5 ms·

I find this concept to be helpful in countering the epidemic of false equivalences, or the pennywise pound foolish contrarianism that you see so frequently in i

I find this concept to be helpful in countering the epidemic of false equivalences, or the pennywise pound foolish contrarianism that you see so frequently in internet comment sections. My favorite example is probably whenever there's articles about sitting being bad for your health. You tend to get a couple of contrarians replying, "Well standing more may sound like good advice but standing can cause lower back pain, so it's not so simple!" However, that reply completely loses grasp of the relative scale of the two things, inviting you to consider the inconveniences of lower back pain as being on the same level as heart disease. I think the more serious examples of Wronger Than Wrong relate to authoritarian states. A year ago when the Russian invasion started, some people suggested the Russian crackdown on dissent was unremarkable, and compared it to the United States during the Iraq war. And it's not wrong, in that they might fit into a similar category, but it represents a complete failure to assess the relative scale of those two things.

baxtr 4y ago
I’m not sure if the example fits to the concept. Your example describe a poor trade-off discussion. The wiki article describes a “spectrum of wrongness”, on which you can sort wrong things. My 5c at least. But maybe I’m wronger!
- glenstein 4y ago
  You are right. With the sitting example, the ideal case is perfect health. The trade-offs have different distances from the ideal case. You are correct that those distances are not strictly distances of wrongness, but they are nevertheless something you can be "Wronger Than Wrong" about if you treat them the same.
xg15 4y ago
I noticed something similar in popsci articles and a lot of (soft) sci-fi: They are often enamoured by a particular set of subfields in physics, namely particle physics, relativity and quantum theory. But they rarely make an attempt to make those fields accessible to a casual reader or clear up apparent contradictions - on the contrary, they usually highlight the counterintuitive or paradox aspects and maintain an air of arcane knowledge and mysticism: Only Einstein could understand relativity because he was imbued with the spirit of genius, us normal mortals can only marvel at the beauty of knowledge made for minds greater than us! This always seems to me more like "anti-science journalism" because while it superficially celebrates "science", it also strongly discourages the reader from trying to make sense of it. My pet conspiracy theory is that some groups (i.e. religious groups and panpsychism folks) are very invested in the idea that human consciousness exists separate from the physical universe - or at the very least is a fundamental force that cannot be explained by any other physical phenomenon. Connected with this is the religious notion that humans are sort of the "main characters" of the universe and the rest of it is made specifically for them. Quantum theory introduced some technical terms which were very unfortunately named and gave the impression that the theory would support that view - when in reality it was just a misunderstanding. Those groups took this apparent backing of "science" and ran with it - and have little interest in the general public understanding enough of physics to realise the mistake.
- ted_bunny 4y ago
  If I have to define "observer" for these types one more damn time...
- agentgumshoe 4y ago
  Or they're just nerds that like writing stories about it because they think it's cool...
  - xg15 4y ago
    Nothing against sci-fi writers, true. But I'm annoyed at science journalism which has the ambition to make actual science accessible to the public and still falls into the same traps.
    - agentgumshoe 4y ago
      Yeah definitely. I have a feeling it's just because most of them don't actually have the experience/knowledge to do it properly, mustn't pay enough :(
- tokai 4y ago
  >My pet conspiracy theory is that some groups (i.e. religious groups and panpsychism folks) are very invested in the idea that human consciousness exists separate from the physical universe That's what the Templeton Foundation is doing.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  The Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was rejected out of hand by scientists that were also religious. They could not accept a theory that doesn't make "this" Earth (where Jesus preached) special and unique in the eyes of God. Similarly, Block Universe ideas are rejected by many people on the grounds of "but what about free will?". Here's an idea: Go ask ChatGPT to decide something, to use its free will, and then weep that it can do it despite being an entirely static array of numbers.
  - 4y ago
boxed 4y ago
Afaik the studies don't bear out that it's sitting that's the problem. It's the lack of running. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/modern-hunter-gatherers-are-just-as-sedentary-as-we-are/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/modern-hunter-gather...
- b112 4y ago
  The word 'run' or 'running' does not appear once, in the article you linked. It does discusses general activity, walking, and even how they sit. Running != walking.
  - boxed 4y ago
    Yes, the word "run" does not appear. But you've just cherry picked a fact and claim it has anything to do with what I wrote. Which it doesn't.
yeahsure22 4y ago
[dead]
awkward 4y ago
