7 ms·

I've also noticed that the term "willful ignorance" gets thrown around a lot more nowadays. There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that w

I've also noticed that the term "willful ignorance" gets thrown around a lot more nowadays. There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement.

dang 5y ago
Also "disingenuous", which is a fancy way of saying lying. Edit: that's not quite right, as throwaway894345 and xyzzyz and Sohcahtoa82 have pointed out below. It's also not quite what I meant (I was being hasty). The point is that 'disingenuous', like 'lie', implies intent to deceive.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I think “lying” as more of a “your claim is outright false” while “disingenuous” lends itself to more subjective forms of misleading. For example, if I refer to a given protest as “violent” on the basis that a literal handful (out of tens or hundreds of thousands) were violent, I’m not really lying but I’m certainly misleading people by way of my characterization.
  - pvg 5y ago
    Both imply intent and the common messageboard usage is a kind of pretend-polite way to claim someone is intentionally misleading when they might simply be disagreeing or just unintentionally wrong, misinformed, etc. A strongly held inaccurate belief is not 'disingenuous'. It's a tropey comment-cliche word that is probably best avoided when addressing people you disagree with online.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      If you call someone disingenuous, then yeah, you're being offensive. But if you call the idea disingenuous, then it's much less offensive. If you phrase it like, "isn't that a little disingenuous?" it's even less offensive yet (I think "isn't that a lie" would come off a fair bit more offensive). Using "disingenuous" and words like it, I've had a lot of success finding common ground or at least identifying the locus of disagreement. But of course someone who is set on causing offense can probably manage with any word.
      - dang 5y ago
        Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. Therefore, if an internet comment calls an idea or an argument disingenuous, it's calling the idea-holder or argument-maker disingenuous. It may be a little more indirect, but it's still an attack. In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is what you want to do (which is great), there are other words that should give you even better results.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        > Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" <- this seems about as polite as anything IMHO). But any way of suggesting that an idea is incorrect or inaccurate risks causing offense--it's a perilous enterprise and no matter which word you use, ultimately you have to lay a lot of groundwork to demonstrate good faith, common ground, etc. That's my $0.02, anyway.
        dang 5y ago
        Dictionaries define the word in terms of human qualities (dishonesty, insincerity, etc.), so I don't think this argument is on solid ground lexicographically :) The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous).
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I don't know man. I've spoken English my whole life and I've never heard of anyone being confused about referring to an idea as 'disingenuous' or similar. :) Certainly no one (except you) has corrected me that it can only apply to people. Indeed, dictionary.com offers examples of "disingenuous" referring to ideas: > The move has no political chance in a Democratic House, but sends a clear, though disingenuous, message about punishing supposed “extremism.” > He would rather endorse someone with genuine doubts than someone with disingenuous beliefs. And there are many examples in which "disingenous" refers to things other than people. > The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person I wouldn't be surprised at all if "(dis)ingenuous" originally referred only to people but came to take on a broader meaning. This happens all the time--words are fluid on even very short timespans. Consider the verb form of impact: > Sense of "strike forcefully against something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of "have a forceful effect on" is from 1935. In only 18 years the word acquired a figurative sense (and I strongly suspect linguistic velocity--the rate of change of language--has much increased in the Internet era--although not uniformly across the lexicon). Considering your Etymonline link dates "disingenuous" to the 1650s, it would be surprising if this figurative sense hadn't developed in the intervening ~370 years. Anyway, while I do enjoy discussing and learning about language, I have to get back to work. Thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your day! :)
  - dang 5y ago
    Yes—there are subtle distinctions between these words ("dissimulation" is another, but that one hasn't become internet-popular). The aspect they have in common, as pvg points out, is that they all imply intent to deceive. Since internet commenters basically can't ever know that about each other, they're not allowed to direct those words at each other here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
    - diag 5y ago
      A phrase I've heard that demonstrates that concept is "hiding your power level"
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  That’s not quite true. Lying is typically understood as actively saying something untrue. What is more typical, especially in media, is selectively sharing true information, but obscuring other true information, which would present the narrative in completely different light. This way, one can manipulate people to have misconception about the reality, without actively saying a single lie. It is still disingenuous, though, if done deliberately.
  - dang 5y ago
    I agree, and should have known better than to post something so brief about a somewhat subtle point. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30350820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30350820.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  It reminds me of the House of Commons where it's permissible to lie but under no circumstances can your opponent respond by calling that lie out as a lie because that would be un-Parliamentary language. As a result, people twist themselves into all kinds of rhetorical contortions to imply someone is a liar without actually making the accusation.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I wouldn't equate them. I would label a statement that is technically true but highly misleading as disingenuous. For example, the statement "Vaccines won't prevent you from getting COVID" is technically true, because you can still get COVID despite being vaccinated. However, it's misleading because the statement carries a strong implication that the vaccine is worthless, when the truth is that is the vaccine greatly reduces your chances of getting it, while also significantly reducing likelihood of hospitalization and death. The statement isn't a lie, but it's certainly disingenuous.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    This statement is also disingenuous. Anecdotal but from my experience those I’ve known with COVID that were not vaccinated and we’re not hospitalized. This is part of where vaccine hesitancy comes from, it seems like you’re injecting something that’s almost useless (I won’t say it is yet) as it seems those who are healthy (read no underlying conditions, known or not) don’t have issues.
