4 ms·

Your comment is being pummeled with downvotes because the human psyche finds it disgusting and offensive to think about human lives in such cold and calculating

Your comment is being pummeled with downvotes because the human psyche finds it disgusting and offensive to think about human lives in such cold and calculating terms. However, that's an irrational cognitive bias like any other, and I wish people wouldn't succumb to it on HN. Whether I agree with it or not, your comment is an interesting and rarely-heard perspective, and rationally argued.

RHSeeger 7y ago
Thanks. I tend to think of most things in those terms. I think it's a failing of mine when it comes to discussions. If (a mean b) and (a), then (b)... no matter how much you don't want (b) to be true. My wife gets very frustrated with me when I point out logical consequences like the above. I have a hard time understanding the emotional argument.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  I'm the same way, and I do think this personality trait is massively overrepresented (though by no means universal) among people interested in computers. I have always suspected that Asperger's and autism (full disclosure: neither of which I have) are just extreme versions of the same underlying personality trait, but I have no background in psychology so that could also just be totally wrong pop-science BS :)
happytoexplain 7y ago
While it's generally true that people tend to allow emotions to contribute too much to opinions on society-scale decisions, which should of course be driven by objectivity, I also think it's a mistake to disregard emotions entirely, as the rules we make are meaningless without them. Say you have an opportunity to end a person's life instantly, without their foreknowledge, without pain. This person has no friends or family or responsibilities of any kind. This person is virtually guaranteed to do more harm than good to society on par over the rest of his natural life. No other people will ever know of this execution. Without emotions, there's no reason not to legally oblige such an opportunity to be taken.

RHSeeger 7y ago

Thanks. I tend to think of most things in those terms. I think it's a failing of mine when it comes to discussions. If (a mean b) and (a), then (b)... no matter how much you don't want (b) to be true. My wife gets very frustrated with me when I point out logical consequences like the above. I have a hard time understanding the emotional argument.

umanwizard 7y ago
I'm the same way, and I do think this personality trait is massively overrepresented (though by no means universal) among people interested in computers. I have always suspected that Asperger's and autism (full disclosure: neither of which I have) are just extreme versions of the same underlying personality trait, but I have no background in psychology so that could also just be totally wrong pop-science BS :)

happytoexplain 7y ago

While it's generally true that people tend to allow emotions to contribute too much to opinions on society-scale decisions, which should of course be driven by objectivity, I also think it's a mistake to disregard emotions entirely, as the rules we make are meaningless without them. Say you have an opportunity to end a person's life instantly, without their foreknowledge, without pain. This person has no friends or family or responsibilities of any kind. This person is virtually guaranteed to do more harm than good to society on par over the rest of his natural life. No other people will ever know of this execution. Without emotions, there's no reason not to legally oblige such an opportunity to be taken.