3 ms·

It's true that there's some distinction between opinion based topics and skill based ones. However, I think the more important issue is that there are topics wh

It's true that there's some distinction between opinion based topics and skill based ones. However, I think the more important issue is that there are topics where people are more or less aware of their own ignorance, and topics where they are not. Politics is a great example. Politics threads are typically uninformed. However, it's not that there are no facts involved, it's that people who don't know the facts won't let that stop them from aggressively commenting.[0] Of course, by facts, I don't mean things like "Democrats/Republicans are evil", but basic facts about what laws have been passed, how the supreme court works, etc. This isn't a distinction that's about the topics, it's a distinction about people's attitude towards those topics. After all, questions about Java's GCs compared to Go's GC, or Android vs. iOS security are equally grounded in facts, but attract almost as much uninformed commentary. [0] I don't want to be an elitist. There's plenty of good ways to comment on a subject you don't know about, to ask good questions, etc. It's the certainty of the uninformed that's a problem.

enraged_camel 8y ago
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- hyperpape 8y ago
  I have mixed feelings about that essay. One point is exactly what I was trying to say, but I suspect the observation about identity is wrong. Many great discoveries have come from people who were powerfully attached to an ideal: to take an odd assortment, consider Hilbert, Keynes and Milton Friedman. I suspect there's an availability bias. Consider a table: | | Has Identity | No Identity | |----------------+--------------+-------------| | Thoughtful | Insightful | Insightful | | Not Thoughtful | Obnoxious | Silent | We confuse having an identity with being thoughtless because we see so many people who combine the two, not because their identity actually makes them less thoughtful. Flat Earthers are an interesting example in this case. There wasn't an identity attached to it, it doesn't support some political or religious cause (maybe it's not become an identity, but it didn't start as one). It's just catnip for people who think they're skeptical and free-thinkers, but are actually just bad at reasoning.
CM30 8y ago
You've got a point, though it may be a bit of a simplification. Personally I'd say the problem with politics, religion and other such topics is that they're more a perfect storm of the following: 1. They're about topics you can't prove right/wrong with science (at least not for the most part), so there's never a consensus. 2. They're linked to their participants identities, meaning they're very uninterested in changing their opinion or listening to others they disagree with (since it comes across as a personal attack on their background). 3. People don't know if they're experts at these topics, but don't care and will argue about them anyway. 4. They're things everyone has an opinion about, informed or otherwise. 5. It's virtually impossible to tell who's an expert and who just likes to talk a lot, meaning discussions are filled with every kind of crank and extremist possible. 6. For the very few who actually are open to new ideas and perspectives, they're often easier swayed by emotional appeals than facts when discussing these topics. Hence the raging flame war that will inevitably ensue when one of these topics is discussed in almost any forum (internet or otherwise).

enraged_camel 8y ago

http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

hyperpape 8y ago
I have mixed feelings about that essay. One point is exactly what I was trying to say, but I suspect the observation about identity is wrong. Many great discoveries have come from people who were powerfully attached to an ideal: to take an odd assortment, consider Hilbert, Keynes and Milton Friedman. I suspect there's an availability bias. Consider a table: | | Has Identity | No Identity | |----------------+--------------+-------------| | Thoughtful | Insightful | Insightful | | Not Thoughtful | Obnoxious | Silent | We confuse having an identity with being thoughtless because we see so many people who combine the two, not because their identity actually makes them less thoughtful. Flat Earthers are an interesting example in this case. There wasn't an identity attached to it, it doesn't support some political or religious cause (maybe it's not become an identity, but it didn't start as one). It's just catnip for people who think they're skeptical and free-thinkers, but are actually just bad at reasoning.

CM30 8y ago

You've got a point, though it may be a bit of a simplification. Personally I'd say the problem with politics, religion and other such topics is that they're more a perfect storm of the following: 1. They're about topics you can't prove right/wrong with science (at least not for the most part), so there's never a consensus. 2. They're linked to their participants identities, meaning they're very uninterested in changing their opinion or listening to others they disagree with (since it comes across as a personal attack on their background). 3. People don't know if they're experts at these topics, but don't care and will argue about them anyway. 4. They're things everyone has an opinion about, informed or otherwise. 5. It's virtually impossible to tell who's an expert and who just likes to talk a lot, meaning discussions are filled with every kind of crank and extremist possible. 6. For the very few who actually are open to new ideas and perspectives, they're often easier swayed by emotional appeals than facts when discussing these topics. Hence the raging flame war that will inevitably ensue when one of these topics is discussed in almost any forum (internet or otherwise).