3 ms·

Side note - I'm impressed that a 2 year old account with so many comments has negative karma.

The_rationalist 6y ago
A consequence of catching logical fallacies where the lambda reader falls into. Also, echo chamber are strong on HN, what else is new? But nice try with this implied argumentum ad populum.
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  Is it not also a fallacy to fail to fully consider alternative explanations (see: fallacy fallacy, argument by dismissal)? Most engineers are fully comfortable with being corrected in cases of objective fact. What you're doing here is not that, it's instead insisting that any analysis other than your own is mushy-brained nonsense with a near-total lack of social niceties. Consider the alternative explanation that people don't like the way you're aggressively presenting your ideas and failing to (at least outwardly) seriously consider the ideas of others in kind.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Have you considered that most of the people who point out logical fallacies incorrectly come off as incredibly rude and overbearing and this has nothing to do with Hacker News's "echo chamber"?
  - The_rationalist 6y ago
    incorrectly where? Pointing erroneously a logical fallacy should just allow someone to explain how it actually wasn't one, no needs for feelings here. If the pointed logical fallacy was definitely one then the reader should actually thanks the author for showing him a path toward intellectual growth. incredibly rude this is hyperbolic, we are an adult forum that should be able to talking about cold facts and respect more truth seeking than pleasing each others feelings. this has nothing to do with Hacker News's "echo chamber"? I am refering to the pro mozilla fan base of HN. Being a "fan" often make taking criticism far harder on the brain. Also ironically, they fail to see that I am a more active supporter of mozilla than most of them (cf my comment on how I read all of Servo activity for 2 years)
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      You appear to currently be at the level of "rationalist" mindset where you understand some ways in which people's reasoning is not ideal, and you haven't yet understood and accepted that "rationalism is by definition choosing approaches that win", and that being obnoxious tends to lose. Don't deliberately choose approaches that lose. (That's quite separate from things like "there is value in defaulting to treating people decently".) You can point out a problem or fallacy without reveling in abrasiveness. Consider how good the brain is at pattern matching, what patterns people will match your comments to, and how you could more successfully convince others compared to your current strategy. Before assuming that you're just better than everyone downvoting you, carefully consider the accuracy of your priors, and the biases that make people generally tend to give more weight to their own beliefs. Consider how rarely people actually change their minds; seriously consider what it would take to convince you that a different approach would be more successful. Consider what failure modes you could fall into if you assume that you couldn't possibly be wrong in your approach to interaction with others. Consider whether, in the course of making rationality a sacred value (not by any means a bad thing), you have also come to treat "disregarding feelings and empathy" as a sacred value, rather than valuing empathy as a critical input. If you want the world to be more rational, you are not only not convincing people, you are actively harming that cause through the example you're setting; you're giving people associations and exemplars for "rationalist" that will make people want nothing to do with it. If you think that people shouldn't care about feelings and should be pleased to get your feedback, then 1) you're committing the is-ought fallacy by not recognizing how the world actually works and acting accordingly, and 2) you should question your "ought", and what a world where people don't value empathy looks like. (Lest this be misinterpreted: Choosing to value empathy does not mean choosing not to value truth, or to value it less.) I've been where you seem to be. I've lived the is-ought fallacy, on multiple topics. It took me a long time (and various helpful writings) to learn to question some of my assumptions and hypotheses, test them, and improve my worldview. (One of the first ones I took a while to learn was "yes, how you dress matters, people will judge you accordingly, stop resenting it, accept it and use it to your advantage".)

A consequence of catching logical fallacies where the lambda reader falls into. Also, echo chamber are strong on HN, what else is new? But nice try with this implied argumentum ad populum.

entropicdrifter 6y ago
Is it not also a fallacy to fail to fully consider alternative explanations (see: fallacy fallacy, argument by dismissal)? Most engineers are fully comfortable with being corrected in cases of objective fact. What you're doing here is not that, it's instead insisting that any analysis other than your own is mushy-brained nonsense with a near-total lack of social niceties. Consider the alternative explanation that people don't like the way you're aggressively presenting your ideas and failing to (at least outwardly) seriously consider the ideas of others in kind.
saagarjha 6y ago
Have you considered that most of the people who point out logical fallacies incorrectly come off as incredibly rude and overbearing and this has nothing to do with Hacker News's "echo chamber"?
- The_rationalist 6y ago
  incorrectly where? Pointing erroneously a logical fallacy should just allow someone to explain how it actually wasn't one, no needs for feelings here. If the pointed logical fallacy was definitely one then the reader should actually thanks the author for showing him a path toward intellectual growth. incredibly rude this is hyperbolic, we are an adult forum that should be able to talking about cold facts and respect more truth seeking than pleasing each others feelings. this has nothing to do with Hacker News's "echo chamber"? I am refering to the pro mozilla fan base of HN. Being a "fan" often make taking criticism far harder on the brain. Also ironically, they fail to see that I am a more active supporter of mozilla than most of them (cf my comment on how I read all of Servo activity for 2 years)
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    You appear to currently be at the level of "rationalist" mindset where you understand some ways in which people's reasoning is not ideal, and you haven't yet understood and accepted that "rationalism is by definition choosing approaches that win", and that being obnoxious tends to lose. Don't deliberately choose approaches that lose. (That's quite separate from things like "there is value in defaulting to treating people decently".) You can point out a problem or fallacy without reveling in abrasiveness. Consider how good the brain is at pattern matching, what patterns people will match your comments to, and how you could more successfully convince others compared to your current strategy. Before assuming that you're just better than everyone downvoting you, carefully consider the accuracy of your priors, and the biases that make people generally tend to give more weight to their own beliefs. Consider how rarely people actually change their minds; seriously consider what it would take to convince you that a different approach would be more successful. Consider what failure modes you could fall into if you assume that you couldn't possibly be wrong in your approach to interaction with others. Consider whether, in the course of making rationality a sacred value (not by any means a bad thing), you have also come to treat "disregarding feelings and empathy" as a sacred value, rather than valuing empathy as a critical input. If you want the world to be more rational, you are not only not convincing people, you are actively harming that cause through the example you're setting; you're giving people associations and exemplars for "rationalist" that will make people want nothing to do with it. If you think that people shouldn't care about feelings and should be pleased to get your feedback, then 1) you're committing the is-ought fallacy by not recognizing how the world actually works and acting accordingly, and 2) you should question your "ought", and what a world where people don't value empathy looks like. (Lest this be misinterpreted: Choosing to value empathy does not mean choosing not to value truth, or to value it less.) I've been where you seem to be. I've lived the is-ought fallacy, on multiple topics. It took me a long time (and various helpful writings) to learn to question some of my assumptions and hypotheses, test them, and improve my worldview. (One of the first ones I took a while to learn was "yes, how you dress matters, people will judge you accordingly, stop resenting it, accept it and use it to your advantage".)