsloth 11y ago
        I presume you mean that the tech stack of modern civilization was created by 'geeks' (although that's stretching the definition quite a bit)? Ignoring all the politicians, businessmen and artists trivializes civilizations development quite a bit. Also, science and technology is morally and politically impartial. Note that saying increased knowledge or productivity 'is good' is again a value statement. Yeah, I think so too but that's just my position - but this is not a mathematical truth but a political position that requires constant backing up. The point that this requires constant backing up in adiscussion (and that that's the way it should be) and not considering people with different values and priorities as 'being wrong' was the whole point of this thread.
        decayza 11y ago
        "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." This is the point Bertrand was making. Stupid people believe so deeply that it gives them power to act. The intelligent is so obsessed with the minutia of possible difference- like whether increased knowledge is good or bad - That we suffer from permanent analysis paralysis. We're impotent when action is required. So no I think you're confused about the point of the discussion ;/
jasim 11y ago
The question I was pondering in the comment was whether the tragic cycle of progress and destruction is true or not. I'd love to learn otherwise - but data paints a bleak picture. It took just about twenty years after the 'war to end all wars' for the second World War to begin. Even though there isn't a World War at the moment, UN recently published a report stating that the displacement of humans due to war and persecution is at an all time high in recorded history (http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html). The question so is whether we are we simply doomed to repeat history. But as you noted, there is a degree of hidden bias in my statement. I will be more careful in such thoughts in the future. However, one cannot think about the world in a completely detached manner without making any sort of personal value judgements. We have to ascribe some degree of validity to people's opinions and decisions, and to where we personally stand in that spectrum. It is just that such judgements should be made after deliberation, and not slip in as a patterned thought as I have erred here.
Angostura 11y ago
I think this post is the biggest indicator of the problem, as set out by Russell. > The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
mcguire 11y ago
That's what struck me most about the article, as well. Russell's essay is very flattering, until you realize the we that he terms "the best men of the present day" are probably not the we of Hacker News. In particular, when Russell writes about "the philosophical radicals ... who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are[, who] dominated politics and ... advanced [the world] rapidly both in intelligence and in material well-being," he is very likely writing about people who would definitely be a Hacker News they, given what I know about his politics and given statements like "if at any future time there should be danger of a Labour Government that meant business, [the British Fascists] would win the support of most of the governing classes." So, if this essay leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about your "wider and truer outlook" and the feeling that you are being oppressed because of your "skepticism and intellectual individualism", well, congratulations! You've discovered the power of emotional rhetoric.
- Sven7 11y ago
  Great point. It's why the Elon Musk's, Larry Page's and Bill Gates of the tech world retreat into their own private dreamlands as far away from the politics of the real world as possible, cause they know they don't stand a chance against the rhetorical snake charmers that are Bush, Obama, Clinton and now Trump. I'll leave here, Matt Taibbi's more modern take on this that blames the media or what I like to call the rhetoric amplification industry. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-is-too-dumb-for-tv-news-20151125 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-is-too-dum... The solutions are complex but eventually we'll have to start looking at China. Cause no one else seems to be working on alternatives to what the media has become today.
  - poof131 11y ago
    Wow. Democracy can be ugly, but to look to an oligarchy for the solution? I think this is the antithesis of Russell’s thrust.
    - Sven7 11y ago
      Russell had no idea nor could anyone have imagined what the modern news media would turn itself into today. Which is why I posted the Taibbi piece.
decayza 11y ago
This is why liberal intelectuals are so paralyzed. Yes of course we're emotional too. And yes we can be swayed. But life is not black and white. The best of us has managed to develop a resistance to this kind of rhetoric by a life of study, debate, examining common rhetorical tricks etc. And it's not just different values that drives us. It's values that has carried us through a century of carnage into a much better life. We need to stop apologising and invoking bullshit relativistic cultural arguments and show some pride in basic values like equality for women, freedom of speech etc. I kind of think that's the central point that Bertrand Russell is making we paralyze each other by focusing on any potential error instead of realising that the things we value is mostly aligned and has been refined over a long time. We can trust most of our values.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  I would argue it was only through 'bullshit relativistic cultural arguments' that equality for women and freedom of speech are even considered basic values to begin with.