Alternately, it may be a bit of an infohazard for non experts to throw around accusations of wronger than wrong. If opinion A is wrong, and opinion B is wronger, and elevating B over A is most wrong, the correct action aligns with the (wrong) stance of "protect A at all costs."
- digging 4y ago
  I don't see how that follows. The obvious correct action to me is "seek C". Opinion A would simply be a safer fallback until C is found.
  - awkward 4y ago
    Most people, for most things, don't have the luxury of seeking C. They simply need to know enough that they can go about their lives and be effective. For a programming example - I've been in jobs that enforced the "single return value" rule over functions. For older versions of C or other languages, this makes sense. The shop mostly used C#, which uses exceptions, which means that the benefit of the single return wasn't there, because any line potentially exits the function. The rule then prevents exit early and similar, more effective techniques. The people setting the rule had learned that Djikstra style structured programming was better for writing business software than the older, goto using, more imperative style. The rule to make sure you were doing A and not B had lasted well into the discovery of C.
pseg134 4y ago
I take issue with your Iraq war example. The United States has different control mechanisms than Russian when it comes to dissent in their populations. The United States manufactures consent. Russia crushes dissent. Both countries definitely wield their control at similar levels and to the same effect. That you seem to prefer the US style is simply a personal preference not an expression of some truth.
ouid 4y ago
I think you might actually be underestimating the role of lower back pain in your future happiness.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  I think sitting is a lot more likely to give you lower back pain, though.
- glenstein 4y ago
  My dad had devastating lower back pain that he described as being stabbed by a knife, and no history of heart disease. I understand that I need to make choices to minimize the possibility of this happening to me, and I nevertheless believe that heart disease is the more significant health threat.
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    My dad had the same thing, eventually turned out he had a gigantic blood clot in his back that'd been getting bigger every year Might be worth checking into!
    - glenstein 4y ago
      Is the upshot of this supposed to be that lower back pain is approximately equivalent to heart disease as a significant health risk?
      - Firmwarrior 4y ago
        I dunno about that.. I'd just say that if you're in good physical shape, have good insurance, and have persistent back pain, that might be something to check into
  - ouid 4y ago
    Run me through your back of the envelope calculation here. It seems to me like you have plugged in -infinity for the utility of heart disease which is an example of the scale insensitive reason you are currently accusing people of.
tzs 4y ago
> My favorite example is probably whenever there's articles about sitting being bad for your health. You tend to get a couple of contrarians replying, "Well standing more may sound like good advice but standing can cause lower back pain, so it's not so simple!" However, that reply completely loses grasp of the relative scale of the two things, inviting you to consider the inconveniences of lower back pain as being on the same level as heart disease. Some of that is because the sitting articles often misunderstand the research, and even if the article doesn't a lot of readers here misunderstand the article taking it to mean that as soon as your butt hits the chair you start taking serious damage. It is prolonged sitting that is bad. Stand up and move around occasionally and sitting is fine. As far as standing goes, standing too long has more risks than just lower back pain. For people who already have some ischemic heart disease it increases the progression of carotid atherosclerosis, and in increase the risk of varicose veins. Here's a nice summary from ergonomics researchers of the risks of sitting too long and standing too long [1]. Here's what they recommend: > Sit to do computer work. Sit using a height-adjustable, downward titling keyboard tray for the best work posture, then every 20 minutes stand for 8 minutes AND MOVE for 2 minutes. The absolute time isn’t critical but about every 20-30 minutes take a posture break and stand and move for a couple of minutes. Simply standing is insufficient. Movement is important to get blood circulation through the muscles. And movement is FREE! Research shows that you don’t need to do vigorous exercise (e.g. jumping jacks) to get the benefits, just walking around is sufficient. So build in a pattern of creating greater movement variety in the workplace (e.g. walk to a printer, water fountain, stand for a meeting, take the stairs, walk around the floor, park a bit further away from the building each day). [1] https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CUESitStand.html https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CUESitStand.html
antisthenes 4y ago
The equivalency of opinions (e.g. giving opinions equal weight at all times) is the bane of modern discourse. Sometimes it feels like 90% of the general populace doesn't understand the difference and it's easier just to throw your hands in the air and cut contact off with the person than to try to explain to them this concept. Luckily, once you make friends with the 10% club, your life starts to feel great.

