3 ms·

I know what you mean. I think there are a few problems here: 1. There's a fine line between open-minded and irrational, and unfortunately a lot of people end

I know what you mean. I think there are a few problems here: 1. There's a fine line between open-minded and irrational, and unfortunately a lot of people end up crossing it. This becomes a negative feedback loop wherein more and more people don't want to risk their reputations by sounding like they identify with irrational / fringe groups or ideas. 2. It's easy to identify genius in retrospect, but prior to being validated, people who really think ahead of their time are by definition in the minority, so they either have to get used to being laughed at / criticized, or give up. So I guess I would say, keep looking for peers who are open-minded but not irrational. I went to Carnegie-Mellon (`03) and knew hundreds of bright people there, but only 1 or 2 who I considered to be able to think out of the box, as you say. They're people worth finding, though!

theoh 10y ago
I'm not sure a ban on irrationality is exactly what you want. Even psychosis can be a very creative and valuable moment of insight or growth, and people inclined to (admittedly unreliable) irrational thought need to be supported by others rather than shunned. See also this recent article: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/11/election-ourage-moral-rationality-study/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/11/election-ourage-mor... Also, HN in particular can have a kneejerk objectivist flavour that discourages intuitive, unconventional discussion. Dismissing people who seem irrational is not a good way to encourage healthy cognitive diversity, and we could do with less of it.
- duncancarroll 10y ago
  Sure; I think you may have read my comment wrong, I'm talking about people who, for example, think they're channelling the Archangel Gabriel or that they can materialize objects into existence, or make other totally unfounded claims. The point I was making was that those people do a disservice to open discussion because nobody wants to be painted with that brush, so it ends up becoming an HN-type situation where, as you rightly pointed out, there is a resistance to new ideas. There's probably a formal-discourse type term for it.

theoh 10y ago

I'm not sure a ban on irrationality is exactly what you want. Even psychosis can be a very creative and valuable moment of insight or growth, and people inclined to (admittedly unreliable) irrational thought need to be supported by others rather than shunned. See also this recent article: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/11/election-ourage-moral-rationality-study/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/11/election-ourage-mor... Also, HN in particular can have a kneejerk objectivist flavour that discourages intuitive, unconventional discussion. Dismissing people who seem irrational is not a good way to encourage healthy cognitive diversity, and we could do with less of it.

duncancarroll 10y ago
Sure; I think you may have read my comment wrong, I'm talking about people who, for example, think they're channelling the Archangel Gabriel or that they can materialize objects into existence, or make other totally unfounded claims. The point I was making was that those people do a disservice to open discussion because nobody wants to be painted with that brush, so it ends up becoming an HN-type situation where, as you rightly pointed out, there is a resistance to new ideas. There's probably a formal-discourse type term for it.