3 ms·

I don't think so There is a growing amount of users that are coming up with interesting comments "conspiracy" is usually something a reader do not understand,

I don't think so There is a growing amount of users that are coming up with interesting comments "conspiracy" is usually something a reader do not understand, lack details, knowledge or simply just the context, or is confused about something, it's ok, it happens Use that as an opportunity to challenge your method of thinking, acquire new knowledge, and develop argumentation skills to challenge something you feel is wrong Argumentation remains the best weapon to fight misinformation It's not interesting if everyone thinks the same As long as we remain civil, we should encourage each other to challenge our views and ideas

gregjor 4y ago
Give HN readers some credit. "Conspiracy" does not mean "something a reader does not understand," or has failed to challenge their thinking or knowledge about. Nor do baseless or ignorant comments necessarily come from conspiracies. Argumentation does not fight misinformation. Study after study shows that people rarely change their minds, even when faced with seemingly incontrovertible evidence. We have an innate bias to accept information that confirms our beliefs and reject information that does not. No amount of argumentation will sway a convinced flat earther or QAnon believer.
- PakG1 4y ago
  This is well-studied. I wish we had an answer to this conundrum. For what it's worth, HN for now is still the community with the highest quality discussion that I can find. #2 is far far far behind.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    That's a shame considering HN is fucking awful when it comes to anything that deviates from software development. Anything regarding health, social, or environmental sciences tends to attract comments that would make even Mehmet Oz cringe. Anything about San Francisco is filled with people foaming at the mouth. It's not really a new thing but it is tiresome and rather sad that you can't read something "off-topic" without wading through a bunch of, for example, climate change deniers.
    - PakG1 4y ago
      This is really weird because I can't remember the last time I've seen climate change deniers on HN. Your experience seems different from mine.
    - adamwk 4y ago
      Ignoring the Oz comment I agree. I wish I could see San Francisco or mental health articles and read comments with similar quality as the tech stuff. Anytime psychiatry is mentioned there’s 100’s of parrots claiming SSRIs are a scam
    - gregjor 4y ago
      The H in Hacker News kind of gives it away. Not only tech/software, but politics usually considered off-topic. Social, health, environmental topics get discussed here unless/until they veer into political arguments. Or conspiracy theories. I haven't lived in San Francisco in decades so I find those discussions uninteresting. Those can either show the demographics of the HN audience or the Bay Area oriented tech world, or both. Have never seen climate change denial on HN. When the COVID pandemic started HN hosted quite a few conversations about origins, severity, treatments, vaccine effectiveness, etc. That toned down over time but I still see posts almost daily about the possible origins of the virus, which probably interests some people but seems mostly irrelevant to me.
    - alphabettsy 4y ago
      This has been my experience as well. When it comes to technology and engineering the conversations are top notch. When it comes to social issues or politics it’s certainly better than Facebook or YouTube comments, but it’s certainly not anywhere near as good. Despite commonly expressed beliefs to the contrary here, HN is also an echo chamber even if different and sometimes better.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > Argumentation does not fight misinformation. Study after study shows that people rarely change their minds, even when faced with seemingly incontrovertible evidence. Out of curiosity, do you have citations for these studies?
  - gregjor 4y ago
    I don't offhand, but Google has plenty. https://www.google.com/search?q=facts+dont+change+minds https://www.google.com/search?q=facts+dont+change+minds
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Plenty of links to blogs and magazine articles, sure. I was hoping for some help getting to the bottom of the actual studies though. Otherwise it comes across as though you’re just repeating something that you’ve absorbed from the popular corporate media.
      - gregjor 4y ago
        The first link to the New Yorker article mentions books and studies. The third link goes to research.com, where you can find citations and links. I don't do psychological research myself so I suppose I "absorb from the popular corporate media," as you put it. I know you intended to disparage my sources and understanding of the topic, but I have read articles and books by actual scientists because I have an interest in cognitive biases. I don't call myself an expert on the subject. You can do your own research if you don't find my "repeating something" persuasive. As Dr. Johnson put it, "I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
        philwelch 4y ago
        > I know you intended to disparage my sources and understanding of the topic I didn’t, actually. > but I have read articles and books by actual scientists because I have an interest in cognitive biases Yes, I was hoping you’d be able to recommend some, but thanks anyway.

