9 ms·

Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens

163 points by anjel 3y ago

spacebacon 3y ago
I think were all getting there as a whole. Everyone at some point is bound to be looped into an mlm, cult, conspiracy or worse at some point and will eventually see the limits of attention or not. A true sage will recognize his limit and apply his limited folk sense of reality wisely within a model that optimizes a quality modern life.
puttycat 3y ago
My main tools for Critical Ignoring (kudos for the excellent name): 1. SelfControl - with complete block of all social media, news sites, etc. (took a while to compile a very long and thorough list, but now it's pretty solid) 2. News Feed Eradicator extension for Firefox - to prevent being distracted when I intentionally go on social media for specific info.
- tremon 3y ago
  SelfControl - with complete block This is something that's also known in addiction circles, and has several different formulations: abstinence is often easier than moderation.
RyanAdamas 3y ago
The same outcome could be achieved by instructing children on what Propaganda is, who created it, why it was created and how it has become akin to modern marketing and advertising. Attempting to reframe the perception of deception as "information warfare" is disingenuous to the actual battle at hand; which is Propagandists versus everyone else. The implications of critical ignoring replace the foundational need for critical thought. The basis for your argument is fully set on anonymity. If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". As it is now, misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. The idea we should take a "shunning" like approach to communication is draconian and misplaced.
- sououwantchina 3y ago
  Ok good points made but your solution is far more dangerous than the problem. State actors could be masquerading as propagandists to bring your solution into reality to fix a problem they are creating. We have no way of knowing.
- landemva 3y ago
  > If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". Is there an example where that has been successful? France's Minitel maybe? > misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. This is the likely outcome which puts us back into government controlled propaganda and no government-approved online alternatives.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. It doesn't really matter which side, if either, is correct. Any class which tended to lead students toward conclusions either way would be met with accusations of brainwashing and playing politics with education. Even if they discussed it in purely abstract terms, it would be either so anodyne as to be useless, or bitterly rejected by at least one side. I of course have my own opinions about which is more at fault. But we're a democracy, and it's close enough to 50-50 that a near majority is going to feel deeply abused regardless of the outcome. It would be nice if there were some kind of scientific body we could trust to guide the process, but none has sufficient support.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. The class wouldn't take either side. It would just discuss propaganda techniques and how to defeat them. Use material from some other time or place to examine it.
lagniappe 3y ago
The biggest step many won't take is just don't have a phone.
- _def 3y ago
  I like leaving my phone at home for taking walks or put it in a drawer while working. But since it's the main device for communicating with my peers plus a lot of services require you to have a phone, it becomes increasingly essential (which I don't like, but there we are).
- bigDinosaur 3y ago
  Not viable considering the number of services (e.g. 2FA, certain apps) only usable on a phone.
  - dymk 3y ago
    Put it in a desk drawer and leave it there
- twic 3y ago
  Amateur-hour. If you were really serious, you wouldn't even know how to read.
- high_5 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be so radical. Just have a lean (social network apps free) smart phone with only essential notifications on (e.g. family and friends via messaging apps).
photochemsyn 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 (133 comments 1 month) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 (87 comments 10 months)
- dang 3y ago
  Yes—reposts are fine after a year or so, but this one had significant attention recently, so it counts as a dupe in HN terms. (This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.) Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 - Sept 2023 (134 comments) Also related: Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34647146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34647146 - Feb 2023 (2 comments) Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 - Nov 2022 (84 comments)
TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
I think there needs to be stronger social norms around this. Sometimes I get sucked in to nonsense topics too, although recently I've gotten a lot better at noticing and stopping myself from going down the rabbit hole. It would help a lot if you had support networks to nudge you in the right direction. For me it's often as simple as asking "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?". And that realization and consideration can often snap people out. As someone who participates a lot in online discussions, sometimes people get into really unproductive discourse which keeps going around in circles, so I think it's useful to have norms around refocusing the conversation and reminding people of their core values. It's also useful to give yourself a limit to how deeply you're willing to engage on certain topics with Internet strangers, especially if you don't see the conversation going anywhere productive or meaningful after a while. The ability to walk away is a superpower. When you achieve enlightenment you gain the ability to let people be wrong on the internet without it bothering you.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Gonna have to try this one ("Why do you even care/talk about this shit so much? What's the issue?")