baxtr 4y ago

I’m not sure if the example fits to the concept. Your example describe a poor trade-off discussion. The wiki article describes a “spectrum of wrongness”, on which you can sort wrong things. My 5c at least. But maybe I’m wronger!

glenstein 4y ago
You are right. With the sitting example, the ideal case is perfect health. The trade-offs have different distances from the ideal case. You are correct that those distances are not strictly distances of wrongness, but they are nevertheless something you can be "Wronger Than Wrong" about if you treat them the same.

xg15 4y ago

I noticed something similar in popsci articles and a lot of (soft) sci-fi: They are often enamoured by a particular set of subfields in physics, namely particle physics, relativity and quantum theory. But they rarely make an attempt to make those fields accessible to a casual reader or clear up apparent contradictions - on the contrary, they usually highlight the counterintuitive or paradox aspects and maintain an air of arcane knowledge and mysticism: Only Einstein could understand relativity because he was imbued with the spirit of genius, us normal mortals can only marvel at the beauty of knowledge made for minds greater than us! This always seems to me more like "anti-science journalism" because while it superficially celebrates "science", it also strongly discourages the reader from trying to make sense of it. My pet conspiracy theory is that some groups (i.e. religious groups and panpsychism folks) are very invested in the idea that human consciousness exists separate from the physical universe - or at the very least is a fundamental force that cannot be explained by any other physical phenomenon. Connected with this is the religious notion that humans are sort of the "main characters" of the universe and the rest of it is made specifically for them. Quantum theory introduced some technical terms which were very unfortunately named and gave the impression that the theory would support that view - when in reality it was just a misunderstanding. Those groups took this apparent backing of "science" and ran with it - and have little interest in the general public understanding enough of physics to realise the mistake.

ted_bunny 4y ago
If I have to define "observer" for these types one more damn time...
agentgumshoe 4y ago
Or they're just nerds that like writing stories about it because they think it's cool...
- xg15 4y ago
  Nothing against sci-fi writers, true. But I'm annoyed at science journalism which has the ambition to make actual science accessible to the public and still falls into the same traps.
  - agentgumshoe 4y ago
    Yeah definitely. I have a feeling it's just because most of them don't actually have the experience/knowledge to do it properly, mustn't pay enough :(
tokai 4y ago
>My pet conspiracy theory is that some groups (i.e. religious groups and panpsychism folks) are very invested in the idea that human consciousness exists separate from the physical universe That's what the Templeton Foundation is doing.
jiggawatts 4y ago
The Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was rejected out of hand by scientists that were also religious. They could not accept a theory that doesn't make "this" Earth (where Jesus preached) special and unique in the eyes of God. Similarly, Block Universe ideas are rejected by many people on the grounds of "but what about free will?". Here's an idea: Go ask ChatGPT to decide something, to use its free will, and then weep that it can do it despite being an entirely static array of numbers.
- 4y ago

boxed 4y ago

Afaik the studies don't bear out that it's sitting that's the problem. It's the lack of running. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/modern-hunter-gatherers-are-just-as-sedentary-as-we-are/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/modern-hunter-gather...

b112 4y ago
The word 'run' or 'running' does not appear once, in the article you linked. It does discusses general activity, walking, and even how they sit. Running != walking.
- boxed 4y ago
  Yes, the word "run" does not appear. But you've just cherry picked a fact and claim it has anything to do with what I wrote. Which it doesn't.

yeahsure22 4y ago

[dead]

awkward 4y ago

Alternately, it may be a bit of an infohazard for non experts to throw around accusations of wronger than wrong. If opinion A is wrong, and opinion B is wronger, and elevating B over A is most wrong, the correct action aligns with the (wrong) stance of "protect A at all costs."

