4 ms·

I think it's more of a signal to noise problem. We've had that issue before in society (e.g. the Middle Ages), when information flow was not constructive, and t

by MR4D 10y ago

I think it's more of a signal to noise problem. We've had that issue before in society (e.g. the Middle Ages), when information flow was not constructive, and therefore not _additive_. The net result was that society moved sideways, not forward. Contrast that with Victorian England, where large parts of society had "manners", which allowed for information to be constructive, and society (technology, etc) could evolve. When the signal-to-noise ratio gets low enough, people leave groups, and progress cannot occur at any reasonable rate.

Banthum 10y ago
Regarding manners, it really depends on what those manners are. Chinese medieval society was very orderly and mannered; there were clear standards of behavior (at least for the elites). But the manners in question were conservative and did not encourage innovation, so they did not advance rapidly and ended up far behind Europe despite having a head start. The enforced homogeneity of thought and thus destroyed opportunities to advance or get past their own biases. Read about the Imperial exam system for some reference on how this was achieved, and note that Chinese geography has the most fertile regions highly centralized. In the west we developed this system of manners based on freedom, where we let people do things we think are wrong, as long as they're not hurting us. This permits intellectual diversity, which means that when the mainstream experts have it wrong, at least someone else can come and knock them over with reality. Rationalism, not authority. Objective evidence, not subjective feelings. My main worry is that the modern mainstream morality seems to be all about intensive efforts to homogenize thought, opinion, and policy as widely as possible, to exalt collective justice over individual rights, and to privilege subjective "lived experience" over objective evidence. Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech seem to be "out" these days and it's gonna create some real unpleasant results. It already is. --- (Slightly off topic as well: It's kind of a myth that society didn't move forward through the Middle Ages. While western medieval society remained in the Malthusian trap up until the 1800's, in other ways it did advance continuously over that time. For example, studies of documents signed reveal that literacy increased continuously from the 1200s all the way until it hit nearly 99% in ~1900. Similarly, studies of recorded ages reveal that most people didn't know their age in 1200, but more and more people knew it up until the present day. (You can tell this because people who don't know their age tend to round it to end in a 0 or 5, so you can count the over-representation of this in the data, or even by just looking at tombstones). Something was changing through the whole medieval era. And there are other markers (e.g. interest rates went down continuously, rationalism advanced, etc etc).)
- watwut 10y ago
  "In the west we developed this system of manners based on freedom, where we let people do things we think are wrong, as long as they're not hurting us." I agree that west is more free then anything else. However that freedom in general sense or relatively new thing for large parts of population. And for that matter, marihuanna is still illegal and harms no one. I think that west ultimately created system where groups were able to succesfully win fight for their right to not harm others. But it took fight and abuses happened every single time.
- pm90 10y ago
  I'm assuming by "manners" you are talking about societal norms and regulations. And you're correct in your diagnosis that China has the most fertile regions in the world. However, these manners didn't really affect Chinese "development" as much as you imply. The imperial exam is good example of just how advanced the Chinese nation was for most of history. China as a country remained politically united for most of known history, quite a remarkable feat if you think about it. One of the enablers was a professional bureaucracy that allowed the state to remain strong without being challenged by regional usurpers. This is a huge topic of course but one of the reasons why China fell behind is because certain isolationist policies took hold just when the modern era dawned, pushing China farther and farther behind simply due to the backbreaking speed of modern development. Another reason why I don't think "manners" matter is Japan; isolationist until the Meiji Restoration, rapidly modernized after despite the "manners" remaining intact.
  - astrange 10y ago
    > Another reason why I don't think "manners" matter is Japan; isolationist until the Meiji Restoration, rapidly modernized after despite the "manners" remaining intact. Japan abolished social classes (or pretended to) and nobody gets killed for insulting a samurai these days. The voluntary-then-forced Westernization was a pretty major changes.
- theoh 10y ago
  Lived experience is all any of us has got, in terms of experimental data. If someone thinks they are having a bad time, it's difficult and dangerous to discount that: right now there is no way to assess the validity of someone else's subjective judgement. To rule it out completely is going to far, almost denying the reality (pleasant or unpleasant) of one's own life...
tmaly 10y ago
There was an earlier article on HN related to engagement https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/how-the-like-button-ruined-the-internet/519795/?single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/how-t... I think some of this may play into it as well. If everything is written to be inflammatory, it becomes an echo chamber of sorts.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
Well a large part of our daily communication is still how's weather like, gossip and what's for dinner. Internet may look like it's all lolcats and trolls if you look hard enough, but that's like dropping into a teenage group and complain all they talk all day is tits and soccer* At any time one can still go on a gated, moderated community and obtain meaningful noise free communication with little interference from trolls and attention seekers. This whole piece reads like "the problem of wetness in swimming" - a non problem that has been created by putting oneself into that condition in the first place. *actual sport may vary geographically
- ruleabidinguser 10y ago
  I wish people understood this. Its so incredibly frutrating to deal with (controlling?) people trying to control the way communities that they have just joined operate. Here's an alternative to joining a community you don't like: don't join the community! People will act like they understand this, but if they did, they simply wouldn't have a problem. Theres really no issue here if you actually understand this advice.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Right, Mirimir likes moderated communities. So HN, Wilders and some subreddits. Never Twitter. People have tried to get me on it, but I find it maddening.
- duckMuppet 10y ago
  While I agree absolutely with this, the problem is that there is a growing base.. What almost feels like it's becoming a mainstream majority, that feel a better solution is to have someone, the government, LE, some invisible hand, take control and deem what is and isn't acceptable thought and speech. You can see it even on here. Instead of a thicker skin, or not using something like Twitter, people espouse ideas such as enforcing non 'harassing' language. But in my mind there is a clear difference in the 'harassment' online, and real harassment, e.g. you're swatted at 4am, they poison your pets, they stalk you, not just once but could continue for weeks or months or years on end. At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, I do understand that now more than ever, we have an entire generation that has never been taught anything except their online persona is as important, if not more important than who they are in meatspace. It's easy to understand, they have really become a brand, their own brand, which is both good and unfortunate. The reality is that life will continue on regardless of data pipes working or not. The growing outcry for safety and homogeneous thought is larger than ever, in almost every aspect. But with regard to the internet, the issue is that as this group becomes the majority, their calls carry more and more weight for moving the internet into the same world as many US universities.. Every campus now has a Free Speech zone, an XX meter square that you can freely speak your mind, and even hand out constitution pamphlets. Step outside that, speak your mind and you are charged with 'harassment'. I'm not that hopeful though. As we move more into the world of where the government continues to take a larger role in making the internet fair, we relinquish certain other things. Of course, it starts benign, but it ends up quite different.
kristianc 10y ago
One of the norms of Victorian society was that once you acquired wealth, you were meant to behave in a way that was befitting of that status - including in terms of morality. And indeed middle class and wealthy Victorians poured money into / agnonized over the condition of the working class. What I believe you are seeing now is the entrenchment a significant minority of people who not only feel they have not 'won', but that the rich and well connected have broken that social contract. They, unsurprisingly, don't feel like playing the 'manners' game if they feel the system is abusing them.

