3 ms·

> And here you are, responding as if you didn't read a single thing I wrote I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. It’s a strawman in

by WA 7y ago

> And here you are, responding as if you didn't read a single thing I wrote I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. But maybe it makes sense to have this conversation goal-oriented. Your points a-c: a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. I have a hard time extracting any actionable and useful information from your posts that deal with either climate change itself or with the discussion around it. All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve?

mistermann 7y ago
> I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. So, you replied to something in which you are not interest, with words related to content in which you are interested? This is something I haven't seen before. > It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. Things are sometimes like that, but this isn't one of those times. I challenge you to choose some words I'm saying that you believe are guilty of that. And please don't frame it as if the actual conversation is about the topic you are interested in ("If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to..."), and it is I who changed the subject. > IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. I'm way ahead of you, this is what I was already discussing. My comment is right there for you and others to review, what you hope to achieve by feigning surprise is beyond me. > Your points a-c: My questions were written as a response to @svara's question: "How does that move the conversation forward?" > a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. Ok. May I ask: why did you reply? > b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. Does it? Upon what do you base this assertion? > It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. Upon what is your assertion that they are "merely destructive" based? > It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. This is an absurdly broad generalization, and it kind of sounds like the kind of thing someone on the internet would just make up. Once again, upon what do you base this assertion? > c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. I'm not derailing the conversation. I introduced a new topic, and a conversation ensued based upon that new topic. You entered that discussion, and attempted to redirect the topic of conversation, and now you are giving me advice on how to conduct myself? > Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. Really? Lots of people believe conspiracy theorists and deniers actually spread their ideas. > But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Sorry to hear that. > Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. You asked: "But how do you solve this if one part of humans think that the only thing that's left is a "giant middle finger to the system"?", and I replied telling you to essentially think. This is cryptic advice? > Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. Entering a conversation, changing the topic, and then refusing to think is.....I dunno, absurd? > All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve? All of this is very clearly contained within the text of the discussion. I'm not sure if your ignorance is feigned or genuine, but I don't have the energy to find out. Not to say that I'm not curious though, this is one of the more interesting permutations of unusual behavior I've encountered yet.
- WA 7y ago
  > why did you reply? Because I find the idea of taking human psychology into account interesting, as long as it is goal-oriented. I had hoped I'd learn something from this thread and from you on how to deal with others who either think climate change isn't a thing or who think that we could improve how we deal with this. This is what you're all about, right? You claimed repeatedly that people who think climate chance is a thing are too absolute, too certain and that they should listen to the sceptics, or at least try to understand the sceptics and how they work and influence this discussion. Then, you state that the very absolutes are the problem, because they are exploited through memes and whatnot. This entire discussion has one problem: It's asymmetric. Like with everything where conspiracy theories come up easily. One weak study that shows different results, or results taken out of context and boom, you have the cannon fodder to attack everything around "climate science". Thing is: The counter side sometimes even uses lies as their weapons. There is no easy solution to that. It's the problem of many complex and invididually unverifiable topics. Whether it's climate science, vaccines, homeopathy or the moon landing. And now you claim that the scientific community needs to be open to the arguments of the naysayers or at least take into account how the discussion can be made more productively? Please, I still challenge you: Enlighten us with a clear path on how to handle this discussion, if one side isn't willing to educate itself at least somewhat? Because you make it sound as if you've found a way to "exploit the human brain".
  - mistermann 7y ago
    (NOTE COPYPASTA: This discussion is getting a bit long in the tooth, I'm happy to argue indefinitely because this topic happens to be my hobby horse, but I'm more than happy to declare a truce of sorts so you can gracefully exit and get on with more interesting things. I very much thank you for arguing though, I've found it helpful in clarifying my thinking on some items.) > Because I find the idea of taking human psychology into account interesting Ok good, because this is mostly my point, so it's nice to have found one person who can see it as worthwhile to consider > as long as it is goal-oriented. I had hoped I'd learn something from this thread and from you on how to deal with others who either think climate change isn't a thing or who think that we could improve how we deal with this. This is what you're all about, right? Well, so far I'm primarily trying to discover if it is even possible to get people to consider whether human psychology is a relevant variable in the problem. I would say this thread was the first time I've had some success. But you're right, I haven't even attempted to shock and amaze anyone with my brilliant theoretical solutions to how to deal with the anti-AGW camp, you might be the first person who's actually expressed any interest (will have to review the discussions). > You claimed repeatedly that people who think climate chance is a thing are too absolute, too certain and that they should listen to the sceptics, or at least try to understand the sceptics and how they work and influence this discussion. Then, you state that the very absolutes are the problem, because they are exploited through memes and whatnot. Pretty much, but I get the sense you see this as somehow contradictory? If so, could you explain? > This entire discussion has one problem: It's asymmetric. Like with everything where conspiracy theories come up easily. One weak study that shows different results, or results taken out of context and boom, you have the cannon fodder to attack everything around "climate science". Thing is: The counter side sometimes even uses lies as their weapons. I agree, it is an unfortunate truth that people are not rational actors, on both sides (but mostly the anti-AGW of course). > There is no easy solution to that. It's the problem of many complex and invididually unverifiable topics. Whether it's climate science, vaccines, homeopathy or the moon landing. Correct. So, what shall we do about this situation? Nothing, except more of the same? Is it working, within the time constraints nature seems to be forcing upon us? My gut tells me no. > And now you claim that the scientific community needs to be open to the arguments of the naysayers or at least take into account how the discussion can be made more productively? Please, I still challenge you: Enlighten us with a clear path on how to handle this discussion, if one side isn't willing to educate itself at least somewhat? For fun, ask yourself this: if it is a fact (for the sake of argument) that I do not have a clear path to a solution, does it then logically follow that the problem does not exist? Sorry, couldn't resist. :) Joking aside, you treat it like any other project: analyze the requirements, come up with plausible solutions, test and iterate. If your response is that we're already doing that, here is just a few ways in which I would disagree: a) Not only have I seen no initiative (to understand the true anti-AGW mindset) in the public sphere, I've seen none of it even in smaller, intelligent communities like HN. Perhaps no one have thought of this before, which is fine if true, but when the notion is raised (look through the entirety of this thread and judge for yourself), the response seems to be either null, wilfully ignorant (refusal to discuss the idea via changing of the subject), or ~hostile. b) When I encounter discussions (in the media, or online) about people in the anti-AGW camp, it is like there is some sort of mass delusion going on. The entirety of the anti-AGW camp is described as if they are mouth-breathing idiots (which shouldn't be too surprising really, at least if you've done any reading on how perceptions of reality work). > Because you make it sound as if you've found a way to "exploit the human brain". Well, I've managed to get at least three people on HN to engage in conversation on this topic. So yes, I believe I may actually be acquiring skills in the field, but it's too early to form any strong opinions. I'll ask you a similar question: you make it sound like you know something about climate change. Is it true, do you actually believe that? If so, care to explain how you think you accomplished that?

