3 ms·

I think it's clear that lcw was making an observation about the tone of HN comments on the topic. I found it to be a reasonable one that matches my perception.

I think it's clear that lcw was making an observation about the tone of HN comments on the topic. I found it to be a reasonable one that matches my perception. Disputing his comment makes sense if you think he's wrong, but it seems unreasonable to require people to back up such commentary with "stats".

grzm 10y ago
There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists. This gets particularly pernicious when discussing contentious topics. Given the how damaging this can be (current political discourse in the US or here on HN is a good example), making such generalizations really needs to be justified. In 'lcw's comment, the generalization doesn't add anything substantive to the comment. Indeed, one could read it as disparaging to the HN community because it's too naïve to understand the risks of LSD, rather than granting the members the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of making reasonable decisions. And that's ultimately the point: by making generalizations like this, it doesn't add anything substantive or constructive to the comment and ignores the wide range of opinions across the HN community. Edit to add: As an aside, you mention that 'lcw's observation matches your perception. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong, or at least skewed. That's why backing them up with data is important, to make sure our perceptions are consistent with reality.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability > It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong Is these not generalizations across large groups of people?
  - grzm 10y ago
    There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability Look at the discourse on HN, particularly on contentious topics, where people make general statements and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements. Or look at the the polarization in the US where it's so often the case that it's "us" vs "them", bucketing people into two groups, without recognizing that there's significant overlap in values between them. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong I would consider cognitive bias to be a pretty well-accepted idea. One of the strengths of the scientific method is that it provides a way to attempt to remove cognitive bias from observation. Do you disagree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread. I'll leave it at that.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements So, are the assumptions unjustified or not? polarization is self-fulfilling, if people believe that it is "us" vs "them", then it is "us" vs "them". > Do you disagree? Disagree with what? The statement is very general. The statement "some things are True, some things are not True" is tautologically true, and utterly unproductive. but I think you've missed the point, the intersection of the two: > it's well known that our perceptions are often wrong If this is an example of a "generalizations across large groups of people", then you claim to believe that it "degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists". You can't be exact about large groups of people to absolute resolution, there is always a degree of generality. Your own statements show that, either a) there are some statements, perhaps due to their passivity, can be made about large groups of people (but as a result, say very little) OR b) there is some acceptable level of generality when talking about large groups of people. My conclusion is that either, there is a correct level of generality (that you don't establish), or that you can never talk about large groups of people, or at least say anything productive about them. > I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread I think everyone speaks at some level of generality about many things, whether they realise it or not; so simply language policing others on that basis begs a lot of questions.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thank you for taking the time to dive so deeply into my comment. For my own edification, I'd appreciate it if you would go a bit further. Assuming I have a point that I actually believe, what point is it that you think I'm trying to make? Regardless of whether you agree with it, how would you express that point more clearly? You point out, for example, that part of it was tautologically true and utterly unproductive. How can it be improved?
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > Assuming I have a point that I actually believe.. This is like saying "assuming that 1 + 1 = 3, what is the square root of 7?" If I don't understand there to be a valid point in your comment, I can't very well adopt your comments and try to rescue them..
- tossaway1 10y ago
  Healthy discourse can include both qualitative and quantitative commentary. I think HN readers can generally differentiate between the two. We don't need comment police complaining that some qualitative comments are lacking statistical support.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Sure, there can be qualitative and quantitative commentary. I don't agree that generalizations of groups of people are worthwhile qualititive commentary. One final question: is 'lcw's initial comment improved by the inclusion of the statement regarding HN?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > is 'lcw's initial comment improved by the inclusion of the statement regarding HN? Why does it matter? Is lcw's statement regarding HN improved by the initial statement?

grzm 10y ago

There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists. This gets particularly pernicious when discussing contentious topics. Given the how damaging this can be (current political discourse in the US or here on HN is a good example), making such generalizations really needs to be justified. In 'lcw's comment, the generalization doesn't add anything substantive to the comment. Indeed, one could read it as disparaging to the HN community because it's too naïve to understand the risks of LSD, rather than granting the members the benefit of the doubt that they're capable of making reasonable decisions. And that's ultimately the point: by making generalizations like this, it doesn't add anything substantive or constructive to the comment and ignores the wide range of opinions across the HN community. Edit to add: As an aside, you mention that 'lcw's observation matches your perception. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong, or at least skewed. That's why backing them up with data is important, to make sure our perceptions are consistent with reality.

Chris2048 10y ago
> There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability > It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong Is these not generalizations across large groups of people?
- grzm 10y ago
  There's a tendency in discourse to make generalizations across large groups of people, which degrades our ability Look at the discourse on HN, particularly on contentious topics, where people make general statements and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements. Or look at the the polarization in the US where it's so often the case that it's "us" vs "them", bucketing people into two groups, without recognizing that there's significant overlap in values between them. It's well known that our perceptions are often wrong I would consider cognitive bias to be a pretty well-accepted idea. One of the strengths of the scientific method is that it provides a way to attempt to remove cognitive bias from observation. Do you disagree? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread. I'll leave it at that.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > and then attack each other for apparently including unjustified assumptions in those general statements So, are the assumptions unjustified or not? polarization is self-fulfilling, if people believe that it is "us" vs "them", then it is "us" vs "them". > Do you disagree? Disagree with what? The statement is very general. The statement "some things are True, some things are not True" is tautologically true, and utterly unproductive. but I think you've missed the point, the intersection of the two: > it's well known that our perceptions are often wrong If this is an example of a "generalizations across large groups of people", then you claim to believe that it "degrades our ability to see the nuance and diversity of opinion and perspective that clearly exists". You can't be exact about large groups of people to absolute resolution, there is always a degree of generality. Your own statements show that, either a) there are some statements, perhaps due to their passivity, can be made about large groups of people (but as a result, say very little) OR b) there is some acceptable level of generality when talking about large groups of people. My conclusion is that either, there is a correct level of generality (that you don't establish), or that you can never talk about large groups of people, or at least say anything productive about them. > I didn't think my initial comment was going to result in this contentious thread I think everyone speaks at some level of generality about many things, whether they realise it or not; so simply language policing others on that basis begs a lot of questions.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Thank you for taking the time to dive so deeply into my comment. For my own edification, I'd appreciate it if you would go a bit further. Assuming I have a point that I actually believe, what point is it that you think I'm trying to make? Regardless of whether you agree with it, how would you express that point more clearly? You point out, for example, that part of it was tautologically true and utterly unproductive. How can it be improved?
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > Assuming I have a point that I actually believe.. This is like saying "assuming that 1 + 1 = 3, what is the square root of 7?" If I don't understand there to be a valid point in your comment, I can't very well adopt your comments and try to rescue them..
tossaway1 10y ago
Healthy discourse can include both qualitative and quantitative commentary. I think HN readers can generally differentiate between the two. We don't need comment police complaining that some qualitative comments are lacking statistical support.
- grzm 10y ago
  Sure, there can be qualitative and quantitative commentary. I don't agree that generalizations of groups of people are worthwhile qualititive commentary. One final question: is 'lcw's initial comment improved by the inclusion of the statement regarding HN?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > is 'lcw's initial comment improved by the inclusion of the statement regarding HN? Why does it matter? Is lcw's statement regarding HN improved by the initial statement?