8 ms·

> intelligent people fall into where they think their intelligence in one area means they’re qualified to make assessments or reach conclusions in fields outsid

by bedobi 3y ago

> intelligent people fall into where they think their intelligence in one area means they’re qualified to make assessments or reach conclusions in fields outside of their own you're describing 99.99% of hackernews, lol (and I'm not even sure people here are that intelligent in the first place) (in case anyone is reading this thinking I'm saying I'm intelligent, rest assured I'm not)

tnel77 3y ago
I like HackerNews because the conversations are mostly intelligent and polite. Not always, but it’s far better than my experience with Twitter and Reddit.
- bannedbybros 3y ago
  [dead]
- pradn 3y ago
  HN comments have an air of authority because we so frequently do see reasoned, expert opinions. But it's still hard to mix up mere speculation, shooting-from-the-hip thoughts and well-thought-out comments. It's more pernicious here. On other sites, we routinely see incredibly low-effort and naive comments so we're on guard more: there's simply more mixed-up communities/contexts with different standards to train us to be more skeptical.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    HN readers are the human equivalent of ChatGPT?
    - sph 3y ago
      HN commenters like you and I are like ChatGPT, unaware if what we're saying is nonsense; we're full of ourselves and believe have something worthwhile to say. The lurkers on the other hand are humbler and smarter than us, they prefer reading instead of voicing their misinformed opinion, aware of their ignorance.
      - cassianoleal 3y ago
        Sorry, by reader I actually wanted to say comenters. I guess I'm more like ChatGPT than I'd like to admit!
- PragmaticPulp 3y ago
  > I like HackerNews because the conversations are mostly intelligent and polite Comment sections like this one highlight the risks of mistaking comments that look intelligent and polite for authority. The number of confident, polite posts in this comment section that are giving out factually incorrect information is incredible. Someone down below was speculating about this drug’s cardiotoxicity in ways that could be dismissed within 15 seconds of reading the Wikipedia page, but they presented their speculation as if it had an air of scientific authority. The number of commenters trying to suggest that psychedelics, which do not interact with the 5-HT4 receptor studied in this article, are a substitute for this drug or otherwise should be used for this indication is astounding.
  - aphatankha 3y ago
    Agreed. There’s a viral meme HN is “better” but little evidence it is true the content is more often accurate. Still a lot of noise and little signal even if the noise is not emotional like 4chan or Twitter
- bedobi 3y ago
  Agreed, the discourse here tends to be more polite, but as others have already pointed out, there's an insane amount of intelligent sounding, authoritative sounding content and comments here that are actually complete nonsense. Which is totally fine when talking about inconsequential things, but not when it comes to economics, medicine etc etc, lol.
- burnished 3y ago
  Like everyone else apparently I don't think the level of intelligence here is particularly noteworthy - but I absolutely agree that the average conversation here is polite and topic focused. For the most part I think the less productive conversations tend to occur as a product of genuinely misunderstandings. I think the moderation policies help a lot with this.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kugutsumen 3y ago
  In the sprawling expanse of online forums, an intriguing display of intelligence often takes shape. It's a labyrinthine network where discerning authentic insight from empty repetition is a challenge. A platform where individuals, often unknown to each other, put forth their assertions and speculations under the guise of knowledge. A peculiar phenomenon plays out under the hushed light of device screens—a grand theater where the lines between jesters and scholars blur. Filled with words mimicking wisdom, these digital performers garner attention and agreement, even when their insights are more a reflection of someone else's knowledge. It's a dance of self-deception where individuals flaunt expertise in various disciplines, leaving the audience to disentangle fact from illusion. Yet, amidst this tumult, some oasis of genuine discourse exists. There are those who engage in meaningful, respectful conversation, offering a refreshing contrast to the often convoluted discourse. However, even this refuge isn't devoid of potential pitfalls as seemingly intelligent and polite conversation may house misinformation and misinterpretation. Digital interlocutors, fueled by a heightened sense of self-importance, often propagate misinformation convincingly. Their illusion of authority can be shattered by the discerning who dare to look beyond the performance and expose the reality underneath. This leads us to an intriguing hypothesis: Are these digital scribes uncannily similar to artificial intelligence language models, mimicking not only the language but also the decision-making processes of humans? This analogy paints a rather abstract picture. Have we, in our quest for dialogue and connection, birthed a race of digital echo chambers that speak with the voice of authority but may lack the depth of true understanding? As this digital spectacle unfolds, we're left to ponder the performances we've witnessed. It is an ongoing show where the actors might be unaware of their roles and the audience might not discern the plot. The landscape of online forums seems to mirror our inherent struggle to separate truth from fiction, leaving us to navigate the often blurry line between the two.
  - YellOh 3y ago
    GPT? Normal humans don't seem to be this verbose (except when writing essays or monetized articles, I guess)
soared 3y ago
Agreed - if you’re an expert in something slightly off the main HN topics (ie adtech, finance, real estate, etc) then hn discussions are the same intelligence level as Reddit but without the memes.
steve_adams_86 3y ago
I’m part of the 0.1%. The way I can tell that I’m very intelligent is because I know I’m always right.
mattigames 3y ago
Not really, a huge chunk is a comment like yours which is a meta commentary about the subject at hand.

