5 ms·

I couldn’t agree more. The COVID discussions have been the single most frustrating experience for me on HN since I joined. Ever single comment I’ve made downvo

by zaroth 6y ago

I couldn’t agree more. The COVID discussions have been the single most frustrating experience for me on HN since I joined. Ever single comment I’ve made downvoted, even accused of contributing to millions of deaths (an account which was thankfully banned for making the remark). It’s only in the last week or two that it’s started to become remotely possible to have intellectual discussions on COVID, but it’s still overwhelmingly politicized and unscientific.

clairity 6y ago
agreed, it's been hard having discerning discussions about this disease. the tide has been turning though in the last few weeks as the hysteria wanes.
- TTPrograms 6y ago
  The problem is that you have every Jane and Joe who's ever put a line through a set of points making graphs and arguments that conflict with the consensus of epidemiologists/social statisticians. It's fine (and good!) to investigate that sort of thing and share your results, but then you should be sharing "I did this sort of analysis, it seems to conflict with all these other analyses, does anyone know why? Maybe X?". Instead you have "OMG when you do this it looks like Y, the powers that be are lying to us!". For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior. Assuming your description of "the" problem is accurate (I suspect it isn't - and it's "a" problem, not "the" problem, pardon the nitpicking), what do you propose should be done about it? On an individual basis, a community basis, a governmental basis, etc - what should be do? Because as far as I can tell, we (the citizens of planet Earth) seem to be stuck in this recursive loop of anger, finger pointing, and general failure. And it doesn't seem like anyone else notices. Well, mostly no one. https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png
    - TTPrograms 6y ago
      I'd say that behavior is similar to if an individual in, say, a school or assembly, shouted "FIRE" upon witnessing a chemistry demonstration involving a controlled flame. If that somehow caused a stampede resulting in loss of life they might be held accountable by the courts. These acts on social media can be quite similar philosophically, so one would expect that the legal treatment should be similar (albeit perhaps adjusted proportionately for impact and reasonableness of the held belief). I don't necessarily think that's what should be done in practice, but it seems consistent with how western society responds to this behavior in other settings. I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically.
      - mistermann 6y ago
        > I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically. Completely agree, but I believe this behaviour applies to 90%+ of those who express confident opinions on the matters of the day, and downvote anyone who dares question those opinions when they can't put together a convincing argument for their strong assertions. Some evidence for the frequency of this behaviour exists, we could have insight into it, but I suspect we shall choose to not discuss such things. Only downvote them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavirus-knowing-your-limits-in-a-pandemic/ https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavir... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ (These links are not directed at you personally, just to be clear).
        6y ago

by zaroth 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

agreed, it's been hard having discerning discussions about this disease. the tide has been turning though in the last few weeks as the hysteria wanes.

TTPrograms 6y ago
The problem is that you have every Jane and Joe who's ever put a line through a set of points making graphs and arguments that conflict with the consensus of epidemiologists/social statisticians. It's fine (and good!) to investigate that sort of thing and share your results, but then you should be sharing "I did this sort of analysis, it seems to conflict with all these other analyses, does anyone know why? Maybe X?". Instead you have "OMG when you do this it looks like Y, the powers that be are lying to us!". For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > For a non-critical issue this would lower the quality of discourse slightly, but it's not an exceptional problem. In the case of critical major issues involving active disinformation this is highly irresponsible behavior. Assuming your description of "the" problem is accurate (I suspect it isn't - and it's "a" problem, not "the" problem, pardon the nitpicking), what do you propose should be done about it? On an individual basis, a community basis, a governmental basis, etc - what should be do? Because as far as I can tell, we (the citizens of planet Earth) seem to be stuck in this recursive loop of anger, finger pointing, and general failure. And it doesn't seem like anyone else notices. Well, mostly no one. https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png https://i.imgur.com/QA6vSzC.png
  - TTPrograms 6y ago
    I'd say that behavior is similar to if an individual in, say, a school or assembly, shouted "FIRE" upon witnessing a chemistry demonstration involving a controlled flame. If that somehow caused a stampede resulting in loss of life they might be held accountable by the courts. These acts on social media can be quite similar philosophically, so one would expect that the legal treatment should be similar (albeit perhaps adjusted proportionately for impact and reasonableness of the held belief). I don't necessarily think that's what should be done in practice, but it seems consistent with how western society responds to this behavior in other settings. I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > I don't necessarily think there is a good solution, either - I just mean to say that people who do that, even if they are well-meaning, are behaving unethically. That's because they believe in their own perspective with 100% probability, but that's obviously unreasonable from a Bayesian perspective. If they accounted for even a small probability that they are wrong then their behavior would change dramatically. Completely agree, but I believe this behaviour applies to 90%+ of those who express confident opinions on the matters of the day, and downvote anyone who dares question those opinions when they can't put together a convincing argument for their strong assertions. Some evidence for the frequency of this behaviour exists, we could have insight into it, but I suspect we shall choose to not discuss such things. Only downvote them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavirus-knowing-your-limits-in-a-pandemic/ https://behavioralscientist.org/epistemic-humility-coronavir... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/ (These links are not directed at you personally, just to be clear).
      - 6y ago