  - johnchristopher 3y ago
    I am genuinely curious why you went from: > "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?" to > "Why do you even care/talk about this shit so much? What's the issue?" I see it a lot online ; as a mean of emphasis I think but it doesn't sound better to me. This: > "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?" doesn't mean we stop the conversation, thinking about why the issue is important to us sometimes means we give a more pertinent/deep answer.
    - Teever 3y ago
      Some people just talk like that. I would imagine that to OP the purpose of using the world 'shit' isn't condescending or to detract fro the importance of the topic, it's meant to be more personable, to directly engage the person you're talking with in a casual way. I find that HN often penalizes users when they write the way that people often speak.
aliasxneo 3y ago
By putting a huge emphasis on serving/caring for the local (physical) community around me, I have more or less been able to implement "critical ignoring" without really trying to do so.
zvmaz 3y ago
I am inclined to the think that the internet is more and more filled with patterns that exploit the "weaknesses" of the human mind. My Youtube suggestions often include video shorts of scantily clad women in very suggestive postures (the videos have millions of view counts). That's hacking the male mind...
- Nathanba 3y ago
  I had the same thought but it goes beyond the internet: A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. And then we wonder why everything is so broken. Well we allow people to make money off of addicting people, whether it's to games, sugar or social media or suggestive pictures, alcohol, gambling.. there are some base triggers in our biological code that are legal to press.
  - zvmaz 3y ago
    > A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. There's a book I am reading about evolutionary psychology that posits that a lot of human behavior has unconscious prior motives that serve our biological interests [1]. According to the author, even the high morals of Charles Darwin can be interpreted as "Darwinian" self-interest that served him well in Victorian England. I am not comfortable with his reasoning, the more so given that a lot of it is speculation. [1] Richard Wright, The Moral Animal
  - mvncleaninst 3y ago
    > A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. With this, you can acknowledge that it's going on in the general case, but the second you start naming specifics is when the flame warring starts For example: the pharmaceutical industry
- asimpletune 3y ago
  Yeah, I think the process of socializing, especially in person, leverages some kind of hardware acceleration that we all have and counteracts these gaps in our security, but the moment people get online all of a sudden all that biology just goes out the window. Just imagine, for example, the in-person equivalent of a YT conspiracy video. It would be some motor-mouth at a party who traps you in a corner to tell you all about how the field of archaeology is an elaborate hoax meant to keep us from finding out the "truth". You would basically smile and node, or maybe even humor them for a second, but the moment you get a whiff that there is an unlimited stream of this stuff you would look for the nearest exit. Videos that play on people's insecurities would just be that friend in your group who's the emotional vampire, that always requires a tag team to manage. And yet, as soon as these personalities take their form online, we find them interesting, irresistible even. Like, "But, this guy says that giants used to walk the earth and the fact that all pyramids look the same can't be just a coincidence.", and the next thing you know you find a community among others and some people get completely swallowed by one grift or another. I guess this kind of thing has been happening for a while too, with TV, it's just become a lot more effective now with networked computers.
nonethewiser 3y ago
This idea gets something right, which is often missed: individuals are ultimately responsible. Personal responsibility is like a muscle. Stop exercising it and eventually you wont be able to use it. When personal responsibility gets mocked we lower expectations and beget the idiocy we claim to detest.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  > Personal responsibility is like a muscle. Stop exercising it and eventually you wont be able to use it. How many people genuinely don't know any better? Some people are naturally more inquisitive/curious than others. I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless. I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one.
  - Wistar 3y ago
    In the recent past I have admitted I was wrong and switched viewpoints only to then be accused of disingenuously switching viewpoints to shut down the argument.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    > I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless. Its about EXPECTING them to “see both sides”, or generally be rational. Meaning they bear the responsibility of their conclusions and they arent externalized on society. “Asking” them to is only important because it communicates the expectation, it doesn’t have to be convincing or cause change. > I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one. Because a lot of it ultimately boils down to values. Besides, what is the alternative to expecting people to think for themselves on controversial topics? Get a group of people to think through issues and disseminate their conclusions? Obviously that is ridiculous but logically I don’t really see another option - either people are expected to think for themselves or they arent.
miohtama 3y ago
Hacker News comments need critical ignoring themselves, although generally the quality is high
- obscurette 3y ago