  - decayza 11y ago
    Please explain, I can't even imagine what you could be referring to.
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      You should read Thomas Sowell's "A conflict of visions". It's short and really great. It's about why people group themselves into the political left and right, and why those sides disagree. One of the points he makes is that the left and right don't agree on what the words "equality" or "fairness" mean. Right wing people tend to focus on equality of process. Left wing people tend to focus on equality of outcome. That is, a conservative will tend to say "is the hiring process fair? yes? then if 90% of the jobs go to men, there's no problem". Whereas on the political left, they may say "if 90% of the jobs go to men then by definition the hiring process is not fair, and we should find a Solution, like by setting quotas". Right-wingers will tend to reject direct intervention like that, as they don't trust in human ability to intervene without causing unexpected and undesirable side effects.
Super_Jambo 11y ago
This just strikes me as post modernist / relativist bullshit. You're claiming that the real problem is not a population largely persuaded to vote against it's own interests inside a voting system which fundamentally empowers party insiders at the expense of the population. No the problem is ALL OF US, we're just as emotional as these manipulated people!!11 Stop worrying about the broken voting system, the owned press and mislead population. Instead worry about your own emotionally driven mind. It appears like a wise argument against HN hubris but you're really trying to derail people from a clear view of a problem and instead move the debate into introspection.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  If everyone thinks they aren't the ones being misled, and the problem is with other people, how are you going to help them realise what's really going on? The best type of leading is leading by example. Encouraging introspection by doing it, regardless of whether you think the problem is with you or not, is more likely to bring in good habits faster than telling people they're wrong.
- philh 11y ago
  Epistemic status: attempting to point at a thing that I can't fully articulate Whenever one side is totally in the right and the other side is totally in the wrong, you'll get people calling for moderation. "There are two sides to every story," they say. "How can you be sure that you're so different from your opponents?" Whenever two sides are exactly the same, you'll get people calling for action. "Look at the atrocities they commit! You can't justify that." And in the first case, you'll also get people calling for action. "Look at the atrocities they commit! You can't justify that." And the people calling for moderation will further say: "whenever two sides are exactly the same, you get people calling for action..." And in the second case, you'll also get people calling for moderation. "There are two sides to every story." And the people calling for action will further say: "whenever one side is totally in the right and the other side is totally in the wrong..." So it goes.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    You've just created an infinite loop here, you know? My takeaway is: just disregard what everyone is saying and focus on the consequences of the actions proposed.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
savanaly 11y ago
Don't you think it's possible that through diligent study of human interaction and how the mind works you could gain a better understanding of how biases are formed and reinforced and stand a chance of recognizing when your own rational decision making is being bypassed? And in fact there is a large group of people (mainly the nerds, as it happens) who are working daily towards exactly that? And haven't they earned at least a little bit of the right to call themselves more rational than the person who has never even thought in these terms for a single moment of their life? >It's never me who's swayed by emotions, it's always less rational people, and if only those people could get their shit together, like me, we'd be in a much better place. That is true, though I would amend it to "even if they got their shit together, like me, we would still have a long ways to go in that regard. But it sure would help if everyone knew what confirmation bias was so that politicians and the media couldn't so easily use it to convince people of things that might not be true!"
- mike_hearn 11y ago
  Diligent study of how biases are formed? Sure. Nerds working daily towards that? Lol, no. Psychologists, maybe. "Nerds" of the Hacker News variety are every bit as susceptible to various psychological failings as anyone else. There's nothing special about programming or physics or chemistry that makes you into some sort of uber-rational superhuman and it's very dangerous to believe that. As time goes by, the more it seems to me that deep down we're all pretty much the same. The spectrum of human nature is pretty small: the gap between the most intellectual and moral and the least isn't anywhere near as big as some would like to think. For every intellectual with a convoluted theory that leads to an unintuitive conclusion, there's a man on the street armed with common sense and a degree from the University of Life who can blow it out of the water with a single sharp observation.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Diligent study of how biases are formed? Sure. > Nerds working daily towards that? Lol, no. You realize that the only difference between those two is a piece of paper? Getting a college education is - or rather, was - literally being a nerd of $SUBJECT_MATTER.

