5 ms·

Those two are the exact same thing with merely different wording, since "we" are defining what is "reasonable", "we" are exerting control.

wolfgang42 6y ago
“provide them with the tools to understand what is reasonable” ≠ “defining what is "reasonable"”. You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach. In theory, &/or to some degree. It's also worth noting that "reasoned conclusions" are not necessarily what is True. Rather than desiring that humanity strives for Rationality, wouldn't it make more sense to aim higher? To instead desire that humanity pursues Truth? This way, we can improve all people: the members of our outgroups and our ingroups.
  - wolfgang42 6y ago
    Millennia of philosophers have searched for Truth, and as far as I can tell we are no closer to definitively finding it. But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective. My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved. I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > and as far as I can tell we are no closer to definitively finding it Perhaps it has been found but not distributed, or accepted. If we found it, would we even know? Would we be willing to acknowledge it, and practice it? > But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective. This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me. Reality is rarely exactly as it seems. > My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved. Perhaps, assuming (at least) we have no major flaws in our premises, or our systems (democracy theatre). I do share your hope though. > I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got. It may be the best we've got now, but have we put any serious effort into finding alternatives? The horse and buggy was the best we had until someone invented the car; NASA was the best we had until Elon Musk started SpaceX, and so forth and so on. As we sow, so shall we reap.
      - wolfgang42 6y ago
        I’m struggling to understand your point. If we do find Truth, or a better way, how should we best verify we have found it—and convince others of that—and apply it—if not by careful application of reason? If there are flaws in our premises and systems, by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them?
        mistermann 6y ago
        Some things that people feel strongly about may not "resolve" according to reason. That you've only ever been inside your own mind (with it's processor, and its model, which is derived from its "lived experiences") might have had some influence on how you believe that other people think. But if you look at what's going on around you, does this seem likely? The question then is: it is it that these people just(!) "aren't reasonable", or might there be something else going on? I don't doubt it's partially true, but what is really going on in other people's heads is unknown to you and me. > by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them A reasonable thing to do would be to perhaps ask people what their problem is. Funny thing is though, it seems like this reasonable idea hasn't occurred to any "reasonable" people, as far as I know anyways. A more ambitious approach would be to perform a comprehensive and careful examination of the other styles of thinking & belief systems that are out there. When you read threads like this one, do you get a strong sense that a large percentage of the people in here have actually done that? I don't, perhaps because I've actually done just that, at least do a large degree. I know that 75%+ of the people in here are running largely on heuristics, likely combined with some first hand experience (perhaps with a side order of confirmation bias), and likely plenty of consumption of "proper, trustworthy journalism", written by people who are also running on heuristics. Very few people have a very good knowledge of how the mind works, and almost no one seems to have excellent knowledge, including things like edge case behaviors. Another thing you may notice in culture war threads like this one is the lack of curiosity/uncertainty/humility - but you may not notice it unless you are consciously looking for it. That's another thing about the mind: it's not so great at seeing things that aren't there, or knowing