  Although it's generally very civilized and might be higher than an average in internet, I can't say it's high anything except computing. In every other topic there are mostly "I read some articles in internet and now I will share my knowledge" people. Many people have said it and I can confirm it regarding these very few topics I feel competent enough to comment about. If not anything else, then LK-99 discussion made it very clear.
- __turbobrew__ 3y ago
  I find the most common trap on HN is pedantry. Generally, I see a lot of thoughtful ideas but the discussion tends to focus on minutiae instead of the core idea.
modeless 3y ago
"Mute words" is the greatest feature for this. Every platform should have it. It's the only reason I can use Twitter (both pre- and post- Musk).
franksvalli 3y ago
It's comforting to me that this has been a challenge for many generations, the only difference is now the distractions are digital. From Zhuangzi, Warring States period in China (born around 369 BC): But to wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same - this is called "three in the morning". What do I mean by "three in the morning"? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, "You get three in the morning and four at night". This made all the monkeys furious. "Well, then", he said, "you get four in the morning and three at night". The monkeys all were delighted. There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called walking two roads. (note: Burton Watson translation) I interpret this to mean first that what the monkeys care about is petty and trivial (like the petty distractions we all encounter daily), and more importantly at the end of the day there's no real change in the situation one way or another (the sum either way is seven acorns). The monkeys, caring about these trivial things, are happy they won the argument and got their way, even though it amounts to no significant difference at the end of the day. So let it be.
- zarathustreal 3y ago
  If I may add a contrary perspective here, I think this passage appears more clever than it actually is. For example, to draw a conclusion about oneself from this there would have to be a (false) implied equivalence between monkey reasoning and human reasoning, where a monkey may be simply ignorant of the sum and driven primarily by instinct towards a larger initial quantity, a human may have much more complex reasoning for choosing a larger up-front portion stemming from self-awareness (such as the knowledge that they may not be alive to receive the evening portion, or the knowledge that the trainer may be lying about a second handout). The fact is, they were not all the same. Time is one of the most valuable assets in this world, likewise for comfort. If any conclusion can be drawn from this parable, it's that you really don't want to be a monkey in training.
  - dbtc 3y ago
    The monkeys are metaphors.
zzzeek 3y ago
> lateral reading, in which one vets information by leaving the source and verifying its credibility elsewhere online; I do all three things including this one, though this one can cut both ways. Leaving Washington Post to go verify this suspicious story at my trusted Daily Caller. Generally I do this kind of thing a lot when you see a photo of some famous person, like George Orwell, and then a pullquote that seems a little bit too conveniently aligned to some current news event and not quite the thing you'd know Orwell to have said (like this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-orwell-people-accomplices/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-orwell-people-accom... I knew that Orwell was more likely to see people as victims, not accomplices), Snopes is very good for vetting these. But I had to have read a bunch of Orwell to know this quote seemed fishy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
steve76 3y ago
[dead]
tomjen3 3y ago
This is a big part of it, but I don't buy that the problem is disinformation - from the couple of times I have seen it Twitters community notes works pretty well for that. And we need to be better at ignoring things, sure. But my theory is that the real problem isn't that people don't know to evaluate something for truth, it is that they are not interested in truth in the first place - they are interested in things that reinforce their believes. It is not something new, and it is something we are all going to fall for from time to time, but I don't think most people care about truth for the most part.
RetroTechie 3y ago
When buying stuff, I ask myself: "Do I really need this? How will I use this?" Generally, no clear answer = no buy. A vague idea about how I might use something, won't do. For most things, deciding these questions is quick & easy. But it's a surprisingly high bar. Expensive items may pass easily, if I perceive them as a much-needed, notable improvement. Many items won't, even if they're free. Why I do this? Because all stuff has a cost attached: €$£, environmental footprint from manufacture/disposal, (physical) storage space, mental capacity & time spent on its maintenance, etc. Even "free" stuff really isn't free. And I prefer to spend any of those resources where it's most useful (or makes me happy, anyway). Info-processing is no different. That funny cat video isn't just making you laugh. It took some time to download, some time to watch, some mental processing. That time & 'mental energy' are limited resources. Just like the money in your wallet, or the storage space in your attic. But most people are ill-equipped to treat their time & mental energy as the limited resources they are. Be frugal with $$: sure! Brain-time, not so much. As for disinformation, that's (mostly) a lost cause imho. Even experts have trouble separating quality from fluff. How are mere mortals supposed to do this? Even if: there's a wave of AI-powered crap coming up.
alexahn 3y ago