mannykannot 11y ago

We should indeed recognize that we are all prone to the effect, but here you have replaced one sweeping generalization with another.

fsloth 11y ago
All positions have a political dimension into them. Real world is not computable - hence, opinions and beliefs dominate. From a purely mathematical point of view, any political grouping is arbitrary and non-exact. Until someone figures out a social calculus - in effect, an algorithm to compute what is good and what is evil - there really is no scientific high ground for thinking fascists are in absolute terms worse than 'computer geeks'. What we can do - and improve on- is recognise we have different opinions and that's ok (although pathological behaviour which sometimes stems from certain political beliefs is not).
- decayza 11y ago
  You beautifully illustrate Bertrand's point. Of course we can think geeks is better. We've got a ton of data to look at.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    I would very much like to have this data :)
    - decayza 11y ago
      Its called the 20th century. Study it a bit.
      - fsloth 11y ago
        I presume you mean that the tech stack of modern civilization was created by 'geeks' (although that's stretching the definition quite a bit)? Ignoring all the politicians, businessmen and artists trivializes civilizations development quite a bit. Also, science and technology is morally and politically impartial. Note that saying increased knowledge or productivity 'is good' is again a value statement. Yeah, I think so too but that's just my position - but this is not a mathematical truth but a political position that requires constant backing up. The point that this requires constant backing up in adiscussion (and that that's the way it should be) and not considering people with different values and priorities as 'being wrong' was the whole point of this thread.
        decayza 11y ago
        "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." This is the point Bertrand was making. Stupid people believe so deeply that it gives them power to act. The intelligent is so obsessed with the minutia of possible difference- like whether increased knowledge is good or bad - That we suffer from permanent analysis paralysis. We're impotent when action is required. So no I think you're confused about the point of the discussion ;/

jasim 11y ago

The question I was pondering in the comment was whether the tragic cycle of progress and destruction is true or not. I'd love to learn otherwise - but data paints a bleak picture. It took just about twenty years after the 'war to end all wars' for the second World War to begin. Even though there isn't a World War at the moment, UN recently published a report stating that the displacement of humans due to war and persecution is at an all time high in recorded history (http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html). The question so is whether we are we simply doomed to repeat history. But as you noted, there is a degree of hidden bias in my statement. I will be more careful in such thoughts in the future. However, one cannot think about the world in a completely detached manner without making any sort of personal value judgements. We have to ascribe some degree of validity to people's opinions and decisions, and to where we personally stand in that spectrum. It is just that such judgements should be made after deliberation, and not slip in as a patterned thought as I have erred here.

Angostura 11y ago

I think this post is the biggest indicator of the problem, as set out by Russell. > The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

mcguire 11y ago

That's what struck me most about the article, as well. Russell's essay is very flattering, until you realize the we that he terms "the best men of the present day" are probably not the we of Hacker News. In particular, when Russell writes about "the philosophical radicals ... who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are[, who] dominated politics and ... advanced [the world] rapidly both in intelligence and in material well-being," he is very likely writing about people who would definitely be a Hacker News they, given what I know about his politics and given statements like "if at any future time there should be danger of a Labour Government that meant business, [the British Fascists] would win the support of most of the governing classes." So, if this essay leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about your "wider and truer outlook" and the feeling that you are being oppressed because of your "skepticism and intellectual individualism", well, congratulations! You've discovered the power of emotional rhetoric.

Sven7 11y ago
Great point. It's why the Elon Musk's, Larry Page's and Bill Gates of the tech world retreat into their own private dreamlands as far away from the politics of the real world as possible, cause they know they don't stand a chance against the rhetorical snake charmers that are Bush, Obama, Clinton and now Trump. I'll leave here, Matt Taibbi's more modern take on this that blames the media or what I like to call the rhetoric amplification industry. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-is-too-dumb-for-tv-news-20151125 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-is-too-dum... The solutions are complex but eventually we'll have to start looking at China. Cause no one else seems to be working on alternatives to what the media has become today.
- poof131 11y ago
  Wow. Democracy can be ugly, but to look to an oligarchy for the solution? I think this is the antithesis of Russell’s thrust.
  - Sven7 11y ago
    Russell had no idea nor could anyone have imagined what the modern news media would turn itself into today. Which is why I posted the Taibbi piece.

decayza 11y ago

This is why liberal intelectuals are so paralyzed. Yes of course we're emotional too. And yes we can be swayed. But life is not black and white. The best of us has managed to develop a resistance to this kind of rhetoric by a life of study, debate, examining common rhetorical tricks etc. And it's not just different values that drives us. It's values that has carried us through a century of carnage into a much better life. We need to stop apologising and invoking bullshit relativistic cultural arguments and show some pride in basic values like equality for women, freedom of speech etc. I kind of think that's the central point that Bertrand Russell is making we paralyze each other by focusing on any potential error instead of realising that the things we value is mostly aligned and has been refined over a long time. We can trust most of our values.