by WA 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> I did, I just don’t think this is the discussion I want to have. So, you replied to something in which you are not interest, with words related to content in which you are interested? This is something I haven't seen before. > It’s a strawman in a way. It’s like this argument "what harm is in asking questions" as if asking a question wasn’t a way to frame a conversation. Things are sometimes like that, but this isn't one of those times. I challenge you to choose some words I'm saying that you believe are guilty of that. And please don't frame it as if the actual conversation is about the topic you are interested in ("If all climate models are wrong, it still makes sense to..."), and it is I who changed the subject. > IMHO, you make the conversation a lot more difficult. For sure, we can talk about human psychology and ego in terms of climate change. I'm way ahead of you, this is what I was already discussing. My comment is right there for you and others to review, what you hope to achieve by feigning surprise is beyond me. > Your points a-c: My questions were written as a response to @svara's question: "How does that move the conversation forward?" > a) It’s interesting to you, it’s boring for others. Ok. May I ask: why did you reply? > b) This includes a) and makes a) goal-oriented. Yes, we can talk about how effective the current approach is to deal with climate change. We can also talk on how to optimize this conversation. Part of this might be to understand the deniers to some extend. But this has its limits. Does it? Upon what do you base this assertion? > It’s hard to be goal-oriented with people that are merely destructive. Upon what is your assertion that they are "merely destructive" based? > It’s like talking to Nazis. At some point, this is pointless, because hate is all that comes out of their mouths. This is an absurdly broad generalization, and it kind of sounds like the kind of thing someone on the internet would just make up. Once again, upon what do you base this assertion? > c) Criticism is allowed. Derailing the conversation however is ineffective. I'm not derailing the conversation. I introduced a new topic, and a conversation ensued based upon that new topic. You entered that discussion, and attempted to redirect the topic of conversation, and now you are giving me advice on how to conduct myself? > Talking about conspiracy stuff that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny is ineffective. Really? Lots of people believe conspiracy theorists and deniers actually spread their ideas. > But it’s done all the time by deniers. And people who think climate change is real got a little tired by all the BS. Sorry to hear that. > Your last two paragraphs are cryptic. You asked: "But how do you solve this if one part of humans think that the only thing that's left is a "giant middle finger to the system"?", and I replied telling you to essentially think. This is cryptic advice? > Please add some actionable ideas to this discussion. Because simply asking me to think about stuff you are unable to point out exactly is lazy. Entering a conversation, changing the topic, and then refusing to think is.....I dunno, absurd? > All you keep repeating is that psychology and ego should be added to the discussion or the human brain should be exploited. Like how exactly? What’s your plan? What’s the goal you wanna achieve? All of this is very clearly contained within the text of the discussion. I'm not sure if your ignorance is feigned or genuine, but I don't have the energy to find out. Not to say that I'm not curious though, this is one of the more interesting permutations of unusual behavior I've encountered yet.

