9 ms·

This is what blows my mind. For a group of people who supposedly rely on institutional knowledge about topics like science and tech, suddenly on this topic its

This is what blows my mind. For a group of people who supposedly rely on institutional knowledge about topics like science and tech, suddenly on this topic its one guys claim against literally dozens of institutions counter claims.

HumblyTossed 6y ago
For anything non-tech related, tech people are just like everyone else. Our supposed higher IQ's don't mean much when forming opinions.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > For anything non-tech related, tech people are just like everyone else. Our supposed higher IQ's don't mean much when forming opinions. Honestly, I think "our supposed higher IQ's" (or more precisely: a self-image as being much smarter than average) can actually be a handicap when dealing with areas outside of one's specialty. It can very easily lead to overconfidence.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    There is a phenomenon with Physicists in their emeritus years. They go into other fields, declare that the field is just so easy, try to model things as 1m radius spheres of water, see that the four interstitial cell layers of the bovine second stomach are hyper-complex and noisy when saline levels change 2% (or things to that effect), declare that the field still needs to change, write a paper up that is simplistic and help no one in the field, get a bit of press coverage, assuage their damaged egos, and then try out landscape painting or Ethiopian cooking. This phenomenon of overconfident and un-humble emeritus Physicists is not restricted to just them, I'm afraid, but all people. Humility is a virtue.
lazyjones 6y ago
Truth is not the majority opinion.
CyberRabbi 6y ago
I think you’re mistaken: This is hacker news, not institution-trained software engineer news.
umanwizard 6y ago
What makes you think HN users “rely on institutional knowledge” more than anyone else? My experience is exactly the opposite.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > What makes you think HN users “rely on institutional knowledge” more than anyone else? My experience is exactly the opposite. I'm guessing it's a generalization from a relatively common great respect for academic science as an institution. However, even that's far from universal, which the pandemic has shown. I do agree with you. I think there's at least as much overconfident mistrust of institutions than respect for them there.
christkv 6y ago
Same institutions who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
- aaaxyz 6y ago
  Not quite. Outside the US intelligence community, very few institutions were convinced that Iraq had WMDs.
  - paradox242 6y ago
    Those inside the intelligence community knew we had no evidence for WMD and that the evidence being put forward as "maybe" was based on bad information from bad sources. Remember when Scoot Libby went to jail for outing Valerie Plame because the administration didn't like the critical op-ed her husband wrote about the whole yellow-cake uranium thing? Or were you like 4 years old back then?
aero-glide 6y ago
One could argue these institutions aren't "trustworthy". Myself, I really don't know where the truth lies. For example, WMDs in Iraq were also by institutions. They may have their own agenda (weather justified or not).
- js2 6y ago
  Bush was unwilling to trust the U.N. inspectors. The CIA had also thought that there were no weapons. Bush took this as evidence that Saddam was hiding weapons. Literally, on 9/12, Paul Wolfowitz asked for intelligence that Saddam had WMD and there wasn't any. With so much pressure from the top to find evidence for WMD, the CIA started to cave. (Saddam had incentive to pretend he had WMD. He certainly didn't want Iran to know he didn't. He obviously didn't want inspectors inside his government buildings. But Bush and his team used Saddam's behavior as evidence he was hiding WMD, rather than the fact that he was hiding the lack of WMD.) Once the CIA realized that war was inevitable, it went into cover-your-ass-mode and said Saddam might have chemical weapons so that US soldiers wouldn't go into Iraq with insufficient protection in-case there were chemical weapons after all. Bush was unwilling to listen to counter-naratives. If Condi Rice or, more likely, Colin Powell had been willing to say "I don't think war is such a good idea" maybe it wouldn't have happened. But Bush surrounded himself with yes men. If Powell hadn't supported the war, likely he and his entire staff would have had to resign. If that had happened, Bush would have lost Tony Blair's support and with that, any international support. Bush probably would have at least thought twice about going to Iraq alone. So in this case, it wasn't so much that the institutions weren't trustworthy, it's that they fell in line with pressure that started from Bush. It doesn't do any good to have experts at your disposal if you're not going to listen to any of them. Source: Robert Draper's exhaustively researched book on how Iraq happened: https://www.amazon.com/Start-War-Bush-Administration-America/dp/0525561048 https://www.amazon.com/Start-War-Bush-Administration-America... Interview with the author: https://www.vox.com/2020/9/2/21417224/why-did-america-invade-iraq-the-ezra-klein-show-to-start-a-war-bush-trump-administration https://www.vox.com/2020/9/2/21417224/why-did-america-invade... (Also, the U.S. media didn't do its job. The cynical side of me says there's money to be made in covering war. But probably, it was just incompetence. I still haven't forgiven the NYT though.)
sciencep00 6y ago
Doesn’t really matter which facts are stored in a cortex. Same old biological biases embedded within. For example, how this forum often lauds certain non-gods and ignores the math that luck of time and place, not inherent abilities, are what bring people wealth. Ignoring all the alternatives and historical evidence of high taxation’s value to a society, this forum likes to cling to celebrity worship of economists and tech elites who can only be elite given a tilted economic reward system tilted by biological indoctrination that’s proven in experiment.... Or how in a democracy we seem to end up in a pretty tilted political power structure. But here they are anyway ignoring science because of biological contentment. Western culture is as irredeemable as any other. Logistical capabilities are what matters, not ideology. Humans can’t escape their own ego though.
megous 6y ago
I just skimmed a mueller report. All instances where mentions of the hacking group names/numbers were, contained just assertions of what the group did. There was no to very little mention of how this information was determined in the surrounding text. Yes, I guess it's a report. But it contains just assertions, so it's only meaningful if you trust the institution making it. I've read reports that actually contained the process the core conclusion were arrived at, like various opensource investigations from Bellingcat, etc. And these were indeed more convincing. Not sure why hacker should just go by blind trust to institutions, lol.
- hluska 6y ago
  You may want to give the report a full, focused read. While the redactions are annoying, Mueller makes one heck of a case over the full 400+ pages. His writing style is highly measured but frankly, it sounds like it had to be or it never would have made it into the public view. It’s interesting reading how slowly Mueller builds his points!
- mugwort13 6y ago
  Vague on purpose. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING claiming the DNC email (and more importantly the PODESTA emails) were "hacked" can be summed up in three words. "According to Crowdstrike..." That's it. No one else did any investigation, just Crowdstrike. The same underhanded, dishonest company that LulzSec and Anonymous felt the needs to expose time and time again for their fraudulent ways. People who have no problem lying or framing people.
tootie 6y ago
I've noticed a rapidly amplifying trend for right-wing opinions and even conspiracies to get a load of comments on this site. It's weird because in the past political conversations have been either avoided or limited to very factual discussions. I can't imagine any troll farms consider HN to be a high-value target, so I can only assume they are sincere.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >I've noticed a rapidly amplifying trend for right-wing opinions It's correlated with the recent rise in Trump's polling. Left wingers who oppose lockdowns, cancel culture and the riots are being pushed towards the right.
  - tootie 6y ago
    Case in point right here. Aside from your observation being objectively untrue, that kind of talk (from any political spectrum) used to be non-existent here.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      It's been happening since at least 2016. I remember that everything seemed to go mental amongst the US internet as of that year. Can't imagine why ;)
- lawrenceyan 6y ago
  HN should probably be considered mainstream at this point. It's better than Reddit of course by nature of the primary demographic it caters to, but it's definitely not underground anymore. The more popular a site is, the more enticing it becomes to those who are interested in marketing/manipulation/etc. To give credit where it's due, I think HN is far more resilient to these kinds of attacks than most other sites. But it's still important to keep in mind that these malicious actors do exist, and are attempting to influence your opinions.
  - krapp 6y ago

