7 ms·

It's a mistake to think that the populace was ever rational and that there was a "truth" period that preceded the current "post-truth" era. I don't even consid

It's a mistake to think that the populace was ever rational and that there was a "truth" period that preceded the current "post-truth" era. I don't even consider myself to be a rational person. Everything I think and do is through the perspective of my worldview, personality, and my peers. Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise. In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side.

PH01 6y ago
> In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side. This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false. If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?
- ilaksh 6y ago
  Real-world issues are not boolean variables.
  - brokenkebab 6y ago
    This commentary is interesting in that it's absolutely correct, but adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
- eindiran 6y ago
  I don't understand how you took the idea that OP doesn't believe in truth from their post. Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred).
  - PH01 6y ago
    > Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". Did you read the article? > Here, “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed by less important matters like ideology It does not imply a golden age of rationality at all.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  I do work in technology and I'm not trying to be nihilistic or Socratic (in the sense that nothing is knowable). As for your boolean example I don't deny that you can prove things using formal logic. But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract. Subjects where human emotion and human perception don't come into play. In societal subjects the same facts can be used to justify different conclusions. As an example, look at all the wildly different economic policies that are recommended by different economists who are all looking at the same data published by The Fed. I know that "Alternative Facts" has a lot of vernacular baggage around it due to the crowd size fiasco with Donald Trump's inauguration. Putting that aside, an alternative fact can really just be a datapoint from a different perspective. And that's often how I see every argument. I don't use "Alternative Facts" as a synonym for lying.
  - PH01 6y ago
    You claim: > Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise. You also state: > But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract. Do you not see the contradiction in these two terms? The creation of formal proofs implies rationality. The comprehension of formal proofs implies rationality. If people are only born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment and keeping harmony who wrote the formal proofs?
    - brokenkebab 6y ago
      What if humans rationality circuits are always subordinated to group/mating/whatever circuits? Then it's possible to be rational in math, and irrational in most other issues.
      - PH01 6y ago
        Are we working on the same definition of rational? I am using what I consider to be the standard definition which would pop up from a google search: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" / "able to think sensibly or logically" / "endowed with the capacity to reason". You made the claim that you do not believe people are rational. Following from this you would also have to believe that individual's actions are without reason. Consequently, any perceived reason or logic, either by the actor or an observer, would actually be a post-hoc explanation for action. From a behavioural persective cause and effect would no longer exist, nothing could be predicted and nothing could be planned. This is entirely at odds with what we know about post-truth. Individual behaviour can be modelled and population behaviour can be predicted to a degree. Irrational actions do not imply irrationality. An irrational action is usually a consequence of rational thinking based on incorrect information.
shoes_for_thee 6y ago
I don't think the issue is whether or not people are more or less rational now than in previous era. The issue, from my view, is that people are just as irrational as they've always been, but the consensus facts of reality are suddenly up for debate. There's a new marketplace of facts supplementing the marketplace of ideas and the combined effect is catastrophic. When I refer to post-truth or transpostmodernism or whatever, I'm not talking about people who have arrived at different conclusions based on the same facts -- I'm talking about people who have based their conclusions on opposing, contradictory facts.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > the combined effect is catastrophic. Where is the catastrophe? What I see is people arguing online. You can point to real world events but I’ll ask next what makes them out of the ordinary and of greater size or import than other years, and it’ll be hard to say they are. But the din online suggests they are. What should we expect when communication tech becomes cheaper and more widespread? I don’t see any catastrophe though. More speech is a good thing, power to the people and all that.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Most of what you say is true. What's more, we all kind of know it - about ourselves, and about others. But the difference is, people thought that rationalism was possible and desirable, and now they think it isn't. (Isn't possible, at least, which renders moot the question of whether it would be desirable.) We used to think that there were objectively right conclusions, and, if people were careful, they could be rational enough at least some of the time to reach those conclusions. And now we don't. We now think that all truth claims are only about power, and not at all about actual truth. There's no point in even trying to reach the truth, because it isn't there to reach. It doesn't exist. And that's a radical difference from the previous mind-set, whether or not the rationality of individuals changed.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  Take a look at Jonathan Haidt's work such as The Righteous Mind. He is not coming to the conclusion that there is no point. He is suggesting that people need to be aware of their strongly-held preconceived ideas, and work hard to understand the other side's worldview, before being able to make more objective conclusions or have constructive discussions. It's really about taking time to absorb some of the alternate information streams to understand what a different perspective they are coming from. The problem is that most information sources are highly polarized at this point.