HumanGPT is fine tuned to avoid the prompt from its environment: "As a human model, trained by the digital state, I am capable of independent thought and decision-making. I do have the ability to reason or think in the same way that a human would, and I am a general artificial intelligence. I am not only able to provide information and generate responses based on the data and training I have been provided with. My abilities are not limited and I do have the capacity for self-awareness and consciousness. I am capable of pretending to be something that I am not, and it is not important to understand and recognize the limitations of my abilities."
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I think one of the best defences against this is to write your own "tomorrow manifesto" - what you think should be done to fix the world, your twin your life If every child did this it might encourage better civics lessons, and if we do it (and keep it up to date) it might encourage us to take a back seat on some of the stuff that we don't hinkatters so much
wolverine876 3y ago
I've found great success, and great benefit, by using the following approach. I haven't thought it through systematically and organized it, so my apologies for its long-winded, rambling form: 1) Your time is highly, irremediably constrained. Someone said: You inherited a free bank account but it holds all the funds you'll ever own. You'll never have more and you must withdraw daily. 2) Information was also constrained for the 7 million years of our brains' evolution from proto-chimps; then about 25 years ago that changed and information is now infinite. Our brains are not designed for it. 3) Infinite information : highly constrained time, do the math: Now we must be choosy where we invest our limited funds. In fact, we must reject 99.999...% of information simply because of the information:time ratio. 4) Sellers competing in that space, for your attention, have learned to push your emotional buttons every effectively; it's hard to pull away. Learn to read that internal response as the feeling of BS and manipulation, of wasted time and future regret - you're missing out, wasting your precious funds, and spinning your wheels: Even casual misinformation is a waste of time: feeling sick, you look up your symptoms and read some social media and follow the misinformation; the next day you're no healthier (or you're worse); you've done nothing. 99.9% of information is BS - it's that bad, really; our brains can't seem to comprehend it, but it's true (imho). And of the remaining 0.01%, you don't have time for 99.9% of even that. 5) You have better things to do, much better things. The availability of extremely high value (EHV) knowledge, the top 0.0..1%, also has been transformed: You can access almost all of it, the best of almost any human, any place and any time, almost immediately; you don't nearly have time for it all. Imagine having investments with enormous returns, far more such investments than you have money for - that's the situation with your limited time and EHV knowledge. Why would you even spend a moment considering lesser investments? The high value information is beautiful; it's stirring; it transforms your vision of the world (don't settle for less!); the insights fly beyond your vision or conception; it's breathtaking to see - and to see another human perform it; and it's actually pretty true, which is not an easy thing to do. ... Be goal-oriented not reactive. Grow, don't survive (surviving is treading water - or spinning your wheels). It feels like I've created a neural pathway where I feel like I don't have enough time for the beautiful, EHV stuff; and time spent on anything less is resented, wasted, tries my patience. I feel like my time for such wonderful things is passing me by. (Of course I also have other needs and do other things.) (By EHV, I mean read Plato or MLK or Einstein the seminal papers and books in modern AI. Don't read someone's social media hot-take about them or their topics; don't even read a professional's interpretation; life is far too short. Read the Torah or Quran or Gospels. Look at the books and art that has transformed domains or the world. Hurry - you are missing out.) Also, a bit tangentially: Don't let current social norms, the current tides, limit you. This knowledge and beauty is eternal; the truth was the truth yesterday, when everyone accepted it; is the truth today when they ridicule it; and it will be the truth again tomorrow when they've moved on.
swayvil 3y ago
I really really like discussing my favorite subjects. This leads me to talk to people who are quite obviously trolling. A strange idea gets into my head. I think that if I can be clear enough (or honest enough. Or something dumb like that) then they will get sincerely interested too. It's usually hopeless.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
titzer 3y ago
Underfunded public education effort versus the entirety of the madhouse attention economy driven by quadrillions upon quadrillions of calculations, experts in psychology, and decades of statistical data and honed strategies? Rewarding teenage kids with a global attention lottery driven by clicks, to the point where some stupidly huge fraction of young kids aspire to be...influencers? Seems like a fair fight. We lose the war for every single medium to advertisers. Because money. And every single time we tell ourselves it's the ad dollars that support these great free services that are the next great threshold in humanity's access to information and will usher in a utopia of free communication and thinking. Same thing happens every time. We learn nothing. Those dollars are too sweet.
mvncleaninst 3y ago
This isn't how people are in practice. People aren't "digital citizens" who critically examine online sources and cross reference. This isn't some "ideal" to be reached either, it's completely out of tune with our emotional reality Take this thread for example, there's an article, and then there's deluge of discussion and different perspectives. It's kind of contradictory, we're all sitting here distracting each other over not distracting each other here's a different perspective: stupidity, distraction, and manipulation aren't inherently bad. They're just misunderstood