HumblyTossed 6y ago

For anything non-tech related, tech people are just like everyone else. Our supposed higher IQ's don't mean much when forming opinions.

ardy42 6y ago
> For anything non-tech related, tech people are just like everyone else. Our supposed higher IQ's don't mean much when forming opinions. Honestly, I think "our supposed higher IQ's" (or more precisely: a self-image as being much smarter than average) can actually be a handicap when dealing with areas outside of one's specialty. It can very easily lead to overconfidence.
- Balgair 6y ago
  There is a phenomenon with Physicists in their emeritus years. They go into other fields, declare that the field is just so easy, try to model things as 1m radius spheres of water, see that the four interstitial cell layers of the bovine second stomach are hyper-complex and noisy when saline levels change 2% (or things to that effect), declare that the field still needs to change, write a paper up that is simplistic and help no one in the field, get a bit of press coverage, assuage their damaged egos, and then try out landscape painting or Ethiopian cooking. This phenomenon of overconfident and un-humble emeritus Physicists is not restricted to just them, I'm afraid, but all people. Humility is a virtue.

lazyjones 6y ago

Truth is not the majority opinion.

CyberRabbi 6y ago

I think you’re mistaken: This is hacker news, not institution-trained software engineer news.

umanwizard 6y ago

What makes you think HN users “rely on institutional knowledge” more than anyone else? My experience is exactly the opposite.

ardy42 6y ago
> What makes you think HN users “rely on institutional knowledge” more than anyone else? My experience is exactly the opposite. I'm guessing it's a generalization from a relatively common great respect for academic science as an institution. However, even that's far from universal, which the pandemic has shown. I do agree with you. I think there's at least as much overconfident mistrust of institutions than respect for them there.

christkv 6y ago

Same institutions who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

aaaxyz 6y ago
Not quite. Outside the US intelligence community, very few institutions were convinced that Iraq had WMDs.
- paradox242 6y ago
  Those inside the intelligence community knew we had no evidence for WMD and that the evidence being put forward as "maybe" was based on bad information from bad sources. Remember when Scoot Libby went to jail for outing Valerie Plame because the administration didn't like the critical op-ed her husband wrote about the whole yellow-cake uranium thing? Or were you like 4 years old back then?

aero-glide 6y ago

One could argue these institutions aren't "trustworthy". Myself, I really don't know where the truth lies. For example, WMDs in Iraq were also by institutions. They may have their own agenda (weather justified or not).

