3 ms·

> How do we solve this problem? I don't know, but I hope there is a solution. Two solutions I can think of: (a) private, close-knit communities, i.e. not HN.

by oskarth 10y ago

> How do we solve this problem? I don't know, but I hope there is a solution. Two solutions I can think of: (a) private, close-knit communities, i.e. not HN. (b) new norms developing to judge people's action in a specific domain based on actions in that specific domain, i.e. Jessica Livingston qua startup investor, not qua x-ist or proponent of y-ology or whatever. Of course, this goes against the very idea of identity politics, where the whole point seems to be to couple every person with their (supposed) political views, i.e. humans qua politicians. One thing you realize with that second frame is that most people, Y.T. included in this thread, are not acting in capacity of anything. One might call us "qua randoms", spouting opinion without skin in the game (assuming it isn't qua friend, etc).

gtirloni 10y ago
Just searched for the meaning of "qua" and it seems you are using it as "as" (so "humans as politicians"). Just wanted to add it here in case others also don't have a clue what "qua" means.
- oskarth 10y ago
  Should've added that, thanks. It means more than just "as", it also means "in the capacity of", for which there's in my opinion no good english substitute. It comes from Aristotle (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/#7.4 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/#7....), but there are also somewhat similar strains of thought in confucianism, usually in a more prescriptive manner (how to be an X to a Y).
msabalau 10y ago
If the problem is "too much downside in being distracted by people's opinions about my opinions", some options would seem to be: * publish anonymously, putting the ideas in the discourse, albeit without them getting the signal boost of one's reputation. * publish them in a format, such as a book, where you can explain them in such detail that you can ignore people misinterpretations, satisfied that you have explained everything to the best of your ability, and you don't have to worry about people's misinterpretations. This seems a lot of effort, and it's hardly certain one would succeed. * It's unclear if the problem is that people will misinterpret across the universe of social and traditional media (which seems unsolvable) or simply within a particular forum in which the idea is shared. If it's merely within a particular forum, then one could have a private secretary (or sufficiently advanced AI, or grad student, or friend) cull through the comments for interesting responses, saving you the burden of looking at the rest. * If, as is hypothesized, the successful are full of ideas that it would be a burden to share, presumably a credible third party could collect and publish these ideas. Politico, for example, had a panel of insiders from both parties who gave their impressions on the presidential campaign, with quotes not being attributed to any particular panelist. *If misinterpretation comes from people "shooting from the hip" because posting first is rewarded, one partial mitigation might be putting replies in a lockbox and, say, displaying them after 8 hours, with the replies with certain characteristics (longer, more complicated sentence structure, less inflammatory words) being displayed more prominently. At that point more interactive commenter to commenter exchanges could begin.
vertex-four 10y ago
The problem with (b) is that when I empower or support somebody in one context, they receive a platform in which to influence people in other contexts. As an example, a famous actor will have some degree of media reach in which to push their political views, support of a charity, or whatever else. Especially when I support someone monetarily, they are able to spend that money on things that I find abhorrent, and use that money to buy influence, even if I'm supporting them because of a product or piece of art. I think I'd be ethically liable if I knowingly gave a significant chunk of money to somebody who I knew would later use it to influence people towards harming others.
- oskarth 10y ago
  Money is usually earmarked for specific purposes. If you buy a movie cause you think one of the actors in it is good you are supporting that movie. The person playing the part may become rich and do things you "disagree" with, but so what? That's life and human freedom for you; you can't control everything. You are paying for a movie and encouraging them to make more movies. If they are breaking laws qua citizen or being a bad friend, that'll sort itself out. Of course you are free to boycott them if you so wish, but boy do you need to boycott a lot of people if you apply this strictly. There are other systems in place to take care of this, which may or may not require additional work (such as justice system not being as strict with rich people), but that's a separate question.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    If somebody told me "hey, I'm going to buy a gun and murder someone - would you like to buy my new album?" I would certainly say no. I don't see why it's any different when the consequences are abstracted a little. No, I can't save the world on my own, and nor can anyone. I've done a good many things which have directly and indirectly resulted in harm towards others, because I need to in order to survive in today's society. But that's not the point - the point is to build an ethical framework in which we can aim towards intentionally enabling less harm, even if we can't ensure no harm.
    - 10y ago

by oskarth 10y ago

gtirloni 10y ago

Just searched for the meaning of "qua" and it seems you are using it as "as" (so "humans as politicians"). Just wanted to add it here in case others also don't have a clue what "qua" means.

oskarth 10y ago
Should've added that, thanks. It means more than just "as", it also means "in the capacity of", for which there's in my opinion no good english substitute. It comes from Aristotle (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/#7.4 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/#7....), but there are also somewhat similar strains of thought in confucianism, usually in a more prescriptive manner (how to be an X to a Y).

msabalau 10y ago

If the problem is "too much downside in being distracted by people's opinions about my opinions", some options would seem to be: * publish anonymously, putting the ideas in the discourse, albeit without them getting the signal boost of one's reputation. * publish them in a format, such as a book, where you can explain them in such detail that you can ignore people misinterpretations, satisfied that you have explained everything to the best of your ability, and you don't have to worry about people's misinterpretations. This seems a lot of effort, and it's hardly certain one would succeed. * It's unclear if the problem is that people will misinterpret across the universe of social and traditional media (which seems unsolvable) or simply within a particular forum in which the idea is shared. If it's merely within a particular forum, then one could have a private secretary (or sufficiently advanced AI, or grad student, or friend) cull through the comments for interesting responses, saving you the burden of looking at the rest. * If, as is hypothesized, the successful are full of ideas that it would be a burden to share, presumably a credible third party could collect and publish these ideas. Politico, for example, had a panel of insiders from both parties who gave their impressions on the presidential campaign, with quotes not being attributed to any particular panelist. *If misinterpretation comes from people "shooting from the hip" because posting first is rewarded, one partial mitigation might be putting replies in a lockbox and, say, displaying them after 8 hours, with the replies with certain characteristics (longer, more complicated sentence structure, less inflammatory words) being displayed more prominently. At that point more interactive commenter to commenter exchanges could begin.

vertex-four 10y ago

The problem with (b) is that when I empower or support somebody in one context, they receive a platform in which to influence people in other contexts. As an example, a famous actor will have some degree of media reach in which to push their political views, support of a charity, or whatever else. Especially when I support someone monetarily, they are able to spend that money on things that I find abhorrent, and use that money to buy influence, even if I'm supporting them because of a product or piece of art. I think I'd be ethically liable if I knowingly gave a significant chunk of money to somebody who I knew would later use it to influence people towards harming others.

oskarth 10y ago
Money is usually earmarked for specific purposes. If you buy a movie cause you think one of the actors in it is good you are supporting that movie. The person playing the part may become rich and do things you "disagree" with, but so what? That's life and human freedom for you; you can't control everything. You are paying for a movie and encouraging them to make more movies. If they are breaking laws qua citizen or being a bad friend, that'll sort itself out. Of course you are free to boycott them if you so wish, but boy do you need to boycott a lot of people if you apply this strictly. There are other systems in place to take care of this, which may or may not require additional work (such as justice system not being as strict with rich people), but that's a separate question.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  If somebody told me "hey, I'm going to buy a gun and murder someone - would you like to buy my new album?" I would certainly say no. I don't see why it's any different when the consequences are abstracted a little. No, I can't save the world on my own, and nor can anyone. I've done a good many things which have directly and indirectly resulted in harm towards others, because I need to in order to survive in today's society. But that's not the point - the point is to build an ethical framework in which we can aim towards intentionally enabling less harm, even if we can't ensure no harm.
  - 10y ago