4 ms·

I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s). This means th

I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s). This means that with the majority of the population, reason, thinking and ideas just don't penetrate well. It's all about going along and getting along. Ideas can only be considered if group think is rejected.

themacguffinman 7y ago
How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way? Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant ideas.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Not my ideas. Ideas in general. I have noted that most people don't like ideas and aren't capable of dealing with them without getting really emotional. But my personal observation is backed by data. In the Milgram experiments, 65% of people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an authority told them so. So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy stand? I'm hardly a bastion of uniqueness by being part of the 35% who isn't semi-drone-ish in following authority. Interesting that the idea I brought wasn't addressed, though you did take the time to try and attack my character. Oh, and put words in my mouth by implying it is MY ideas that should be considered, when I never mentioned such a thing. Anyway, even if your cartoonish depiction of my perspective were true, maybe you could be so kind as to inform this horrible patronizing person why his though process is wrong?
  - themacguffinman 7y ago
    I didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours (I can't edit my comment unfortunately), but I'm not really sure how that would be an attack on your character anyway. This response misses the point though. I don't need to dispute the Milgram experiment[1] or vague claims that "65% of people just want to go along" to attack this "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy and self serving. In this world and age awash with so many ideas of all kinds, hard-fought and won by people who didn't just idly speculate that their ideas were too brilliant for others to understand, it's a poor excuse to offer this up as an explanation. I can say this about anything. It doesn't change or reveal anything except some cherry picked numbers that vaguely imply the dog ate your homework without convincing anyone else that you did your homework in the first place (and I mean "your homework" in the general sense, not targeted at you or implying that the homework was your duty). [1] although you should be more skeptical of its conclusions https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin...
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Ok, so now I'm not just patronizing, I'm lazy and self serving. Trying to understand your post, the best I could make out, is that 'I shouldn't use these experiments as a justification to not spread my own good ideas or spread the good ideas of other people... or 'you in the general sense' to mean other people spreading other peoples ideas'. Is this correct? Like, is this the basis for your rebuttal? If not, what is? I'm trying to un package your point, which seems muddled. BTW, you didn't imply, you said it directly: > your brilliant ideas > didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours That type of conversation reminds me of a narcissist boss I had. Whenever he was in the wrong, he couldn't admit he was wrong. So when in such a position (we all are there sometimes), he would explain that 'he never meant to imply what he said, he meant what everyone else was saying that was the contrary of what his words meant by a dictionary definition' It was a mind trip dealing with him and his mental gymnastics.
      - themacguffinman 7y ago
        The generic "you" is a real thing [1]. I've tried to clarify this because my stated intention is to attack the "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy, and self-serving, not you as a whole person. I can't stop you from taking things all of my words personally, I can only offer more words to say that I was speaking in a non-targeted way. I don't think it's helpful for us to continue without agreeing on this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

themacguffinman 7y ago

How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way? Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant ideas.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Not my ideas. Ideas in general. I have noted that most people don't like ideas and aren't capable of dealing with them without getting really emotional. But my personal observation is backed by data. In the Milgram experiments, 65% of people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an authority told them so. So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy stand? I'm hardly a bastion of uniqueness by being part of the 35% who isn't semi-drone-ish in following authority. Interesting that the idea I brought wasn't addressed, though you did take the time to try and attack my character. Oh, and put words in my mouth by implying it is MY ideas that should be considered, when I never mentioned such a thing. Anyway, even if your cartoonish depiction of my perspective were true, maybe you could be so kind as to inform this horrible patronizing person why his though process is wrong?
- themacguffinman 7y ago
  I didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours (I can't edit my comment unfortunately), but I'm not really sure how that would be an attack on your character anyway. This response misses the point though. I don't need to dispute the Milgram experiment[1] or vague claims that "65% of people just want to go along" to attack this "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy and self serving. In this world and age awash with so many ideas of all kinds, hard-fought and won by people who didn't just idly speculate that their ideas were too brilliant for others to understand, it's a poor excuse to offer this up as an explanation. I can say this about anything. It doesn't change or reveal anything except some cherry picked numbers that vaguely imply the dog ate your homework without convincing anyone else that you did your homework in the first place (and I mean "your homework" in the general sense, not targeted at you or implying that the homework was your duty). [1] although you should be more skeptical of its conclusions https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin...
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Ok, so now I'm not just patronizing, I'm lazy and self serving. Trying to understand your post, the best I could make out, is that 'I shouldn't use these experiments as a justification to not spread my own good ideas or spread the good ideas of other people... or 'you in the general sense' to mean other people spreading other peoples ideas'. Is this correct? Like, is this the basis for your rebuttal? If not, what is? I'm trying to un package your point, which seems muddled. BTW, you didn't imply, you said it directly: > your brilliant ideas > didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours That type of conversation reminds me of a narcissist boss I had. Whenever he was in the wrong, he couldn't admit he was wrong. So when in such a position (we all are there sometimes), he would explain that 'he never meant to imply what he said, he meant what everyone else was saying that was the contrary of what his words meant by a dictionary definition' It was a mind trip dealing with him and his mental gymnastics.
    - themacguffinman 7y ago
      The generic "you" is a real thing [1]. I've tried to clarify this because my stated intention is to attack the "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy, and self-serving, not you as a whole person. I can't stop you from taking things all of my words personally, I can only offer more words to say that I was speaking in a non-targeted way. I don't think it's helpful for us to continue without agreeing on this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you