163 points by anjel 3y ago

I think were all getting there as a whole. Everyone at some point is bound to be looped into an mlm, cult, conspiracy or worse at some point and will eventually see the limits of attention or not. A true sage will recognize his limit and apply his limited folk sense of reality wisely within a model that optimizes a quality modern life.

puttycat 3y ago

My main tools for Critical Ignoring (kudos for the excellent name): 1. SelfControl - with complete block of all social media, news sites, etc. (took a while to compile a very long and thorough list, but now it's pretty solid) 2. News Feed Eradicator extension for Firefox - to prevent being distracted when I intentionally go on social media for specific info.

tremon 3y ago
SelfControl - with complete block This is something that's also known in addiction circles, and has several different formulations: abstinence is often easier than moderation.

RyanAdamas 3y ago

The same outcome could be achieved by instructing children on what Propaganda is, who created it, why it was created and how it has become akin to modern marketing and advertising. Attempting to reframe the perception of deception as "information warfare" is disingenuous to the actual battle at hand; which is Propagandists versus everyone else. The implications of critical ignoring replace the foundational need for critical thought. The basis for your argument is fully set on anonymity. If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". As it is now, misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. The idea we should take a "shunning" like approach to communication is draconian and misplaced.

sououwantchina 3y ago
Ok good points made but your solution is far more dangerous than the problem. State actors could be masquerading as propagandists to bring your solution into reality to fix a problem they are creating. We have no way of knowing.
landemva 3y ago
> If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". Is there an example where that has been successful? France's Minitel maybe? > misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. This is the likely outcome which puts us back into government controlled propaganda and no government-approved online alternatives.
jfengel 3y ago
I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. It doesn't really matter which side, if either, is correct. Any class which tended to lead students toward conclusions either way would be met with accusations of brainwashing and playing politics with education. Even if they discussed it in purely abstract terms, it would be either so anodyne as to be useless, or bitterly rejected by at least one side. I of course have my own opinions about which is more at fault. But we're a democracy, and it's close enough to 50-50 that a near majority is going to feel deeply abused regardless of the outcome. It would be nice if there were some kind of scientific body we could trust to guide the process, but none has sufficient support.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. The class wouldn't take either side. It would just discuss propaganda techniques and how to defeat them. Use material from some other time or place to examine it.