HPsquared 5y ago
Most peoples' conclusions are based on some kind of logical deduction. Where people differ is the fundamental "beliefs" which are treated axiomatically (taken on faith) on which the logical superstructure is built. Edit: people also assign different "comparative value" to different things. Most value judgements involve comparing apples and oranges, but one person might have a preference for oranges and someone else might prefer the apples. Not for any "rational" reason.
- daenz 5y ago
  To be fair, there are a lot of logical hiccups in people's reasoning too. But when you boil those away, often there is still a different value system underneath, as you suggest.
- Tuckerism 5y ago
  I've always used the terms "lens" or "worldview" to describe that starting point, and I think the most fruitful conversations with people I don't agree with usually stem around understanding that we do our personal calculus differently, and that doesn't make them a terrible human being. We both certainly believe that we have the correct view (or we wouldn't hold it), we're not diminishing that there is a reality where one of us is likely correct and the other is wrong, but that we don't have all of the information to say that someone is being willfully ignorant, as other replies have stated.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    A more rigorous version of this can be found in the book, Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. What you're calling a lens or worldview, he calls a "vision". He precisely defines two visions that are at opposite ends of an axis and which differ only in a single assumption: an intuition about the span of human nature. He then proceeds to show how this single intuition leads by logical extrapolation when combined with unambiguous facts to lead people to opposing policy preferences. It's really a very powerful analysis, because it's Occam's Razor compliant. The theory is simple yet has great explanatory power.
- dkarl 5y ago
RIMR 5y ago
I think there's some nuance to this terminology, but overall I prefer to use the term "bad faith" when people are saying things that they know are untrue. In general, most people I hear using the term "willful ignorance" are referring to the same phenomenon of people lying to push their own narrative. Actual ignorance is never willful, by definition of ignorance.
- PathOfEclipse 5y ago
  Willful ignorance doesn't just include lying to push a narrative. It's also an ailment of probably the majority in modern society to both be uninformed about the issues of the day and to have no interest in becoming informed. And no wonder. Being informed is hard work! For any given issue, you have to research a lot, and do it from multiple perspectives and view points, including those you don't agree with. Then you have to sort out which information you trust versus distrust, and finally synthesize your own educated opinion. Actually, you aren't even done then. You have to be willing to continue to consider opposing ideas and be willing to update your views given new information. Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up. "Red pilling" isn't waking up, it's just becoming a nativist right winger. Although the left wing calls itself "progressive" so I guess the words games are everywhere.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
dfxm12 5y ago
Yes, and I think there are two things worth considering. First, people put their identities into their beliefs. Everything is a lifestyle choice anymore. What non-mainstream belief defines me as a person? When you make believing in the flat earth part of your identity, you get a fight or flight response when someone attacks the idea of the flat earth, because in a way, they are attacking you. Second, it's easy to confirm your misinformation with more misinformation! I don't think people hear something once, like "the earth is flat" and just believe it. They hear it, look it up, see multiple sources saying the same things (weren't we taught to confirm stuff like this?), sprinkle in the smallest amount of plausibility - maybe a source that otherwise prints stuff you know to be true (sports scores, natural disasters, whatever) also prints something about the flat earth, and there you have it. You've done your homework. At this point admitting you're wrong means you must admit you are ignorant and were so easily duped, or that your entire education was a waste of time. It takes a very big person to do that.
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  It's always a little frustrating to me to see this framed as some very recent thing to do with Twitter or whatever. People have always folded beliefs into their identities and felt embarrassed or defensive when they are challenged. Most high-profile since forever is religion. Which brings me to another frustration, when it's presumed that there is something wrong with beliefs being involved with identity. I'm not even sure what capital-I Identity is supposed to be if not a system of beliefs about yourself and the world and how they relate. I don't think any of this is as new as it is often assumed to be. There appears to have been a rise in "identity politics" but even this is wrong; politics has always been about identity, it's just that nationalism or socialism or other principles can be part of someone's identity. Or in other words, they are beliefs. So maybe we are more individualistic in our politics, and maybe that is bad. Or maybe it isn't... It's probably a mixed bag!
president 5y ago
Most people are not willing to have a Socratic style debate let alone admit they could ever be wrong. That is the root of the problem in our society today.
- Anthony-G 5y ago
  Hacker News is the only large forum where I see anything close to Socratic dialogues: At least a few times a week, I find myself upvoting both sides of a debate because the participants are really listening to each other and (seemingly) making a genuine effort to understand where the other side is coming from.
fortuna86 5y ago
> There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement. I think they are less confident in their own ideas (politicians aren't even required to state what policies they stand for anymore!) than they are confident that the other side (or at least the cartoonish version of it presented to them via allied media) is wrong/evil.
hotpotamus 5y ago
I'm pretty convinced the Earth is round (or an oblate spheroid if you want to be pedantic about it), and I don't care if flat earthers are malicious or deluded; I'm not going to waste my time arguing with them either way.
bobthechef 5y ago