WA 7y ago
> why did you reply? Because I find the idea of taking human psychology into account interesting, as long as it is goal-oriented. I had hoped I'd learn something from this thread and from you on how to deal with others who either think climate change isn't a thing or who think that we could improve how we deal with this. This is what you're all about, right? You claimed repeatedly that people who think climate chance is a thing are too absolute, too certain and that they should listen to the sceptics, or at least try to understand the sceptics and how they work and influence this discussion. Then, you state that the very absolutes are the problem, because they are exploited through memes and whatnot. This entire discussion has one problem: It's asymmetric. Like with everything where conspiracy theories come up easily. One weak study that shows different results, or results taken out of context and boom, you have the cannon fodder to attack everything around "climate science". Thing is: The counter side sometimes even uses lies as their weapons. There is no easy solution to that. It's the problem of many complex and invididually unverifiable topics. Whether it's climate science, vaccines, homeopathy or the moon landing. And now you claim that the scientific community needs to be open to the arguments of the naysayers or at least take into account how the discussion can be made more productively? Please, I still challenge you: Enlighten us with a clear path on how to handle this discussion, if one side isn't willing to educate itself at least somewhat? Because you make it sound as if you've found a way to "exploit the human brain".
- mistermann 7y ago
  (NOTE COPYPASTA: This discussion is getting a bit long in the tooth, I'm happy to argue indefinitely because this topic happens to be my hobby horse, but I'm more than happy to declare a truce of sorts so you can gracefully exit and get on with more interesting things. I very much thank you for arguing though, I've found it helpful in clarifying my thinking on some items.) > Because I find the idea of taking human psychology into account interesting Ok good, because this is mostly my point, so it's nice to have found one person who can see it as worthwhile to consider > as long as it is goal-oriented. I had hoped I'd learn something from this thread and from you on how to deal with others who either think climate change isn't a thing or who think that we could improve how we deal with this. This is what you're all about, right? Well, so far I'm primarily trying to discover if it is even possible to get people to consider whether human psychology is a relevant variable in the problem. I would say this thread was the first time I've had some success. But you're right, I haven't even attempted to shock and amaze anyone with my brilliant theoretical solutions to how to deal with the anti-AGW camp, you might be the first person who's actually expressed any interest (will have to review the discussions). > You claimed repeatedly that people who think climate chance is a thing are too absolute, too certain and that they should listen to the sceptics, or at least try to understand the sceptics and how they work and influence this discussion. Then, you state that the very absolutes are the problem, because they are exploited through memes and whatnot. Pretty much, but I get the sense you see this as somehow contradictory? If so, could you explain? > This entire discussion has one problem: It's asymmetric. Like with everything where conspiracy theories come up easily. One weak study that shows different results, or results taken out of context and boom, you have the cannon fodder to attack everything around "climate science". Thing is: The counter side sometimes even uses lies as their weapons. I agree, it is an unfortunate truth that people are not rational actors, on both sides (but mostly the anti-AGW of course). > There is no easy solution to that. It's the problem of many complex and invididually unverifiable topics. Whether it's climate science, vaccines, homeopathy or the moon landing. Correct. So, what shall we do about this situation? Nothing, except more of the same? Is it working, within the time constraints nature seems to be forcing upon us? My gut tells me no. > And now you claim that the scientific community needs to be open to the arguments of the naysayers or at least take into account how the discussion can be made more productively? Please, I still challenge you: Enlighten us with a clear path on how to handle this discussion, if one side isn't willing to educate itself at least somewhat? For fun, ask yourself this: if it is a fact (for the sake of argument) that I do not have a clear path to a solution, does it then logically follow that the problem does not exist? Sorry, couldn't resist. :) Joking aside, you treat it like any other project: analyze the requirements, come up with plausible solutions, test and iterate. If your response is that we're already doing that, here is just a few ways in which I would disagree: a) Not only have I seen no initiative (to understand the true anti-AGW mindset) in the public sphere, I've seen none of it even in smaller, intelligent communities like HN. Perhaps no one have thought of this before, which is fine if true, but when the notion is raised (look through the entirety of this thread and judge for yourself), the response seems to be either null, wilfully ignorant (refusal to discuss the idea via changing of the subject), or ~hostile. b) When I encounter discussions (in the media, or online) about people in the anti-AGW camp, it is like there is some sort of mass delusion going on. The entirety of the anti-AGW camp is described as if they are mouth-breathing idiots (which shouldn't be too surprising really, at least if you've done any reading on how perceptions of reality work). > Because you make it sound as if you've found a way to "exploit the human brain". Well, I've managed to get at least three people on HN to engage in conversation on this topic. So yes, I believe I may actually be acquiring skills in the field, but it's too early to form any strong opinions. I'll ask you a similar question: you make it sound like you know something about climate change. Is it true, do you actually believe that? If so, care to explain how you think you accomplished that?