5 ms·

This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it. Somehow the statement "other people have a different opinion from yours" is used as an argument

This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it. Somehow the statement "other people have a different opinion from yours" is used as an argument for why some person's opinion can't be right (or more right, or something). That's not only demonstrably false in lots of cases, it also doesn't advance discourse because now we're talking about potentially fictitious people with potentially fictitious beliefs that we just try to infer, instead of constructively arguing concrete points of view. I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. I believe in democracy because it is the least bad alternative, not because I somehow believe in the miraculously truthful insights of the general public. More concretely, there's opinions that I disagree with but I respect that they are valid positions to be held, and there are opinions that I believe to be held out of ignorance. I don't know why I shouldn't be able to think that, and if other people want to believe that I'm ignorant, well they're free to do so and that doesn't affect my judgement generally (unless it comes from someone whose opinion I respect, of course). That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed. I agree that stating that overtly will probably not win you any sympathy.

krageon 5y ago
> This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. > I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". > That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong.
- Tainnor 5y ago
  > Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. I consider that an unproven assertion. A certain amount of empathy is certainly necessary to have a functioning society. But it doesn't seem to be the case that everyone has to be empathetic with everyone, and I don't think humanity has ever been at that or ever will be at that stage. But even beyond that, "empathy" doesn't mean that you think everyone's opinion is equally right. Sometimes, empathy involves giving people hard truths that they may find hard to accept, but will be better for them long term. > You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". It's only condescending if you consider people's inherent worth to be tied to their intelligence or judgement. But that's something I disagree with: people who are right more often than others aren't morally superior, or inherently more worthy, or anything. They're simply right more often and it's therefore rational to listen to them more often. Also note that I didn't say "dumb", that's your interpretation. Smart people have biases too, and being well- or ill-informed about a topic is not necessarily correlated to intelligence. The general public is ill-equipped to decide whether P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis are true. That seems hardly controversial (and yet math departments continue to receive "proofs" of these statements from complete amateurs that usually don't even understand the problem correctly). > How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. You never know anything, except for the fact that you exist. But that's not a reasonable state of being. At some point you have to start trusting your own judgement, especially when you know that you've done the research. That there are other people who disagree with your judgement doesn't fundamentally change that. > By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong. No, you're misunderstanding me. I don't claim that I'm a priori correct and that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong (if anything, I would consider my opinions to be more or less strong priors). That would indeed be ludicrous. But I do examine the arguments of other people, and in some cases have to come to the conclusion that they're a) factually wrong, or b) their argument doesn't make logical sense.

krageon 5y ago

> This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. > I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". > That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong.

Tainnor 5y ago
> Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. I consider that an unproven assertion. A certain amount of empathy is certainly necessary to have a functioning society. But it doesn't seem to be the case that everyone has to be empathetic with everyone, and I don't think humanity has ever been at that or ever will be at that stage. But even beyond that, "empathy" doesn't mean that you think everyone's opinion is equally right. Sometimes, empathy involves giving people hard truths that they may find hard to accept, but will be better for them long term. > You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". It's only condescending if you consider people's inherent worth to be tied to their intelligence or judgement. But that's something I disagree with: people who are right more often than others aren't morally superior, or inherently more worthy, or anything. They're simply right more often and it's therefore rational to listen to them more often. Also note that I didn't say "dumb", that's your interpretation. Smart people have biases too, and being well- or ill-informed about a topic is not necessarily correlated to intelligence. The general public is ill-equipped to decide whether P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis are true. That seems hardly controversial (and yet math departments continue to receive "proofs" of these statements from complete amateurs that usually don't even understand the problem correctly). > How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. You never know anything, except for the fact that you exist. But that's not a reasonable state of being. At some point you have to start trusting your own judgement, especially when you know that you've done the research. That there are other people who disagree with your judgement doesn't fundamentally change that. > By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong. No, you're misunderstanding me. I don't claim that I'm a priori correct and that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong (if anything, I would consider my opinions to be more or less strong priors). That would indeed be ludicrous. But I do examine the arguments of other people, and in some cases have to come to the conclusion that they're a) factually wrong, or b) their argument doesn't make logical sense.