dang 5y ago

Also "disingenuous", which is a fancy way of saying lying. Edit: that's not quite right, as throwaway894345 and xyzzyz and Sohcahtoa82 have pointed out below. It's also not quite what I meant (I was being hasty). The point is that 'disingenuous', like 'lie', implies intent to deceive.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I think “lying” as more of a “your claim is outright false” while “disingenuous” lends itself to more subjective forms of misleading. For example, if I refer to a given protest as “violent” on the basis that a literal handful (out of tens or hundreds of thousands) were violent, I’m not really lying but I’m certainly misleading people by way of my characterization.
- pvg 5y ago
  Both imply intent and the common messageboard usage is a kind of pretend-polite way to claim someone is intentionally misleading when they might simply be disagreeing or just unintentionally wrong, misinformed, etc. A strongly held inaccurate belief is not 'disingenuous'. It's a tropey comment-cliche word that is probably best avoided when addressing people you disagree with online.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    If you call someone disingenuous, then yeah, you're being offensive. But if you call the idea disingenuous, then it's much less offensive. If you phrase it like, "isn't that a little disingenuous?" it's even less offensive yet (I think "isn't that a lie" would come off a fair bit more offensive). Using "disingenuous" and words like it, I've had a lot of success finding common ground or at least identifying the locus of disagreement. But of course someone who is set on causing offense can probably manage with any word.
    - dang 5y ago
      Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. Therefore, if an internet comment calls an idea or an argument disingenuous, it's calling the idea-holder or argument-maker disingenuous. It may be a little more indirect, but it's still an attack. In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is what you want to do (which is great), there are other words that should give you even better results.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" <- this seems about as polite as anything IMHO). But any way of suggesting that an idea is incorrect or inaccurate risks causing offense--it's a perilous enterprise and no matter which word you use, ultimately you have to lay a lot of groundwork to demonstrate good faith, common ground, etc. That's my $0.02, anyway.
        dang 5y ago
        Dictionaries define the word in terms of human qualities (dishonesty, insincerity, etc.), so I don't think this argument is on solid ground lexicographically :) The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous).
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        I don't know man. I've spoken English my whole life and I've never heard of anyone being confused about referring to an idea as 'disingenuous' or similar. :) Certainly no one (except you) has corrected me that it can only apply to people. Indeed, dictionary.com offers examples of "disingenuous" referring to ideas: > The move has no political chance in a Democratic House, but sends a clear, though disingenuous, message about punishing supposed “extremism.” > He would rather endorse someone with genuine doubts than someone with disingenuous beliefs. And there are many examples in which "disingenous" refers to things other than people. > The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person I wouldn't be surprised at all if "(dis)ingenuous" originally referred only to people but came to take on a broader meaning. This happens all the time--words are fluid on even very short timespans. Consider the verb form of impact: > Sense of "strike forcefully against something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of "have a forceful effect on" is from 1935. In only 18 years the word acquired a figurative sense (and I strongly suspect linguistic velocity--the rate of change of language--has much increased in the Internet era--although not uniformly across the lexicon). Considering your Etymonline link dates "disingenuous" to the 1650s, it would be surprising if this figurative sense hadn't developed in the intervening ~370 years. Anyway, while I do enjoy discussing and learning about language, I have to get back to work. Thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your day! :)
- dang 5y ago
