3 ms·

Well - I think it's part parody. I mean - obviously the author hasn't done the sort of empirical work discovering the amount of stupid people in each kind of s

Well - I think it's part parody. I mean - obviously the author hasn't done the sort of empirical work discovering the amount of stupid people in each kind of social class. It was at this point in the text that people like me laughed and people like you required a laugh-track. It's interesting though. I meet dudes like you that respond to something that for some reason irks them with: "It's not formulated to the highest standards of intellectual rigour - and so is worst kind of crap" I have to wonder what really is provoking the hyperbole. Because it hardly seems warranted to me. Just a suggestion - but maybe you might profit from stepping back from this a little. Plenty of contributions to a discourse can still possess insight without all the trappings of intellectual rigour.

sgentle 15y ago
The reason I say it's the worst kind of trash is (ironically) the same reason the author says stupid people are the most dangerous - it has about as much merit as, say, a Daily Mail article, but because it's presented in a way that mimics science, it more easily slips past peoples' defences. I suspect that you are falling victim to hyperbole yourself with "highest standards of intellectual rigour". I don't expect a double-blind randomised trial or publication in Nature, but surely when someone says to us "this is the truth", we must ask "why?" If the author had said "I think that people are born stupid or clever, and stupid people are very dangerous, so we should watch out for them." I would disagree, but not loudly - it is, after all, a matter of opinion unless someone has facts to bring to the table. But when someone dresses up their conjecture in make-believe laws and pseudo-scientific formulae, they are being deceptive. Perhaps a more acceptable thing to do would be dispassionately describe the flaws in his argument, but the deception made me angry and I don't see anger as necessarily wrong. I don't believe I wrote anything inaccurate, or anything I wouldn't say if the article was brought up among my friends. Frankly, I'm surprised I was the only one. Perhaps it's just the wrong crowd.
- grovulent 15y ago
  To a certain degree I emphasise - in spoken contexts I often fail to pick up sarcasm. But I have far less problems in navigating through subtle shifts in tone in a piece of text. While you seem to see it as a wolf in sheep's clothing and are terrified that the sheep are about to be devoured, I'm seeing the wolf, dressed in sheep's clothing, comically delivering a lecture to said sheep about avoiding wolves - and actually dispensing some pretty good advice. Surely you can see the wonderfully playful irony here. What's more, the sheep are sitting around (i.e. hacker news readers) having a good ol laugh at the wolf. And you're amongst them shouting loudly - WATCH OUT THE WOLF WILL DEVOUR YOU! And when they look at you strangely your response to this is to conclude that you're just in the wrong crowd. Just a shame is all - you're obviously quite a smart chap. It's like meeting Beethoven and finding out that really he hates listening to Mozart. It would boggle the mind!
  - sgentle 15y ago
    Ha. Well, I don't know if I'd describe myself as terrified or shouting, but I take your point gladly. I wasn't being facetious when I said I hope it's a parody that's gone over my head. For the record, though, the "wrong crowd" was referring to your suggestion that I should step back from the discussion (presumably because you found my comment too forceful or emotional), which I took as your main point. I meant that if your sentiment is shared by others, it could be that that form of argument isn't appreciated on HN. I'm not quite condescending enough to suggest it's the community's fault if I don't get the joke. ;)
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    It's like meeting Beethoven and finding out that really he hates listening to Mozart. Apparently, Ludwig was rather taken with Wolfgang's music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Beethoven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Beethoven
    - grovulent 15y ago
      Indeed - so that's why it would be quite boggling to learn otherwise! ;)

sgentle 15y ago

The reason I say it's the worst kind of trash is (ironically) the same reason the author says stupid people are the most dangerous - it has about as much merit as, say, a Daily Mail article, but because it's presented in a way that mimics science, it more easily slips past peoples' defences. I suspect that you are falling victim to hyperbole yourself with "highest standards of intellectual rigour". I don't expect a double-blind randomised trial or publication in Nature, but surely when someone says to us "this is the truth", we must ask "why?" If the author had said "I think that people are born stupid or clever, and stupid people are very dangerous, so we should watch out for them." I would disagree, but not loudly - it is, after all, a matter of opinion unless someone has facts to bring to the table. But when someone dresses up their conjecture in make-believe laws and pseudo-scientific formulae, they are being deceptive. Perhaps a more acceptable thing to do would be dispassionately describe the flaws in his argument, but the deception made me angry and I don't see anger as necessarily wrong. I don't believe I wrote anything inaccurate, or anything I wouldn't say if the article was brought up among my friends. Frankly, I'm surprised I was the only one. Perhaps it's just the wrong crowd.

grovulent 15y ago
To a certain degree I emphasise - in spoken contexts I often fail to pick up sarcasm. But I have far less problems in navigating through subtle shifts in tone in a piece of text. While you seem to see it as a wolf in sheep's clothing and are terrified that the sheep are about to be devoured, I'm seeing the wolf, dressed in sheep's clothing, comically delivering a lecture to said sheep about avoiding wolves - and actually dispensing some pretty good advice. Surely you can see the wonderfully playful irony here. What's more, the sheep are sitting around (i.e. hacker news readers) having a good ol laugh at the wolf. And you're amongst them shouting loudly - WATCH OUT THE WOLF WILL DEVOUR YOU! And when they look at you strangely your response to this is to conclude that you're just in the wrong crowd. Just a shame is all - you're obviously quite a smart chap. It's like meeting Beethoven and finding out that really he hates listening to Mozart. It would boggle the mind!
- sgentle 15y ago
  Ha. Well, I don't know if I'd describe myself as terrified or shouting, but I take your point gladly. I wasn't being facetious when I said I hope it's a parody that's gone over my head. For the record, though, the "wrong crowd" was referring to your suggestion that I should step back from the discussion (presumably because you found my comment too forceful or emotional), which I took as your main point. I meant that if your sentiment is shared by others, it could be that that form of argument isn't appreciated on HN. I'm not quite condescending enough to suggest it's the community's fault if I don't get the joke. ;)
- stcredzero 15y ago
  It's like meeting Beethoven and finding out that really he hates listening to Mozart. Apparently, Ludwig was rather taken with Wolfgang's music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Beethoven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Beethoven
  - grovulent 15y ago
    Indeed - so that's why it would be quite boggling to learn otherwise! ;)