by MR4D 10y ago

Banthum 10y ago

Regarding manners, it really depends on what those manners are. Chinese medieval society was very orderly and mannered; there were clear standards of behavior (at least for the elites). But the manners in question were conservative and did not encourage innovation, so they did not advance rapidly and ended up far behind Europe despite having a head start. The enforced homogeneity of thought and thus destroyed opportunities to advance or get past their own biases. Read about the Imperial exam system for some reference on how this was achieved, and note that Chinese geography has the most fertile regions highly centralized. In the west we developed this system of manners based on freedom, where we let people do things we think are wrong, as long as they're not hurting us. This permits intellectual diversity, which means that when the mainstream experts have it wrong, at least someone else can come and knock them over with reality. Rationalism, not authority. Objective evidence, not subjective feelings. My main worry is that the modern mainstream morality seems to be all about intensive efforts to homogenize thought, opinion, and policy as widely as possible, to exalt collective justice over individual rights, and to privilege subjective "lived experience" over objective evidence. Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech seem to be "out" these days and it's gonna create some real unpleasant results. It already is. --- (Slightly off topic as well: It's kind of a myth that society didn't move forward through the Middle Ages. While western medieval society remained in the Malthusian trap up until the 1800's, in other ways it did advance continuously over that time. For example, studies of documents signed reveal that literacy increased continuously from the 1200s all the way until it hit nearly 99% in ~1900. Similarly, studies of recorded ages reveal that most people didn't know their age in 1200, but more and more people knew it up until the present day. (You can tell this because people who don't know their age tend to round it to end in a 0 or 5, so you can count the over-representation of this in the data, or even by just looking at tombstones). Something was changing through the whole medieval era. And there are other markers (e.g. interest rates went down continuously, rationalism advanced, etc etc).)