things that it doesn't know. I believe that this is a partial cause for the perceptions of omniscience that are always on full display in threads like this. Ironically, omniscience is a fairly reasonable perception for a neural network like the subconscious mind - after all, how do you reason about data that is not in your model? Such things can be learned, but why would one go to the effort of learning something new if you already know everything worth knowing? That would be unreasonable. As for the general utility of using reason as an approach to our problems - HN is surely an above average intelligence forum. The conversation that's going on in this thread (and the many others like it that occur on a regular basis), is this what "reason" looks like? And if people on HN can't even manage it, how reasonable is it to expect joe sixpack to pull it off? And so I shall take my downvotes, and we will repeat this same process tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and eventually we will all reach our expiration date and our children can continue this process, and then pass it down to their offspring - The eternal circle of life. Well, eternal, provided another nation who doesn't suffer from this cultural affliction doesn't rise to power and ruin our party that is. That would be a real bummer. PS: Sorry for being a dick. It's in my nature.
- Vecr 6y ago
  Are not you then suggesting that the conclusions they should reach to be reasonable? There is nothing that says democracy has to produce a reasonable system, and most people could point to an area where it's not, at least subjectively.
  - wolfgang42 6y ago
    People making suggestions to each other is a fundamental part of democracy. Of course it is not guaranteed to produce reasonable results, but I think we should help it along in that direction.
jariel 6y ago
No - they are not. 'The News' - which is mostly credible, is mostly not a form of state propaganda. 'The News' in the US, is a 'reasonable' form of credible information. 'Facebook' is generally not a good source of truthful information. It's a very open and free place to communicate, which is wonderful, but it's just not a good truthiness signal. Enough with this idea that anything but 'everyone on a soapbox' is somehow fascist. Every community has sources that are more legitimately authoritative than others.
- aksss 6y ago
  When you have a revolving door from the intelligence agencies into the news commentariat, along with speech writers/communications staff for politicians, I think that it's safe to eye "The News" as being at best an unwitting tool of state propaganda, if not an open-eyed broker/distributor of it. I could maybe cut them some slack for eagerly and uncritically repeating the feeds from "unnamed intelligence sources", but when you're paying the nominally "retired" members of the community to help craft the narrative, it's hard to view them as "mostly credible".
  - jariel 6y ago
    It is completely false to suggest that 'political speech writers' and some influence of 'narrative' by state bureaucracies entirely discredits the free press. 'The problem with the press' are their own internal narratives and biases, not any external influence. The press are generally free to report on what they see, and they do that. It's their opinion that gets in the way. And ironically, if there are bits they're afraid to report it's definitely not political, it's corporate, for fear of losing advertising revenue.
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
We are exerting control, but not complete control, and it's certainly not fascism. Ideally, yes, everyone could understand every concept from the ground up and be able to engage in reasonable discourse about anything. At this point, the complexity of the world precludes the majority of people from doing that, which is why we have specialization. Practically speaking, people rely on authoritative sources to gain information about something so they can form opinions and make decisions. Those authorities do define what's reasonable based on different attributes, and in doing so exert control, but that doesn't make what they're doing fascist. It's done because the amount of complexity present in the world requires it.