  Yes—there are subtle distinctions between these words ("dissimulation" is another, but that one hasn't become internet-popular). The aspect they have in common, as pvg points out, is that they all imply intent to deceive. Since internet commenters basically can't ever know that about each other, they're not allowed to direct those words at each other here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
  - diag 5y ago
    A phrase I've heard that demonstrates that concept is "hiding your power level"
xyzzyz 5y ago
That’s not quite true. Lying is typically understood as actively saying something untrue. What is more typical, especially in media, is selectively sharing true information, but obscuring other true information, which would present the narrative in completely different light. This way, one can manipulate people to have misconception about the reality, without actively saying a single lie. It is still disingenuous, though, if done deliberately.
- dang 5y ago
  I agree, and should have known better than to post something so brief about a somewhat subtle point. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30350820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30350820.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
It reminds me of the House of Commons where it's permissible to lie but under no circumstances can your opponent respond by calling that lie out as a lie because that would be un-Parliamentary language. As a result, people twist themselves into all kinds of rhetorical contortions to imply someone is a liar without actually making the accusation.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
I wouldn't equate them. I would label a statement that is technically true but highly misleading as disingenuous. For example, the statement "Vaccines won't prevent you from getting COVID" is technically true, because you can still get COVID despite being vaccinated. However, it's misleading because the statement carries a strong implication that the vaccine is worthless, when the truth is that is the vaccine greatly reduces your chances of getting it, while also significantly reducing likelihood of hospitalization and death. The statement isn't a lie, but it's certainly disingenuous.
- tekknik 5y ago
  This statement is also disingenuous. Anecdotal but from my experience those I’ve known with COVID that were not vaccinated and we’re not hospitalized. This is part of where vaccine hesitancy comes from, it seems like you’re injecting something that’s almost useless (I won’t say it is yet) as it seems those who are healthy (read no underlying conditions, known or not) don’t have issues.

HPsquared 5y ago

Most peoples' conclusions are based on some kind of logical deduction. Where people differ is the fundamental "beliefs" which are treated axiomatically (taken on faith) on which the logical superstructure is built. Edit: people also assign different "comparative value" to different things. Most value judgements involve comparing apples and oranges, but one person might have a preference for oranges and someone else might prefer the apples. Not for any "rational" reason.

daenz 5y ago
To be fair, there are a lot of logical hiccups in people's reasoning too. But when you boil those away, often there is still a different value system underneath, as you suggest.
Tuckerism 5y ago
I've always used the terms "lens" or "worldview" to describe that starting point, and I think the most fruitful conversations with people I don't agree with usually stem around understanding that we do our personal calculus differently, and that doesn't make them a terrible human being. We both certainly believe that we have the correct view (or we wouldn't hold it), we're not diminishing that there is a reality where one of us is likely correct and the other is wrong, but that we don't have all of the information to say that someone is being willfully ignorant, as other replies have stated.
- native_samples 5y ago
  A more rigorous version of this can be found in the book, Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. What you're calling a lens or worldview, he calls a "vision". He precisely defines two visions that are at opposite ends of an axis and which differ only in a single assumption: an intuition about the span of human nature. He then proceeds to show how this single intuition leads by logical extrapolation when combined with unambiguous facts to lead people to opposing policy preferences. It's really a very powerful analysis, because it's Occam's Razor compliant. The theory is simple yet has great explanatory power.
dkarl 5y ago