by bedobi 3y ago

tnel77 3y ago

I like HackerNews because the conversations are mostly intelligent and polite. Not always, but it’s far better than my experience with Twitter and Reddit.

bannedbybros 3y ago
[dead]
pradn 3y ago
HN comments have an air of authority because we so frequently do see reasoned, expert opinions. But it's still hard to mix up mere speculation, shooting-from-the-hip thoughts and well-thought-out comments. It's more pernicious here. On other sites, we routinely see incredibly low-effort and naive comments so we're on guard more: there's simply more mixed-up communities/contexts with different standards to train us to be more skeptical.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  HN readers are the human equivalent of ChatGPT?
  - sph 3y ago
    HN commenters like you and I are like ChatGPT, unaware if what we're saying is nonsense; we're full of ourselves and believe have something worthwhile to say. The lurkers on the other hand are humbler and smarter than us, they prefer reading instead of voicing their misinformed opinion, aware of their ignorance.
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      Sorry, by reader I actually wanted to say comenters. I guess I'm more like ChatGPT than I'd like to admit!
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
> I like HackerNews because the conversations are mostly intelligent and polite Comment sections like this one highlight the risks of mistaking comments that look intelligent and polite for authority. The number of confident, polite posts in this comment section that are giving out factually incorrect information is incredible. Someone down below was speculating about this drug’s cardiotoxicity in ways that could be dismissed within 15 seconds of reading the Wikipedia page, but they presented their speculation as if it had an air of scientific authority. The number of commenters trying to suggest that psychedelics, which do not interact with the 5-HT4 receptor studied in this article, are a substitute for this drug or otherwise should be used for this indication is astounding.
- aphatankha 3y ago
  Agreed. There’s a viral meme HN is “better” but little evidence it is true the content is more often accurate. Still a lot of noise and little signal even if the noise is not emotional like 4chan or Twitter
bedobi 3y ago
Agreed, the discourse here tends to be more polite, but as others have already pointed out, there's an insane amount of intelligent sounding, authoritative sounding content and comments here that are actually complete nonsense. Which is totally fine when talking about inconsequential things, but not when it comes to economics, medicine etc etc, lol.
burnished 3y ago
Like everyone else apparently I don't think the level of intelligence here is particularly noteworthy - but I absolutely agree that the average conversation here is polite and topic focused. For the most part I think the less productive conversations tend to occur as a product of genuinely misunderstandings. I think the moderation policies help a lot with this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kugutsumen 3y ago
In the sprawling expanse of online forums, an intriguing display of intelligence often takes shape. It's a labyrinthine network where discerning authentic insight from empty repetition is a challenge. A platform where individuals, often unknown to each other, put forth their assertions and speculations under the guise of knowledge. A peculiar phenomenon plays out under the hushed light of device screens—a grand theater where the lines between jesters and scholars blur. Filled with words mimicking wisdom, these digital performers garner attention and agreement, even when their insights are more a reflection of someone else's knowledge. It's a dance of self-deception where individuals flaunt expertise in various disciplines, leaving the audience to disentangle fact from illusion. Yet, amidst this tumult, some oasis of genuine discourse exists. There are those who engage in meaningful, respectful conversation, offering a refreshing contrast to the often convoluted discourse. However, even this refuge isn't devoid of potential pitfalls as seemingly intelligent and polite conversation may house misinformation and misinterpretation. Digital interlocutors, fueled by a heightened sense of self-importance, often propagate misinformation convincingly. Their illusion of authority can be shattered by the discerning who dare to look beyond the performance and expose the reality underneath. This leads us to an intriguing hypothesis: Are these digital scribes uncannily similar to artificial intelligence language models, mimicking not only the language but also the decision-making processes of humans? This analogy paints a rather abstract picture. Have we, in our quest for dialogue and connection, birthed a race of digital echo chambers that speak with the voice of authority but may lack the depth of true understanding? As this digital spectacle unfolds, we're left to ponder the performances we've witnessed. It is an ongoing show where the actors might be unaware of their roles and the audience might not discern the plot. The landscape of online forums seems to mirror our inherent struggle to separate truth from fiction, leaving us to navigate the often blurry line between the two.
- YellOh 3y ago
  GPT? Normal humans don't seem to be this verbose (except when writing essays or monetized articles, I guess)

soared 3y ago

Agreed - if you’re an expert in something slightly off the main HN topics (ie adtech, finance, real estate, etc) then hn discussions are the same intelligence level as Reddit but without the memes.

steve_adams_86 3y ago

I’m part of the 0.1%. The way I can tell that I’m very intelligent is because I know I’m always right.

mattigames 3y ago

Not really, a huge chunk is a comment like yours which is a meta commentary about the subject at hand.