4 ms·

<aside> If you read reddit, Digg or any other social news site, the format for stories like these seems to always be: 1. Some "obviously" stupid decision. 2.

by rkalla 15y ago

<aside> If you read reddit, Digg or any other social news site, the format for stories like these seems to always be: 1. Some "obviously" stupid decision. 2. Some bureaucrat that made it. 3. A critical article talking about how obviously stupid this all is and how stupid the bureaucrat(s) are. 4. The implication that the writer (and the reader) would never make that "mistake". Some of the articles are justified, I'm sure. I have no idea if this one is... I don't have all the facts. I wasn't sitting in the room was the decision was made, I don't know what the reasoning was. All I know is that the frequency of these stories is absurd. If we were all so smart all the time and everyone else that wasn't us was so dumb all the time and in desperate need of correction, I don't think the world would function. Generally speaking (again, not specific to this story) I think we all need to cut each other some slack. What good are these expose articles really doing? Is the world getting any less dumb and more in-line with my expectations of humanity? No Is the embarrassment of articles like this helping to decrease the occurrence of stupidity? No Are articles like this improving the discourse between groups? No The negative carpet-bomb article style, something I'm certainly guilty of, is something that I hope dissolves as we move forward. It's done nothing for actual coverage and in certain areas, like political debate, it has made the topic almost unreadable to me.

Alex3917 15y ago
"The negative carpet-bomb article style, something I'm certainly guilty of, is something that I hope dissolves as we move forward." I think the larger problem is that it's generally impossible to know if anything you read in the newspaper is true or not, it's just that these sorts of articles tend to make that more salient. As for this particular style of article, there seems to be some sort of freudian conflict within each of us between how internal or external our locus of control should be. The stuff that becomes the most popular on social news sites tends to be highly masturbatory, and creating a mythology around the 'correct' locus is the all time #1 way of masturbatorifying content. That's why every popular movie ever starts out with the main character waking up and discovering that they're 'different' and they have some sort of destiny. And it's why HN articles alternate between portraying life like an XYZ quest versus articles like these.[1] [1] Go to X, kill Y, take Z. Possibly attributable to Ralph Koster.
- rkalla 15y ago
  Not having all the facts (knowing if the information you are reading is true) is one of the core reasons I find political debate with others totally useless. As for "masturbatorifying content", a fantastic term. You also hit on another great topic that could be a separate post entirely... appealing to our ids with the "you MIGHT be special" mechanic. Very very true, and something that appeals to me just as much as the next guy.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "As for 'masturbatorifying content', a fantastic term." Yeah, I've thought of writing a blog post on this. The basic idea is that you give a voice to things that people already want to believe are true. This opens up a sort of window of credulity, which allows you to sell whatever you're trying to sell in the context of this unconscious angst that you're channeling. The best is if you can find some sort of belief that millions of people share but that no one has ever articulated or properly defended, that's how you make millions of dollars whether you're running a startup, writing a book, etc.
    - sitkack 15y ago
      You should read, watch and listen to Hitler's speeches. He told the German people they were different, special and they had a destiny. That it would be wrong (all of the metaphysicals) to not fulfill that destiny. That they were a perfect beautiful people and he could see that it was so by being an imperfect non-full blooded aryan looking in on what their true potential could be. Amazingly manipulative stuff.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
pavel_lishin 15y ago
For all of your "no" points, can you please provide some proof? We are getting smarter - when you need water for your crops, do you dance, or do you install an irrigation system? Extreme example, but, well.
- rkalla 15y ago
  pavel, that's a fair point. Those were a bit too broad of brush-strokes I painted. What I was masking is my internal frustration with how fundamentally un-accepting we are of each other's differing opinions in popular culture/media now. I can't remember the last political debate I saw on TV that: 1. Actually answered the question and didn't just hit talking points. 2. Constructively analyzed the differences of opinion. I am sure there are pockets of civil debate and I don't want to wave-away the folks that are making an effort to. I should have been more honest about what I was critiquing.
  - JoachimSchipper 15y ago
    It's possible to overdo "civil", though. Consider the belief that the sun orbits the earth: a televised debate in which several accomplished scientists respectfully engage some crazy is civil and will teach the average layperson something, but it gives the belief far too much credibility. Even with the extra information, the layperson may consider it more probable that the sun orbits the earth after the debate, which means that the general belief is less accurate afterwards. [Yes, I'm aware that we live in a relativistic universe in which the sun is no more the center than the earth or any other point; but you get the idea.]
ugh 15y ago
I think there are a great many topics (libertarianism, moderate religion, socialism, …) where your assessment of the situation is spot on – but … I wonder whether nice articles about beliefs which are most certainly crazy (creationism and biblical literalism, astrology, homeopathy, rapture, moon conspiracy, …) really are useful. They sometimes might be but in most cases the believers are beyond redemption. Those articles have a different purpose. Rallying the troops is a valid reason for writing such articles. (Well, and sometimes it’s just good to be able to vent about stupid things someone else did. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.)