digging 4y ago
I don't see how that follows. The obvious correct action to me is "seek C". Opinion A would simply be a safer fallback until C is found.
- awkward 4y ago
  Most people, for most things, don't have the luxury of seeking C. They simply need to know enough that they can go about their lives and be effective. For a programming example - I've been in jobs that enforced the "single return value" rule over functions. For older versions of C or other languages, this makes sense. The shop mostly used C#, which uses exceptions, which means that the benefit of the single return wasn't there, because any line potentially exits the function. The rule then prevents exit early and similar, more effective techniques. The people setting the rule had learned that Djikstra style structured programming was better for writing business software than the older, goto using, more imperative style. The rule to make sure you were doing A and not B had lasted well into the discovery of C.

pseg134 4y ago

I take issue with your Iraq war example. The United States has different control mechanisms than Russian when it comes to dissent in their populations. The United States manufactures consent. Russia crushes dissent. Both countries definitely wield their control at similar levels and to the same effect. That you seem to prefer the US style is simply a personal preference not an expression of some truth.

ouid 4y ago

I think you might actually be underestimating the role of lower back pain in your future happiness.

BeetleB 4y ago
I think sitting is a lot more likely to give you lower back pain, though.
glenstein 4y ago
My dad had devastating lower back pain that he described as being stabbed by a knife, and no history of heart disease. I understand that I need to make choices to minimize the possibility of this happening to me, and I nevertheless believe that heart disease is the more significant health threat.
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  My dad had the same thing, eventually turned out he had a gigantic blood clot in his back that'd been getting bigger every year Might be worth checking into!
  - glenstein 4y ago
    Is the upshot of this supposed to be that lower back pain is approximately equivalent to heart disease as a significant health risk?
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      I dunno about that.. I'd just say that if you're in good physical shape, have good insurance, and have persistent back pain, that might be something to check into
- ouid 4y ago
  Run me through your back of the envelope calculation here. It seems to me like you have plugged in -infinity for the utility of heart disease which is an example of the scale insensitive reason you are currently accusing people of.

tzs 4y ago

> My favorite example is probably whenever there's articles about sitting being bad for your health. You tend to get a couple of contrarians replying, "Well standing more may sound like good advice but standing can cause lower back pain, so it's not so simple!" However, that reply completely loses grasp of the relative scale of the two things, inviting you to consider the inconveniences of lower back pain as being on the same level as heart disease. Some of that is because the sitting articles often misunderstand the research, and even if the article doesn't a lot of readers here misunderstand the article taking it to mean that as soon as your butt hits the chair you start taking serious damage. It is prolonged sitting that is bad. Stand up and move around occasionally and sitting is fine. As far as standing goes, standing too long has more risks than just lower back pain. For people who already have some ischemic heart disease it increases the progression of carotid atherosclerosis, and in increase the risk of varicose veins. Here's a nice summary from ergonomics researchers of the risks of sitting too long and standing too long [1]. Here's what they recommend: > Sit to do computer work. Sit using a height-adjustable, downward titling keyboard tray for the best work posture, then every 20 minutes stand for 8 minutes AND MOVE for 2 minutes. The absolute time isn’t critical but about every 20-30 minutes take a posture break and stand and move for a couple of minutes. Simply standing is insufficient. Movement is important to get blood circulation through the muscles. And movement is FREE! Research shows that you don’t need to do vigorous exercise (e.g. jumping jacks) to get the benefits, just walking around is sufficient. So build in a pattern of creating greater movement variety in the workplace (e.g. walk to a printer, water fountain, stand for a meeting, take the stairs, walk around the floor, park a bit further away from the building each day). [1] https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CUESitStand.html https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CUESitStand.html

antisthenes 4y ago

The equivalency of opinions (e.g. giving opinions equal weight at all times) is the bane of modern discourse. Sometimes it feels like 90% of the general populace doesn't understand the difference and it's easier just to throw your hands in the air and cut contact off with the person than to try to explain to them this concept. Luckily, once you make friends with the 10% club, your life starts to feel great.