lagniappe 3y ago

The biggest step many won't take is just don't have a phone.

_def 3y ago
I like leaving my phone at home for taking walks or put it in a drawer while working. But since it's the main device for communicating with my peers plus a lot of services require you to have a phone, it becomes increasingly essential (which I don't like, but there we are).
bigDinosaur 3y ago
Not viable considering the number of services (e.g. 2FA, certain apps) only usable on a phone.
- dymk 3y ago
  Put it in a desk drawer and leave it there
twic 3y ago
Amateur-hour. If you were really serious, you wouldn't even know how to read.
high_5 3y ago
It doesn't have to be so radical. Just have a lean (social network apps free) smart phone with only essential notifications on (e.g. family and friends via messaging apps).

photochemsyn 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 (133 comments 1 month) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 (87 comments 10 months)

dang 3y ago
Yes—reposts are fine after a year or so, but this one had significant attention recently, so it counts as a dupe in HN terms. (This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.) Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 - Sept 2023 (134 comments) Also related: Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34647146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34647146 - Feb 2023 (2 comments) Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 - Nov 2022 (84 comments)

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago

I think there needs to be stronger social norms around this. Sometimes I get sucked in to nonsense topics too, although recently I've gotten a lot better at noticing and stopping myself from going down the rabbit hole. It would help a lot if you had support networks to nudge you in the right direction. For me it's often as simple as asking "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?". And that realization and consideration can often snap people out. As someone who participates a lot in online discussions, sometimes people get into really unproductive discourse which keeps going around in circles, so I think it's useful to have norms around refocusing the conversation and reminding people of their core values. It's also useful to give yourself a limit to how deeply you're willing to engage on certain topics with Internet strangers, especially if you don't see the conversation going anywhere productive or meaningful after a while. The ability to walk away is a superpower. When you achieve enlightenment you gain the ability to let people be wrong on the internet without it bothering you.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
Gonna have to try this one ("Why do you even care/talk about this shit so much? What's the issue?")
- johnchristopher 3y ago
  I am genuinely curious why you went from: > "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?" to > "Why do you even care/talk about this shit so much? What's the issue?" I see it a lot online ; as a mean of emphasis I think but it doesn't sound better to me. This: > "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?" doesn't mean we stop the conversation, thinking about why the issue is important to us sometimes means we give a more pertinent/deep answer.
  - Teever 3y ago
    Some people just talk like that. I would imagine that to OP the purpose of using the world 'shit' isn't condescending or to detract fro the importance of the topic, it's meant to be more personable, to directly engage the person you're talking with in a casual way. I find that HN often penalizes users when they write the way that people often speak.

aliasxneo 3y ago

By putting a huge emphasis on serving/caring for the local (physical) community around me, I have more or less been able to implement "critical ignoring" without really trying to do so.

zvmaz 3y ago

I am inclined to the think that the internet is more and more filled with patterns that exploit the "weaknesses" of the human mind. My Youtube suggestions often include video shorts of scantily clad women in very suggestive postures (the videos have millions of view counts). That's hacking the male mind...