SolaceQuantum 11y ago
I would argue it was only through 'bullshit relativistic cultural arguments' that equality for women and freedom of speech are even considered basic values to begin with.
- decayza 11y ago
  Please explain, I can't even imagine what you could be referring to.
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    You should read Thomas Sowell's "A conflict of visions". It's short and really great. It's about why people group themselves into the political left and right, and why those sides disagree. One of the points he makes is that the left and right don't agree on what the words "equality" or "fairness" mean. Right wing people tend to focus on equality of process. Left wing people tend to focus on equality of outcome. That is, a conservative will tend to say "is the hiring process fair? yes? then if 90% of the jobs go to men, there's no problem". Whereas on the political left, they may say "if 90% of the jobs go to men then by definition the hiring process is not fair, and we should find a Solution, like by setting quotas". Right-wingers will tend to reject direct intervention like that, as they don't trust in human ability to intervene without causing unexpected and undesirable side effects.

Super_Jambo 11y ago

This just strikes me as post modernist / relativist bullshit. You're claiming that the real problem is not a population largely persuaded to vote against it's own interests inside a voting system which fundamentally empowers party insiders at the expense of the population. No the problem is ALL OF US, we're just as emotional as these manipulated people!!11 Stop worrying about the broken voting system, the owned press and mislead population. Instead worry about your own emotionally driven mind. It appears like a wise argument against HN hubris but you're really trying to derail people from a clear view of a problem and instead move the debate into introspection.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
If everyone thinks they aren't the ones being misled, and the problem is with other people, how are you going to help them realise what's really going on? The best type of leading is leading by example. Encouraging introspection by doing it, regardless of whether you think the problem is with you or not, is more likely to bring in good habits faster than telling people they're wrong.
philh 11y ago
Epistemic status: attempting to point at a thing that I can't fully articulate Whenever one side is totally in the right and the other side is totally in the wrong, you'll get people calling for moderation. "There are two sides to every story," they say. "How can you be sure that you're so different from your opponents?" Whenever two sides are exactly the same, you'll get people calling for action. "Look at the atrocities they commit! You can't justify that." And in the first case, you'll also get people calling for action. "Look at the atrocities they commit! You can't justify that." And the people calling for moderation will further say: "whenever two sides are exactly the same, you get people calling for action..." And in the second case, you'll also get people calling for moderation. "There are two sides to every story." And the people calling for action will further say: "whenever one side is totally in the right and the other side is totally in the wrong..." So it goes.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You've just created an infinite loop here, you know? My takeaway is: just disregard what everyone is saying and focus on the consequences of the actions proposed.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

savanaly 11y ago

Don't you think it's possible that through diligent study of human interaction and how the mind works you could gain a better understanding of how biases are formed and reinforced and stand a chance of recognizing when your own rational decision making is being bypassed? And in fact there is a large group of people (mainly the nerds, as it happens) who are working daily towards exactly that? And haven't they earned at least a little bit of the right to call themselves more rational than the person who has never even thought in these terms for a single moment of their life? >It's never me who's swayed by emotions, it's always less rational people, and if only those people could get their shit together, like me, we'd be in a much better place. That is true, though I would amend it to "even if they got their shit together, like me, we would still have a long ways to go in that regard. But it sure would help if everyone knew what confirmation bias was so that politicians and the media couldn't so easily use it to convince people of things that might not be true!"

mike_hearn 11y ago
Diligent study of how biases are formed? Sure. Nerds working daily towards that? Lol, no. Psychologists, maybe. "Nerds" of the Hacker News variety are every bit as susceptible to various psychological failings as anyone else. There's nothing special about programming or physics or chemistry that makes you into some sort of uber-rational superhuman and it's very dangerous to believe that. As time goes by, the more it seems to me that deep down we're all pretty much the same. The spectrum of human nature is pretty small: the gap between the most intellectual and moral and the least isn't anywhere near as big as some would like to think. For every intellectual with a convoluted theory that leads to an unintuitive conclusion, there's a man on the street armed with common sense and a degree from the University of Life who can blow it out of the water with a single sharp observation.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Diligent study of how biases are formed? Sure. > Nerds working daily towards that? Lol, no. You realize that the only difference between those two is a piece of paper? Getting a college education is - or rather, was - literally being a nerd of $SUBJECT_MATTER.