gregjor 4y ago

Give HN readers some credit. "Conspiracy" does not mean "something a reader does not understand," or has failed to challenge their thinking or knowledge about. Nor do baseless or ignorant comments necessarily come from conspiracies. Argumentation does not fight misinformation. Study after study shows that people rarely change their minds, even when faced with seemingly incontrovertible evidence. We have an innate bias to accept information that confirms our beliefs and reject information that does not. No amount of argumentation will sway a convinced flat earther or QAnon believer.

PakG1 4y ago
This is well-studied. I wish we had an answer to this conundrum. For what it's worth, HN for now is still the community with the highest quality discussion that I can find. #2 is far far far behind.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  That's a shame considering HN is fucking awful when it comes to anything that deviates from software development. Anything regarding health, social, or environmental sciences tends to attract comments that would make even Mehmet Oz cringe. Anything about San Francisco is filled with people foaming at the mouth. It's not really a new thing but it is tiresome and rather sad that you can't read something "off-topic" without wading through a bunch of, for example, climate change deniers.
  - PakG1 4y ago
    This is really weird because I can't remember the last time I've seen climate change deniers on HN. Your experience seems different from mine.
  - adamwk 4y ago
    Ignoring the Oz comment I agree. I wish I could see San Francisco or mental health articles and read comments with similar quality as the tech stuff. Anytime psychiatry is mentioned there’s 100’s of parrots claiming SSRIs are a scam
  - gregjor 4y ago
    The H in Hacker News kind of gives it away. Not only tech/software, but politics usually considered off-topic. Social, health, environmental topics get discussed here unless/until they veer into political arguments. Or conspiracy theories. I haven't lived in San Francisco in decades so I find those discussions uninteresting. Those can either show the demographics of the HN audience or the Bay Area oriented tech world, or both. Have never seen climate change denial on HN. When the COVID pandemic started HN hosted quite a few conversations about origins, severity, treatments, vaccine effectiveness, etc. That toned down over time but I still see posts almost daily about the possible origins of the virus, which probably interests some people but seems mostly irrelevant to me.
  - alphabettsy 4y ago
    This has been my experience as well. When it comes to technology and engineering the conversations are top notch. When it comes to social issues or politics it’s certainly better than Facebook or YouTube comments, but it’s certainly not anywhere near as good. Despite commonly expressed beliefs to the contrary here, HN is also an echo chamber even if different and sometimes better.
philwelch 4y ago
> Argumentation does not fight misinformation. Study after study shows that people rarely change their minds, even when faced with seemingly incontrovertible evidence. Out of curiosity, do you have citations for these studies?
- gregjor 4y ago
  I don't offhand, but Google has plenty. https://www.google.com/search?q=facts+dont+change+minds https://www.google.com/search?q=facts+dont+change+minds
  - philwelch 4y ago
    Plenty of links to blogs and magazine articles, sure. I was hoping for some help getting to the bottom of the actual studies though. Otherwise it comes across as though you’re just repeating something that you’ve absorbed from the popular corporate media.
    - gregjor 4y ago
      The first link to the New Yorker article mentions books and studies. The third link goes to research.com, where you can find citations and links. I don't do psychological research myself so I suppose I "absorb from the popular corporate media," as you put it. I know you intended to disparage my sources and understanding of the topic, but I have read articles and books by actual scientists because I have an interest in cognitive biases. I don't call myself an expert on the subject. You can do your own research if you don't find my "repeating something" persuasive. As Dr. Johnson put it, "I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
      - philwelch 4y ago
        > I know you intended to disparage my sources and understanding of the topic I didn’t, actually. > but I have read articles and books by actual scientists because I have an interest in cognitive biases Yes, I was hoping you’d be able to recommend some, but thanks anyway.