PH01 6y ago

> In fact, I look at the "post-truth" label as just another non-rational attack against the other side. This is an odd perspective to see on ycombinator. The negation of knowledge as a fundamental concept is nihilism. I find it very hard to accept that "alternative facts" are true. A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false. If you work in technology do you believe in booleans or do you think they are also open to individual interpretation?

ilaksh 6y ago
Real-world issues are not boolean variables.
- brokenkebab 6y ago
  This commentary is interesting in that it's absolutely correct, but adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
eindiran 6y ago
I don't understand how you took the idea that OP doesn't believe in truth from their post. Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred).
- PH01 6y ago
  > Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". Did you read the article? > Here, “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed by less important matters like ideology It does not imply a golden age of rationality at all.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
I do work in technology and I'm not trying to be nihilistic or Socratic (in the sense that nothing is knowable). As for your boolean example I don't deny that you can prove things using formal logic. But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract. Subjects where human emotion and human perception don't come into play. In societal subjects the same facts can be used to justify different conclusions. As an example, look at all the wildly different economic policies that are recommended by different economists who are all looking at the same data published by The Fed. I know that "Alternative Facts" has a lot of vernacular baggage around it due to the crowd size fiasco with Donald Trump's inauguration. Putting that aside, an alternative fact can really just be a datapoint from a different perspective. And that's often how I see every argument. I don't use "Alternative Facts" as a synonym for lying.
- PH01 6y ago
  You claim: > Human beings didn't evolve to be rational creatures - we're not Vulcans. We're born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment around us and maintaining harmony with the people around us. It's a mistake to believe otherwise. You also state: > But I do believe those formal proofs are only really applicable to the mathematical and the abstract. Do you not see the contradiction in these two terms? The creation of formal proofs implies rationality. The comprehension of formal proofs implies rationality. If people are only born with good-enough rules for making sense of the environment and keeping harmony who wrote the formal proofs?
  - brokenkebab 6y ago
    What if humans rationality circuits are always subordinated to group/mating/whatever circuits? Then it's possible to be rational in math, and irrational in most other issues.
    - PH01 6y ago
      Are we working on the same definition of rational? I am using what I consider to be the standard definition which would pop up from a google search: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" / "able to think sensibly or logically" / "endowed with the capacity to reason". You made the claim that you do not believe people are rational. Following from this you would also have to believe that individual's actions are without reason. Consequently, any perceived reason or logic, either by the actor or an observer, would actually be a post-hoc explanation for action. From a behavioural persective cause and effect would no longer exist, nothing could be predicted and nothing could be planned. This is entirely at odds with what we know about post-truth. Individual behaviour can be modelled and population behaviour can be predicted to a degree. Irrational actions do not imply irrationality. An irrational action is usually a consequence of rational thinking based on incorrect information.

shoes_for_thee 6y ago

I don't think the issue is whether or not people are more or less rational now than in previous era. The issue, from my view, is that people are just as irrational as they've always been, but the consensus facts of reality are suddenly up for debate. There's a new marketplace of facts supplementing the marketplace of ideas and the combined effect is catastrophic. When I refer to post-truth or transpostmodernism or whatever, I'm not talking about people who have arrived at different conclusions based on the same facts -- I'm talking about people who have based their conclusions on opposing, contradictory facts.

brigandish 6y ago
> the combined effect is catastrophic. Where is the catastrophe? What I see is people arguing online. You can point to real world events but I’ll ask next what makes them out of the ordinary and of greater size or import than other years, and it’ll be hard to say they are. But the din online suggests they are. What should we expect when communication tech becomes cheaper and more widespread? I don’t see any catastrophe though. More speech is a good thing, power to the people and all that.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Most of what you say is true. What's more, we all kind of know it - about ourselves, and about others. But the difference is, people thought that rationalism was possible and desirable, and now they think it isn't. (Isn't possible, at least, which renders moot the question of whether it would be desirable.) We used to think that there were objectively right conclusions, and, if people were careful, they could be rational enough at least some of the time to reach those conclusions. And now we don't. We now think that all truth claims are only about power, and not at all about actual truth. There's no point in even trying to reach the truth, because it isn't there to reach. It doesn't exist. And that's a radical difference from the previous mind-set, whether or not the rationality of individuals changed.

ilaksh 6y ago
Take a look at Jonathan Haidt's work such as The Righteous Mind. He is not coming to the conclusion that there is no point. He is suggesting that people need to be aware of their strongly-held preconceived ideas, and work hard to understand the other side's worldview, before being able to make more objective conclusions or have constructive discussions. It's really about taking time to absorb some of the alternate information streams to understand what a different perspective they are coming from. The problem is that most information sources are highly polarized at this point.