js2 6y ago
Bush was unwilling to trust the U.N. inspectors. The CIA had also thought that there were no weapons. Bush took this as evidence that Saddam was hiding weapons. Literally, on 9/12, Paul Wolfowitz asked for intelligence that Saddam had WMD and there wasn't any. With so much pressure from the top to find evidence for WMD, the CIA started to cave. (Saddam had incentive to pretend he had WMD. He certainly didn't want Iran to know he didn't. He obviously didn't want inspectors inside his government buildings. But Bush and his team used Saddam's behavior as evidence he was hiding WMD, rather than the fact that he was hiding the lack of WMD.) Once the CIA realized that war was inevitable, it went into cover-your-ass-mode and said Saddam might have chemical weapons so that US soldiers wouldn't go into Iraq with insufficient protection in-case there were chemical weapons after all. Bush was unwilling to listen to counter-naratives. If Condi Rice or, more likely, Colin Powell had been willing to say "I don't think war is such a good idea" maybe it wouldn't have happened. But Bush surrounded himself with yes men. If Powell hadn't supported the war, likely he and his entire staff would have had to resign. If that had happened, Bush would have lost Tony Blair's support and with that, any international support. Bush probably would have at least thought twice about going to Iraq alone. So in this case, it wasn't so much that the institutions weren't trustworthy, it's that they fell in line with pressure that started from Bush. It doesn't do any good to have experts at your disposal if you're not going to listen to any of them. Source: Robert Draper's exhaustively researched book on how Iraq happened: https://www.amazon.com/Start-War-Bush-Administration-America/dp/0525561048 https://www.amazon.com/Start-War-Bush-Administration-America... Interview with the author: https://www.vox.com/2020/9/2/21417224/why-did-america-invade-iraq-the-ezra-klein-show-to-start-a-war-bush-trump-administration https://www.vox.com/2020/9/2/21417224/why-did-america-invade... (Also, the U.S. media didn't do its job. The cynical side of me says there's money to be made in covering war. But probably, it was just incompetence. I still haven't forgiven the NYT though.)

sciencep00 6y ago

Doesn’t really matter which facts are stored in a cortex. Same old biological biases embedded within. For example, how this forum often lauds certain non-gods and ignores the math that luck of time and place, not inherent abilities, are what bring people wealth. Ignoring all the alternatives and historical evidence of high taxation’s value to a society, this forum likes to cling to celebrity worship of economists and tech elites who can only be elite given a tilted economic reward system tilted by biological indoctrination that’s proven in experiment.... Or how in a democracy we seem to end up in a pretty tilted political power structure. But here they are anyway ignoring science because of biological contentment. Western culture is as irredeemable as any other. Logistical capabilities are what matters, not ideology. Humans can’t escape their own ego though.

megous 6y ago

I just skimmed a mueller report. All instances where mentions of the hacking group names/numbers were, contained just assertions of what the group did. There was no to very little mention of how this information was determined in the surrounding text. Yes, I guess it's a report. But it contains just assertions, so it's only meaningful if you trust the institution making it. I've read reports that actually contained the process the core conclusion were arrived at, like various opensource investigations from Bellingcat, etc. And these were indeed more convincing. Not sure why hacker should just go by blind trust to institutions, lol.

hluska 6y ago
You may want to give the report a full, focused read. While the redactions are annoying, Mueller makes one heck of a case over the full 400+ pages. His writing style is highly measured but frankly, it sounds like it had to be or it never would have made it into the public view. It’s interesting reading how slowly Mueller builds his points!
mugwort13 6y ago
Vague on purpose. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING claiming the DNC email (and more importantly the PODESTA emails) were "hacked" can be summed up in three words. "According to Crowdstrike..." That's it. No one else did any investigation, just Crowdstrike. The same underhanded, dishonest company that LulzSec and Anonymous felt the needs to expose time and time again for their fraudulent ways. People who have no problem lying or framing people.

tootie 6y ago

I've noticed a rapidly amplifying trend for right-wing opinions and even conspiracies to get a load of comments on this site. It's weird because in the past political conversations have been either avoided or limited to very factual discussions. I can't imagine any troll farms consider HN to be a high-value target, so I can only assume they are sincere.

logicchains 6y ago
>I've noticed a rapidly amplifying trend for right-wing opinions It's correlated with the recent rise in Trump's polling. Left wingers who oppose lockdowns, cancel culture and the riots are being pushed towards the right.
- tootie 6y ago
  Case in point right here. Aside from your observation being objectively untrue, that kind of talk (from any political spectrum) used to be non-existent here.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    It's been happening since at least 2016. I remember that everything seemed to go mental amongst the US internet as of that year. Can't imagine why ;)
lawrenceyan 6y ago
HN should probably be considered mainstream at this point. It's better than Reddit of course by nature of the primary demographic it caters to, but it's definitely not underground anymore. The more popular a site is, the more enticing it becomes to those who are interested in marketing/manipulation/etc. To give credit where it's due, I think HN is far more resilient to these kinds of attacks than most other sites. But it's still important to keep in mind that these malicious actors do exist, and are attempting to influence your opinions.
- krapp 6y ago