wolfgang42 6y ago

“provide them with the tools to understand what is reasonable” ≠ “defining what is "reasonable"”. You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach.

mistermann 6y ago
> You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach. In theory, &/or to some degree. It's also worth noting that "reasoned conclusions" are not necessarily what is True. Rather than desiring that humanity strives for Rationality, wouldn't it make more sense to aim higher? To instead desire that humanity pursues Truth? This way, we can improve all people: the members of our outgroups and our ingroups.
- wolfgang42 6y ago
  Millennia of philosophers have searched for Truth, and as far as I can tell we are no closer to definitively finding it. But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective. My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved. I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > and as far as I can tell we are no closer to definitively finding it Perhaps it has been found but not distributed, or accepted. If we found it, would we even know? Would we be willing to acknowledge it, and practice it? > But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective. This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me. Reality is rarely exactly as it seems. > My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved. Perhaps, assuming (at least) we have no major flaws in our premises, or our systems (democracy theatre). I do share your hope though. > I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got. It may be the best we've got now, but have we put any serious effort into finding alternatives? The horse and buggy was the best we had until someone invented the car; NASA was the best we had until Elon Musk started SpaceX, and so forth and so on. As we sow, so shall we reap.
    - wolfgang42 6y ago
      I’m struggling to understand your point. If we do find Truth, or a better way, how should we best verify we have found it—and convince others of that—and apply it—if not by careful application of reason? If there are flaws in our premises and systems, by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them?
      - mistermann 6y ago
        Some things that people feel strongly about may not "resolve" according to reason. That you've only ever been inside your own mind (with it's processor, and its model, which is derived from its "lived experiences") might have had some influence on how you believe that other people think. But if you look at what's going on around you, does this seem likely? The question then is: it is it that these people just(!) "aren't reasonable", or might there be something else going on? I don't doubt it's partially true, but what is really going on in other people's heads is unknown to you and me. > by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them A reasonable thing to do would be to perhaps ask people what their problem is. Funny thing is though, it seems like this reasonable idea hasn't occurred to any "reasonable" people, as far as I know anyways. A more ambitious approach would be to perform a comprehensive and careful examination of the other styles of thinking & belief systems that are out there. When you read threads like this one, do you get a strong sense that a large percentage of the people in here have actually done that? I don't, perhaps because I've actually done just that, at least do a large degree. I know that 75%+ of the people in here are running largely on heuristics, likely combined with some first hand experience (perhaps with a side order of confirmation bias), and likely plenty of consumption of "proper, trustworthy journalism", written by people who are also running on heuristics. Very few people have a very good knowledge of how the mind works, and almost no one seems to have excellent knowledge, including things like edge case behaviors. Another thing you may notice in culture war threads like this one is the lack of curiosity/uncertainty/humility - but you may not notice it unless you are consciously looking for it. That's another thing about the mind: it's not so great at seeing things that aren't there, or knowing things that it doesn't know. I believe that this is a partial cause for the perceptions of omniscience that are always on full display in threads like this. Ironically, omniscience is a fairly reasonable perception for a neural network like the subconscious mind - after all, how do you reason about data that is not in your model? Such things can be learned, but why would one go to the effort of learning something new if you already know everything worth knowing? That would be unreasonable. As for the general utility of using reason as an approach to our problems - HN is surely an above average intelligence forum. The conversation that's going on in this thread (and the many others like it that occur on a regular basis), is this what "reason" looks like? And if people on HN can't even manage it, how reasonable is it to expect joe sixpack to pull it off? And so I shall take my downvotes, and we will repeat this same process tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and eventually we will all reach our expiration date and our children can continue this process, and then pass it down to their offspring - The eternal circle of life. Well, eternal, provided another nation who doesn't suffer from this cultural affliction doesn't rise to power and ruin our party that is. That would be a real bummer. PS: Sorry for being a dick. It's in my nature.
Vecr 6y ago
Are not you then suggesting that the conclusions they should reach to be reasonable? There is nothing that says democracy has to produce a reasonable system, and most people could point to an area where it's not, at least subjectively.
- wolfgang42 6y ago
  People making suggestions to each other is a fundamental part of democracy. Of course it is not guaranteed to produce reasonable results, but I think we should help it along in that direction.

jariel 6y ago

No - they are not. 'The News' - which is mostly credible, is mostly not a form of state propaganda. 'The News' in the US, is a 'reasonable' form of credible information. 'Facebook' is generally not a good source of truthful information. It's a very open and free place to communicate, which is wonderful, but it's just not a good truthiness signal. Enough with this idea that anything but 'everyone on a soapbox' is somehow fascist. Every community has sources that are more legitimately authoritative than others.

aksss 6y ago
When you have a revolving door from the intelligence agencies into the news commentariat, along with speech writers/communications staff for politicians, I think that it's safe to eye "The News" as being at best an unwitting tool of state propaganda, if not an open-eyed broker/distributor of it. I could maybe cut them some slack for eagerly and uncritically repeating the feeds from "unnamed intelligence sources", but when you're paying the nominally "retired" members of the community to help craft the narrative, it's hard to view them as "mostly credible".
- jariel 6y ago
  It is completely false to suggest that 'political speech writers' and some influence of 'narrative' by state bureaucracies entirely discredits the free press. 'The problem with the press' are their own internal narratives and biases, not any external influence. The press are generally free to report on what they see, and they do that. It's their opinion that gets in the way. And ironically, if there are bits they're afraid to report it's definitely not political, it's corporate, for fear of losing advertising revenue.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

We are exerting control, but not complete control, and it's certainly not fascism. Ideally, yes, everyone could understand every concept from the ground up and be able to engage in reasonable discourse about anything. At this point, the complexity of the world precludes the majority of people from doing that, which is why we have specialization. Practically speaking, people rely on authoritative sources to gain information about something so they can form opinions and make decisions. Those authorities do define what's reasonable based on different attributes, and in doing so exert control, but that doesn't make what they're doing fascist. It's done because the amount of complexity present in the world requires it.