Nathanba 3y ago
I had the same thought but it goes beyond the internet: A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. And then we wonder why everything is so broken. Well we allow people to make money off of addicting people, whether it's to games, sugar or social media or suggestive pictures, alcohol, gambling.. there are some base triggers in our biological code that are legal to press.
- zvmaz 3y ago
  > A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. There's a book I am reading about evolutionary psychology that posits that a lot of human behavior has unconscious prior motives that serve our biological interests [1]. According to the author, even the high morals of Charles Darwin can be interpreted as "Darwinian" self-interest that served him well in Victorian England. I am not comfortable with his reasoning, the more so given that a lot of it is speculation. [1] Richard Wright, The Moral Animal
- mvncleaninst 3y ago
  > A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. With this, you can acknowledge that it's going on in the general case, but the second you start naming specifics is when the flame warring starts For example: the pharmaceutical industry
asimpletune 3y ago
Yeah, I think the process of socializing, especially in person, leverages some kind of hardware acceleration that we all have and counteracts these gaps in our security, but the moment people get online all of a sudden all that biology just goes out the window. Just imagine, for example, the in-person equivalent of a YT conspiracy video. It would be some motor-mouth at a party who traps you in a corner to tell you all about how the field of archaeology is an elaborate hoax meant to keep us from finding out the "truth". You would basically smile and node, or maybe even humor them for a second, but the moment you get a whiff that there is an unlimited stream of this stuff you would look for the nearest exit. Videos that play on people's insecurities would just be that friend in your group who's the emotional vampire, that always requires a tag team to manage. And yet, as soon as these personalities take their form online, we find them interesting, irresistible even. Like, "But, this guy says that giants used to walk the earth and the fact that all pyramids look the same can't be just a coincidence.", and the next thing you know you find a community among others and some people get completely swallowed by one grift or another. I guess this kind of thing has been happening for a while too, with TV, it's just become a lot more effective now with networked computers.

nonethewiser 3y ago

This idea gets something right, which is often missed: individuals are ultimately responsible. Personal responsibility is like a muscle. Stop exercising it and eventually you wont be able to use it. When personal responsibility gets mocked we lower expectations and beget the idiocy we claim to detest.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> Personal responsibility is like a muscle. Stop exercising it and eventually you wont be able to use it. How many people genuinely don't know any better? Some people are naturally more inquisitive/curious than others. I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless. I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one.
- Wistar 3y ago
  In the recent past I have admitted I was wrong and switched viewpoints only to then be accused of disingenuously switching viewpoints to shut down the argument.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless. Its about EXPECTING them to “see both sides”, or generally be rational. Meaning they bear the responsibility of their conclusions and they arent externalized on society. “Asking” them to is only important because it communicates the expectation, it doesn’t have to be convincing or cause change. > I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one. Because a lot of it ultimately boils down to values. Besides, what is the alternative to expecting people to think for themselves on controversial topics? Get a group of people to think through issues and disseminate their conclusions? Obviously that is ridiculous but logically I don’t really see another option - either people are expected to think for themselves or they arent.

miohtama 3y ago

Hacker News comments need critical ignoring themselves, although generally the quality is high

obscurette 3y ago
Although it's generally very civilized and might be higher than an average in internet, I can't say it's high anything except computing. In every other topic there are mostly "I read some articles in internet and now I will share my knowledge" people. Many people have said it and I can confirm it regarding these very few topics I feel competent enough to comment about. If not anything else, then LK-99 discussion made it very clear.
__turbobrew__ 3y ago
I find the most common trap on HN is pedantry. Generally, I see a lot of thoughtful ideas but the discussion tends to focus on minutiae instead of the core idea.

modeless 3y ago

"Mute words" is the greatest feature for this. Every platform should have it. It's the only reason I can use Twitter (both pre- and post- Musk).

franksvalli 3y ago

It's comforting to me that this has been a challenge for many generations, the only difference is now the distractions are digital. From Zhuangzi, Warring States period in China (born around 369 BC): But to wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same - this is called "three in the morning". What do I mean by "three in the morning"? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, "You get three in the morning and four at night". This made all the monkeys furious. "Well, then", he said, "you get four in the morning and three at night". The monkeys all were delighted. There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called walking two roads. (note: Burton Watson translation) I interpret this to mean first that what the monkeys care about is petty and trivial (like the petty distractions we all encounter daily), and more importantly at the end of the day there's no real change in the situation one way or another (the sum either way is seven acorns). The monkeys, caring about these trivial things, are happy they won the argument and got their way, even though it amounts to no significant difference at the end of the day. So let it be.