RIMR 5y ago

I think there's some nuance to this terminology, but overall I prefer to use the term "bad faith" when people are saying things that they know are untrue. In general, most people I hear using the term "willful ignorance" are referring to the same phenomenon of people lying to push their own narrative. Actual ignorance is never willful, by definition of ignorance.

PathOfEclipse 5y ago
Willful ignorance doesn't just include lying to push a narrative. It's also an ailment of probably the majority in modern society to both be uninformed about the issues of the day and to have no interest in becoming informed. And no wonder. Being informed is hard work! For any given issue, you have to research a lot, and do it from multiple perspectives and view points, including those you don't agree with. Then you have to sort out which information you trust versus distrust, and finally synthesize your own educated opinion. Actually, you aren't even done then. You have to be willing to continue to consider opposing ideas and be willing to update your views given new information. Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > Until ~2 years ago, I was one of the uninformed masses. It took the recently-intensifying insanity of American politics and ascendant leftwing ideology in the past few years to wake me up. "Red pilling" isn't waking up, it's just becoming a nativist right winger. Although the left wing calls itself "progressive" so I guess the words games are everywhere.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

dfxm12 5y ago

Yes, and I think there are two things worth considering. First, people put their identities into their beliefs. Everything is a lifestyle choice anymore. What non-mainstream belief defines me as a person? When you make believing in the flat earth part of your identity, you get a fight or flight response when someone attacks the idea of the flat earth, because in a way, they are attacking you. Second, it's easy to confirm your misinformation with more misinformation! I don't think people hear something once, like "the earth is flat" and just believe it. They hear it, look it up, see multiple sources saying the same things (weren't we taught to confirm stuff like this?), sprinkle in the smallest amount of plausibility - maybe a source that otherwise prints stuff you know to be true (sports scores, natural disasters, whatever) also prints something about the flat earth, and there you have it. You've done your homework. At this point admitting you're wrong means you must admit you are ignorant and were so easily duped, or that your entire education was a waste of time. It takes a very big person to do that.

NoSorryCannot 5y ago
It's always a little frustrating to me to see this framed as some very recent thing to do with Twitter or whatever. People have always folded beliefs into their identities and felt embarrassed or defensive when they are challenged. Most high-profile since forever is religion. Which brings me to another frustration, when it's presumed that there is something wrong with beliefs being involved with identity. I'm not even sure what capital-I Identity is supposed to be if not a system of beliefs about yourself and the world and how they relate. I don't think any of this is as new as it is often assumed to be. There appears to have been a rise in "identity politics" but even this is wrong; politics has always been about identity, it's just that nationalism or socialism or other principles can be part of someone's identity. Or in other words, they are beliefs. So maybe we are more individualistic in our politics, and maybe that is bad. Or maybe it isn't... It's probably a mixed bag!

president 5y ago

Most people are not willing to have a Socratic style debate let alone admit they could ever be wrong. That is the root of the problem in our society today.

Anthony-G 5y ago
Hacker News is the only large forum where I see anything close to Socratic dialogues: At least a few times a week, I find myself upvoting both sides of a debate because the participants are really listening to each other and (seemingly) making a genuine effort to understand where the other side is coming from.

fortuna86 5y ago

> There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement. I think they are less confident in their own ideas (politicians aren't even required to state what policies they stand for anymore!) than they are confident that the other side (or at least the cartoonish version of it presented to them via allied media) is wrong/evil.

hotpotamus 5y ago

I'm pretty convinced the Earth is round (or an oblate spheroid if you want to be pedantic about it), and I don't care if flat earthers are malicious or deluded; I'm not going to waste my time arguing with them either way.

bobthechef 5y ago