5 ms·

Meta: I’m tempted to flag any broad characterization of the human population as stupid. This is mostly because such a statement clearly violates the central lim

by jl2718 5y ago

Meta: I’m tempted to flag any broad characterization of the human population as stupid. This is mostly because such a statement clearly violates the central limit theorem. However, such a statement might be very accurate in specific cases of things that all humans are truly bad at, or the notion that crowds tend to adopt patterns of behavior that might reflect lower intelligence than a sample of individuals from the crowd. I think it particularly feels inappropriate if a comment is perceived to suggest that the negative characterization of ‘the public’ does not apply to the commenter, and no support is suggested as to why they would be exceptional.

uniqueid 5y ago
That's fair criticism, but it takes my comment more literally than I intended. I'm tempted to defend my use of hyperbole by rattling off a list of spectacularly dumb ideas social media have made popular. I'll resist the temptation because you can all predict which examples I'd use; people have talked them to death.
clairity 5y ago
> " I’m tempted to flag any broad characterization of the human population as stupid." don't just be tempted, just do it. that heuristic will be correct approximately 99% of the time. those kinds of comments tend to be cheap and shallow, wasting our time and attention, rather than being interesting and considered. when humans seem broadly stupid, it behooves the commenter to at least attempt to understand and explain the underlying motivational landscape before making sweeping generalizations, a process that should impel the comment toward the interesting and considered.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  don't just be tempted, just do it Rightly or wrongly, it's rather awkward to respond to a comment exhorting people to flag me. I'll bow out here :)
  - clairity 5y ago
    > "That sounds like a load of received ideas from Alex Jones and other internet dingbats. The problem is misinformation. Each passing year since the dawn of social media has made it clearer and clearer that 'the public' has the intelligence of a fucking shoehorn." to be clear, there's no rationale in your prior comment, only sweeping, derogatory value judgment and unsupported assertion. it's asking the reader to brainlessly agree with an identitarian position (ironic, given the subject of the article). i'd suggest humanizing your targets before rushing to judgment, to develop perspective and depth. otherwise, it'd be better to simply not press that 'reply' button after fulminating.

by jl2718 5y ago

uniqueid 5y ago

That's fair criticism, but it takes my comment more literally than I intended. I'm tempted to defend my use of hyperbole by rattling off a list of spectacularly dumb ideas social media have made popular. I'll resist the temptation because you can all predict which examples I'd use; people have talked them to death.

clairity 5y ago

> " I’m tempted to flag any broad characterization of the human population as stupid." don't just be tempted, just do it. that heuristic will be correct approximately 99% of the time. those kinds of comments tend to be cheap and shallow, wasting our time and attention, rather than being interesting and considered. when humans seem broadly stupid, it behooves the commenter to at least attempt to understand and explain the underlying motivational landscape before making sweeping generalizations, a process that should impel the comment toward the interesting and considered.

uniqueid 5y ago
don't just be tempted, just do it Rightly or wrongly, it's rather awkward to respond to a comment exhorting people to flag me. I'll bow out here :)
- clairity 5y ago
  > "That sounds like a load of received ideas from Alex Jones and other internet dingbats. The problem is misinformation. Each passing year since the dawn of social media has made it clearer and clearer that 'the public' has the intelligence of a fucking shoehorn." to be clear, there's no rationale in your prior comment, only sweeping, derogatory value judgment and unsupported assertion. it's asking the reader to brainlessly agree with an identitarian position (ironic, given the subject of the article). i'd suggest humanizing your targets before rushing to judgment, to develop perspective and depth. otherwise, it'd be better to simply not press that 'reply' button after fulminating.