3 ms·

>Have you read the book? Yep. I even have the hard copy. Have had it since I was 15. >but nothing in the book describes how people act? Nothing original. But

>Have you read the book? Yep. I even have the hard copy. Have had it since I was 15. >but nothing in the book describes how people act? Nothing original. But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation.

mistermann 7y ago
In your opinion, do: "there's not really anything applicable in the book to reality or how people act" ...and... "there's not really anything original in the book that is applicable to reality or how people act" ...have equal meanings? One could easily make the latter claim about plenty of books, if you're happy to ignore a different (original) perspective, and if there was no need to substantiate the claim. > But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Could you possibly provide a few examples of this? > Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation. From my perspective, I believe your comment does the same to some degree. To an individual with no background in the matter, they have no way of knowing which of these contrasting and vague/unsubstantiated opinions (aka gossip) is more factual. EDIT: It's a bit depressing how unpopular pointing out objective errors and asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN, especially on particularly relevant original topics such as this. No site is immune I guess.
- kadendogthing 7y ago
  >asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. If you have something to say, say it. Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas doesn't justify having a baseline conversation on the merits of those ideas. It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. Don't pretend otherwise.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. Is it really though? Are people's opinions not shaped by what they read on forums? Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? I would argue that a recent presidential candidate was successful using largely that type of tactic. > If you have something to say, say it. I am: if some states an opinion as if it is a fact, then please provide some substantiation for the opinion. > Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas Are these ideas "bankrupt"? And, how might I come to learn that we know this is "well-known"? What is an authoritative source to which I can refer? What adjectives might we use to describe that e-debate tactic? Effective is one, but I can think of others. > It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. The "the debate is over" e-debate tactic, also very effective. > Don't pretend otherwise. Am I pretending anything, or making any particularly strong assertion? My intent is asking someone who has made a strong assertion (in this case, a backhand dismissal) to provide some supporting evidence. Am I the one that's out of order? Conversations like this seem to be a good example of the very problem we're experiencing. I believe most disagreements of this nature are fundamentally epistemological in nature, and by that I mean something like: people conceptualize reality based on a loose collection of incomplete, non-integrated, and inconclusive ideas, that they pick up from a wide variety of sources (forums being one of them) and integrate into their ongoing mental model of reality. At times, some of the ideas they pick up may not be entirely accurate, so constantly debating things in a marketplace of ideas seems to me like something that should be encouraged and re-normalized, not forbidden/stigmatized.
    - kadendogthing 7y ago
      > Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? They're not really that complex. And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint, but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. So no, there is absolutely no benefit to rehashing the conversation and giving the illusion that Ayn Rand's philosophy is intellectually significant enough to merit a forum debate. It's enough to call a spade a spade.
      - 7y ago
narrator 7y ago
I used to like Ayn Rand, but then I discovered the fatal flaw in the whole philosophy which is that she conflates ability with morality. All of the good guys are highly competent, all of the bad guys are incompetent bumblers. Reality is not like that. Having read some Stalin biographies for example, I am really impressed by his legendary competence as a politician and administrator and how he could effectively build and administer a country totally paralyzed in fear of him, but the morality of it all is of course miserably poor.

mistermann 7y ago

In your opinion, do: "there's not really anything applicable in the book to reality or how people act" ...and... "there's not really anything original in the book that is applicable to reality or how people act" ...have equal meanings? One could easily make the latter claim about plenty of books, if you're happy to ignore a different (original) perspective, and if there was no need to substantiate the claim. > But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Could you possibly provide a few examples of this? > Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation. From my perspective, I believe your comment does the same to some degree. To an individual with no background in the matter, they have no way of knowing which of these contrasting and vague/unsubstantiated opinions (aka gossip) is more factual. EDIT: It's a bit depressing how unpopular pointing out objective errors and asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN, especially on particularly relevant original topics such as this. No site is immune I guess.

kadendogthing 7y ago
>asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. If you have something to say, say it. Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas doesn't justify having a baseline conversation on the merits of those ideas. It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. Don't pretend otherwise.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. Is it really though? Are people's opinions not shaped by what they read on forums? Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? I would argue that a recent presidential candidate was successful using largely that type of tactic. > If you have something to say, say it. I am: if some states an opinion as if it is a fact, then please provide some substantiation for the opinion. > Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas Are these ideas "bankrupt"? And, how might I come to learn that we know this is "well-known"? What is an authoritative source to which I can refer? What adjectives might we use to describe that e-debate tactic? Effective is one, but I can think of others. > It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. The "the debate is over" e-debate tactic, also very effective. > Don't pretend otherwise. Am I pretending anything, or making any particularly strong assertion? My intent is asking someone who has made a strong assertion (in this case, a backhand dismissal) to provide some supporting evidence. Am I the one that's out of order? Conversations like this seem to be a good example of the very problem we're experiencing. I believe most disagreements of this nature are fundamentally epistemological in nature, and by that I mean something like: people conceptualize reality based on a loose collection of incomplete, non-integrated, and inconclusive ideas, that they pick up from a wide variety of sources (forums being one of them) and integrate into their ongoing mental model of reality. At times, some of the ideas they pick up may not be entirely accurate, so constantly debating things in a marketplace of ideas seems to me like something that should be encouraged and re-normalized, not forbidden/stigmatized.
  - kadendogthing 7y ago
    > Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? They're not really that complex. And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint, but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. So no, there is absolutely no benefit to rehashing the conversation and giving the illusion that Ayn Rand's philosophy is intellectually significant enough to merit a forum debate. It's enough to call a spade a spade.
    - 7y ago

narrator 7y ago

I used to like Ayn Rand, but then I discovered the fatal flaw in the whole philosophy which is that she conflates ability with morality. All of the good guys are highly competent, all of the bad guys are incompetent bumblers. Reality is not like that. Having read some Stalin biographies for example, I am really impressed by his legendary competence as a politician and administrator and how he could effectively build and administer a country totally paralyzed in fear of him, but the morality of it all is of course miserably poor.