5 ms·

This view is actually very narrow-minded, much more than simply having views you aren't able to deftly articulate or defend against a dedicated opponent. It com

This view is actually very narrow-minded, much more than simply having views you aren't able to deftly articulate or defend against a dedicated opponent. It compresses an absolutely huge realm of human experience (believing things???) into a very small one (arguing about them on the internet), and then tries to judo it so the first doesn't matter unless you can ably commit to the second. Tragic reduction of your world here. This is such a content-lite view of intelligence it's embarrassing to even take it seriously. It really comes across that you consider intelligence a virtue and it just isn't. You probably have a lot to learn from "people of average intelligence" about actual virtues like obligation and responsibility, commitment, compassion, understanding, and growth. We aren't lesser than you and I'd take a "average intelligence" person over this sort of smart ass shit as my teammate, business partner, lover, or friend in a second.

andreilys 4y ago
I think they're referring to the NPC programming that people receive through media/authority figures, and only have those views because "my fellow tribe member on Fox News/CNN said so" You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic, and so are going to default to tribal thinking that when you poke at, falls apart. It has nothing to do with inability to articulate their position, and everything to do with the fact that there simply isn't enough time for most people to become well informed on a given topic.
- abeppu 4y ago
  > You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic Sure, we can't all be well researched on most topics. But we can learn to have better BS detectors. We can learn to identify bad arguments. We can learn to question the incentives of people arguing on cable TV. We can learn to be skeptical of claims without evidence, and to understand the kinds of caveats that accompany various kinds of evidence. These can separate the critical thinker who, after watching a TV news segment isn't sure what's true but has some pointed questions, and an uncritical viewer who believes new claims made by whichever talking head they already agreed with.
- redeeman 4y ago
  > You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic, and so are going to default to tribal thinking that when you poke at, falls apart. true, but I also cannot expect the average person to be a doctor, but if someone feints in the cinema, and I yell "anyone here a doctor??" I do expect them to not claim to be one if they are not. If you do not know something about a subject, you should not inject yourself in where it matters. And when you want to learn about a subject, you should not be a total sheep that blindly listens to the talking heads on TV, regardless of which channel it is on.
mistermann 4y ago
Is this to say that the proposition has no truth or validity to it, that there are not people who hold extremely confident opinions on certain matters but are literally not able to accurately substantiate their claims in detail in a logically consistent manner given sufficient time?
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  The idea that beliefs are only valid if you are able to adequately articulate them to the standards set by someone else is invalid, yes.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I see you answered a question other than the one that was asked. Would you mind answering the one that was asked?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      I'm not taking either side of this argument. I just want to say that I found your question to be incomprehensible. I can't blame giraffe_lady for not answering it; I couldn't, because I can't tell what you're asking.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        This one: "Is this to say that the proposition has no truth or validity to it, that there are not people who hold extremely confident opinions on certain matters but are literally not able to accurately substantiate their claims in detail in a logically consistent manner given sufficient time?" Granted it's at least somewhat complicated, and I can see that it could be incomprehensible to many, but this is Hacker News ffs. And, if one is throwing around confident opinions, pulling a "I don't understand what you mean" technique seems a bit disingenuous (although I suppose it could be true...but then, that in itself says something important imho). At the very least, can we agree that "The idea that beliefs are only valid if you are able to adequately articulate them to the standards set by someone else is invalid, yes." is an inaccurate (not-necessarily-intentional) rhetorical framing of the conversation?
nh23423fefe 4y ago
You're making assumptions to strengthen your criticism without actually responding to what I said. In the end, you just wanted to insult me and virtue signal. It's boring.

andreilys 4y ago

I think they're referring to the NPC programming that people receive through media/authority figures, and only have those views because "my fellow tribe member on Fox News/CNN said so" You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic, and so are going to default to tribal thinking that when you poke at, falls apart. It has nothing to do with inability to articulate their position, and everything to do with the fact that there simply isn't enough time for most people to become well informed on a given topic.

abeppu 4y ago
> You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic Sure, we can't all be well researched on most topics. But we can learn to have better BS detectors. We can learn to identify bad arguments. We can learn to question the incentives of people arguing on cable TV. We can learn to be skeptical of claims without evidence, and to understand the kinds of caveats that accompany various kinds of evidence. These can separate the critical thinker who, after watching a TV news segment isn't sure what's true but has some pointed questions, and an uncritical viewer who believes new claims made by whichever talking head they already agreed with.
redeeman 4y ago
> You can't really blame them though, the average person simply doesn't have the time to be well researched on a given topic, and so are going to default to tribal thinking that when you poke at, falls apart. true, but I also cannot expect the average person to be a doctor, but if someone feints in the cinema, and I yell "anyone here a doctor??" I do expect them to not claim to be one if they are not. If you do not know something about a subject, you should not inject yourself in where it matters. And when you want to learn about a subject, you should not be a total sheep that blindly listens to the talking heads on TV, regardless of which channel it is on.

mistermann 4y ago

Is this to say that the proposition has no truth or validity to it, that there are not people who hold extremely confident opinions on certain matters but are literally not able to accurately substantiate their claims in detail in a logically consistent manner given sufficient time?

giraffe_lady 4y ago
The idea that beliefs are only valid if you are able to adequately articulate them to the standards set by someone else is invalid, yes.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I see you answered a question other than the one that was asked. Would you mind answering the one that was asked?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    I'm not taking either side of this argument. I just want to say that I found your question to be incomprehensible. I can't blame giraffe_lady for not answering it; I couldn't, because I can't tell what you're asking.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      This one: "Is this to say that the proposition has no truth or validity to it, that there are not people who hold extremely confident opinions on certain matters but are literally not able to accurately substantiate their claims in detail in a logically consistent manner given sufficient time?" Granted it's at least somewhat complicated, and I can see that it could be incomprehensible to many, but this is Hacker News ffs. And, if one is throwing around confident opinions, pulling a "I don't understand what you mean" technique seems a bit disingenuous (although I suppose it could be true...but then, that in itself says something important imho). At the very least, can we agree that "The idea that beliefs are only valid if you are able to adequately articulate them to the standards set by someone else is invalid, yes." is an inaccurate (not-necessarily-intentional) rhetorical framing of the conversation?

nh23423fefe 4y ago

You're making assumptions to strengthen your criticism without actually responding to what I said. In the end, you just wanted to insult me and virtue signal. It's boring.