watwut 10y ago
"In the west we developed this system of manners based on freedom, where we let people do things we think are wrong, as long as they're not hurting us." I agree that west is more free then anything else. However that freedom in general sense or relatively new thing for large parts of population. And for that matter, marihuanna is still illegal and harms no one. I think that west ultimately created system where groups were able to succesfully win fight for their right to not harm others. But it took fight and abuses happened every single time.
pm90 10y ago
I'm assuming by "manners" you are talking about societal norms and regulations. And you're correct in your diagnosis that China has the most fertile regions in the world. However, these manners didn't really affect Chinese "development" as much as you imply. The imperial exam is good example of just how advanced the Chinese nation was for most of history. China as a country remained politically united for most of known history, quite a remarkable feat if you think about it. One of the enablers was a professional bureaucracy that allowed the state to remain strong without being challenged by regional usurpers. This is a huge topic of course but one of the reasons why China fell behind is because certain isolationist policies took hold just when the modern era dawned, pushing China farther and farther behind simply due to the backbreaking speed of modern development. Another reason why I don't think "manners" matter is Japan; isolationist until the Meiji Restoration, rapidly modernized after despite the "manners" remaining intact.
- astrange 10y ago
  > Another reason why I don't think "manners" matter is Japan; isolationist until the Meiji Restoration, rapidly modernized after despite the "manners" remaining intact. Japan abolished social classes (or pretended to) and nobody gets killed for insulting a samurai these days. The voluntary-then-forced Westernization was a pretty major changes.
theoh 10y ago
Lived experience is all any of us has got, in terms of experimental data. If someone thinks they are having a bad time, it's difficult and dangerous to discount that: right now there is no way to assess the validity of someone else's subjective judgement. To rule it out completely is going to far, almost denying the reality (pleasant or unpleasant) of one's own life...

tmaly 10y ago

There was an earlier article on HN related to engagement https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/how-the-like-button-ruined-the-internet/519795/?single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/how-t... I think some of this may play into it as well. If everything is written to be inflammatory, it becomes an echo chamber of sorts.

LoSboccacc 10y ago

Well a large part of our daily communication is still how's weather like, gossip and what's for dinner. Internet may look like it's all lolcats and trolls if you look hard enough, but that's like dropping into a teenage group and complain all they talk all day is tits and soccer* At any time one can still go on a gated, moderated community and obtain meaningful noise free communication with little interference from trolls and attention seekers. This whole piece reads like "the problem of wetness in swimming" - a non problem that has been created by putting oneself into that condition in the first place. *actual sport may vary geographically

ruleabidinguser 10y ago
I wish people understood this. Its so incredibly frutrating to deal with (controlling?) people trying to control the way communities that they have just joined operate. Here's an alternative to joining a community you don't like: don't join the community! People will act like they understand this, but if they did, they simply wouldn't have a problem. Theres really no issue here if you actually understand this advice.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Right, Mirimir likes moderated communities. So HN, Wilders and some subreddits. Never Twitter. People have tried to get me on it, but I find it maddening.
duckMuppet 10y ago
While I agree absolutely with this, the problem is that there is a growing base.. What almost feels like it's becoming a mainstream majority, that feel a better solution is to have someone, the government, LE, some invisible hand, take control and deem what is and isn't acceptable thought and speech. You can see it even on here. Instead of a thicker skin, or not using something like Twitter, people espouse ideas such as enforcing non 'harassing' language. But in my mind there is a clear difference in the 'harassment' online, and real harassment, e.g. you're swatted at 4am, they poison your pets, they stalk you, not just once but could continue for weeks or months or years on end. At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, I do understand that now more than ever, we have an entire generation that has never been taught anything except their online persona is as important, if not more important than who they are in meatspace. It's easy to understand, they have really become a brand, their own brand, which is both good and unfortunate. The reality is that life will continue on regardless of data pipes working or not. The growing outcry for safety and homogeneous thought is larger than ever, in almost every aspect. But with regard to the internet, the issue is that as this group becomes the majority, their calls carry more and more weight for moving the internet into the same world as many US universities.. Every campus now has a Free Speech zone, an XX meter square that you can freely speak your mind, and even hand out constitution pamphlets. Step outside that, speak your mind and you are charged with 'harassment'. I'm not that hopeful though. As we move more into the world of where the government continues to take a larger role in making the internet fair, we relinquish certain other things. Of course, it starts benign, but it ends up quite different.

kristianc 10y ago

One of the norms of Victorian society was that once you acquired wealth, you were meant to behave in a way that was befitting of that status - including in terms of morality. And indeed middle class and wealthy Victorians poured money into / agnonized over the condition of the working class. What I believe you are seeing now is the entrenchment a significant minority of people who not only feel they have not 'won', but that the rich and well connected have broken that social contract. They, unsurprisingly, don't feel like playing the 'manners' game if they feel the system is abusing them.