4 ms·

If we are continuing with the generalization about this 'type' of person, you can point to just about any controversial topic posted here. The mental gymnastics

If we are continuing with the generalization about this 'type' of person, you can point to just about any controversial topic posted here. The mental gymnastics these people use is as old as history. They take edge-cases and statistical anomalies and use those to generalize about entire groups/categories. Other people jump onto these shallow 'statements of fact' and continue to expand the generalization until the conclusions are as absolute and as wide as possible. These wide conclusions appeal to rigid minds as they have wide bases and are airtight, with no room for context nor nuance. This is just one example of how this type reacts to particular issues, the full impact is pervasive throughout the whole site. Yes, I know there is an irony in me generalizing about this type of person, but I'm unsure how else to talk about it.

t-writescode 5y ago
For what it's worth, this kind of argument style / fallacy is called the "Weakman Argument" (vs Strawman Argument), where the view might be held by some, but not many and certainly not most.
- errantmind 5y ago
  I'd argue the opposite, everyone does it to some degree or another on every topic. There is a near-infinite degree of nuance to any given topic. You can slide up and down the ladder of abstraction depending on your own understanding and your audience. Some people have the patience and curiosity to develop a more nuanced understanding of a topic and refuse to generalize in discussion, which has the effect of excluding those with a less nuanced understanding of the topic; others generalize faster, possibly for rhetorical purposes and to align with people lacking a more nuanced understanding of the topic. This leads to an amplification of the least nuanced position that the majority of people support. You see this effect in almost any community. To avoid this, you'd have to devise a way to exclude people who refuse to develop a more nuanced understanding of any given topic (i.e. lack curiosity).
tablespoon 5y ago
>>> The general type of person on HN is more rigid-minded than a decade ago. They are less interested in exploring new ideas and more about the status quo. >> Examples? > If we are continuing with the generalization about this 'type' of person, you can point to just about any controversial topic posted here. The mental gymnastics these people use is as old as history... > This is just one example of how this type reacts to particular issues, the full impact is pervasive throughout the whole site. Your reply doesn't actually contain any examples. It's, as you said, just "[you] generalizing about this type of person."
mistermann 5y ago
And then there's the type of person who believes the answers to such questions are not known. Most everyone seems to strongly opposes such thinking outside of abstract discussions of human psychology, where most everyone acknowledges the truth of it. Such is the nature of the human mind, for now anyways.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I believe this rigidity isn't an intrinsic character trait and more related to a general hostile polarization on a political level. I think I have become more rigid with experience although I don't feel inclined to be sorry for reacting differently to a new version of Blender than to a new NFT scheme. Random example, but I think the idea is clear. Also I can fully understand and am certainly guilty of being prejudiced against certain ideas depending on the source. An example is Google here. The ad industry is so hostile to user privacy that I cannot really laugh that away if Google proposes something helpful, which they still often do. But ultimately that is a price they have to pay.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

t-writescode 5y ago

For what it's worth, this kind of argument style / fallacy is called the "Weakman Argument" (vs Strawman Argument), where the view might be held by some, but not many and certainly not most.

errantmind 5y ago
I'd argue the opposite, everyone does it to some degree or another on every topic. There is a near-infinite degree of nuance to any given topic. You can slide up and down the ladder of abstraction depending on your own understanding and your audience. Some people have the patience and curiosity to develop a more nuanced understanding of a topic and refuse to generalize in discussion, which has the effect of excluding those with a less nuanced understanding of the topic; others generalize faster, possibly for rhetorical purposes and to align with people lacking a more nuanced understanding of the topic. This leads to an amplification of the least nuanced position that the majority of people support. You see this effect in almost any community. To avoid this, you'd have to devise a way to exclude people who refuse to develop a more nuanced understanding of any given topic (i.e. lack curiosity).

tablespoon 5y ago

>>> The general type of person on HN is more rigid-minded than a decade ago. They are less interested in exploring new ideas and more about the status quo. >> Examples? > If we are continuing with the generalization about this 'type' of person, you can point to just about any controversial topic posted here. The mental gymnastics these people use is as old as history... > This is just one example of how this type reacts to particular issues, the full impact is pervasive throughout the whole site. Your reply doesn't actually contain any examples. It's, as you said, just "[you] generalizing about this type of person."

mistermann 5y ago

And then there's the type of person who believes the answers to such questions are not known. Most everyone seems to strongly opposes such thinking outside of abstract discussions of human psychology, where most everyone acknowledges the truth of it. Such is the nature of the human mind, for now anyways.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I believe this rigidity isn't an intrinsic character trait and more related to a general hostile polarization on a political level. I think I have become more rigid with experience although I don't feel inclined to be sorry for reacting differently to a new version of Blender than to a new NFT scheme. Random example, but I think the idea is clear. Also I can fully understand and am certainly guilty of being prejudiced against certain ideas depending on the source. An example is Google here. The ad industry is so hostile to user privacy that I cannot really laugh that away if Google proposes something helpful, which they still often do. But ultimately that is a price they have to pay.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]