by rkalla 15y ago

Alex3917 15y ago

"The negative carpet-bomb article style, something I'm certainly guilty of, is something that I hope dissolves as we move forward." I think the larger problem is that it's generally impossible to know if anything you read in the newspaper is true or not, it's just that these sorts of articles tend to make that more salient. As for this particular style of article, there seems to be some sort of freudian conflict within each of us between how internal or external our locus of control should be. The stuff that becomes the most popular on social news sites tends to be highly masturbatory, and creating a mythology around the 'correct' locus is the all time #1 way of masturbatorifying content. That's why every popular movie ever starts out with the main character waking up and discovering that they're 'different' and they have some sort of destiny. And it's why HN articles alternate between portraying life like an XYZ quest versus articles like these.[1] [1] Go to X, kill Y, take Z. Possibly attributable to Ralph Koster.

rkalla 15y ago
Not having all the facts (knowing if the information you are reading is true) is one of the core reasons I find political debate with others totally useless. As for "masturbatorifying content", a fantastic term. You also hit on another great topic that could be a separate post entirely... appealing to our ids with the "you MIGHT be special" mechanic. Very very true, and something that appeals to me just as much as the next guy.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  "As for 'masturbatorifying content', a fantastic term." Yeah, I've thought of writing a blog post on this. The basic idea is that you give a voice to things that people already want to believe are true. This opens up a sort of window of credulity, which allows you to sell whatever you're trying to sell in the context of this unconscious angst that you're channeling. The best is if you can find some sort of belief that millions of people share but that no one has ever articulated or properly defended, that's how you make millions of dollars whether you're running a startup, writing a book, etc.
  - sitkack 15y ago
    You should read, watch and listen to Hitler's speeches. He told the German people they were different, special and they had a destiny. That it would be wrong (all of the metaphysicals) to not fulfill that destiny. That they were a perfect beautiful people and he could see that it was so by being an imperfect non-full blooded aryan looking in on what their true potential could be. Amazingly manipulative stuff.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]

pavel_lishin 15y ago

For all of your "no" points, can you please provide some proof? We are getting smarter - when you need water for your crops, do you dance, or do you install an irrigation system? Extreme example, but, well.

rkalla 15y ago
pavel, that's a fair point. Those were a bit too broad of brush-strokes I painted. What I was masking is my internal frustration with how fundamentally un-accepting we are of each other's differing opinions in popular culture/media now. I can't remember the last political debate I saw on TV that: 1. Actually answered the question and didn't just hit talking points. 2. Constructively analyzed the differences of opinion. I am sure there are pockets of civil debate and I don't want to wave-away the folks that are making an effort to. I should have been more honest about what I was critiquing.
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  It's possible to overdo "civil", though. Consider the belief that the sun orbits the earth: a televised debate in which several accomplished scientists respectfully engage some crazy is civil and will teach the average layperson something, but it gives the belief far too much credibility. Even with the extra information, the layperson may consider it more probable that the sun orbits the earth after the debate, which means that the general belief is less accurate afterwards. [Yes, I'm aware that we live in a relativistic universe in which the sun is no more the center than the earth or any other point; but you get the idea.]

ugh 15y ago

I think there are a great many topics (libertarianism, moderate religion, socialism, …) where your assessment of the situation is spot on – but … I wonder whether nice articles about beliefs which are most certainly crazy (creationism and biblical literalism, astrology, homeopathy, rapture, moon conspiracy, …) really are useful. They sometimes might be but in most cases the believers are beyond redemption. Those articles have a different purpose. Rallying the troops is a valid reason for writing such articles. (Well, and sometimes it’s just good to be able to vent about stupid things someone else did. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.)