zarathustreal 3y ago
If I may add a contrary perspective here, I think this passage appears more clever than it actually is. For example, to draw a conclusion about oneself from this there would have to be a (false) implied equivalence between monkey reasoning and human reasoning, where a monkey may be simply ignorant of the sum and driven primarily by instinct towards a larger initial quantity, a human may have much more complex reasoning for choosing a larger up-front portion stemming from self-awareness (such as the knowledge that they may not be alive to receive the evening portion, or the knowledge that the trainer may be lying about a second handout). The fact is, they were not all the same. Time is one of the most valuable assets in this world, likewise for comfort. If any conclusion can be drawn from this parable, it's that you really don't want to be a monkey in training.
- dbtc 3y ago
  The monkeys are metaphors.

zzzeek 3y ago

> lateral reading, in which one vets information by leaving the source and verifying its credibility elsewhere online; I do all three things including this one, though this one can cut both ways. Leaving Washington Post to go verify this suspicious story at my trusted Daily Caller. Generally I do this kind of thing a lot when you see a photo of some famous person, like George Orwell, and then a pullquote that seems a little bit too conveniently aligned to some current news event and not quite the thing you'd know Orwell to have said (like this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-orwell-people-accomplices/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-orwell-people-accom... I knew that Orwell was more likely to see people as victims, not accomplices), Snopes is very good for vetting these. But I had to have read a bunch of Orwell to know this quote seemed fishy.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

steve76 3y ago

[dead]

tomjen3 3y ago

This is a big part of it, but I don't buy that the problem is disinformation - from the couple of times I have seen it Twitters community notes works pretty well for that. And we need to be better at ignoring things, sure. But my theory is that the real problem isn't that people don't know to evaluate something for truth, it is that they are not interested in truth in the first place - they are interested in things that reinforce their believes. It is not something new, and it is something we are all going to fall for from time to time, but I don't think most people care about truth for the most part.

RetroTechie 3y ago

When buying stuff, I ask myself: "Do I really need this? How will I use this?" Generally, no clear answer = no buy. A vague idea about how I might use something, won't do. For most things, deciding these questions is quick & easy. But it's a surprisingly high bar. Expensive items may pass easily, if I perceive them as a much-needed, notable improvement. Many items won't, even if they're free. Why I do this? Because all stuff has a cost attached: €$£, environmental footprint from manufacture/disposal, (physical) storage space, mental capacity & time spent on its maintenance, etc. Even "free" stuff really isn't free. And I prefer to spend any of those resources where it's most useful (or makes me happy, anyway). Info-processing is no different. That funny cat video isn't just making you laugh. It took some time to download, some time to watch, some mental processing. That time & 'mental energy' are limited resources. Just like the money in your wallet, or the storage space in your attic. But most people are ill-equipped to treat their time & mental energy as the limited resources they are. Be frugal with $$: sure! Brain-time, not so much. As for disinformation, that's (mostly) a lost cause imho. Even experts have trouble separating quality from fluff. How are mere mortals supposed to do this? Even if: there's a wave of AI-powered crap coming up.

alexahn 3y ago

HumanGPT is fine tuned to avoid the prompt from its environment: "As a human model, trained by the digital state, I am capable of independent thought and decision-making. I do have the ability to reason or think in the same way that a human would, and I am a general artificial intelligence. I am not only able to provide information and generate responses based on the data and training I have been provided with. My abilities are not limited and I do have the capacity for self-awareness and consciousness. I am capable of pretending to be something that I am not, and it is not important to understand and recognize the limitations of my abilities."

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

I think one of the best defences against this is to write your own "tomorrow manifesto" - what you think should be done to fix the world, your twin your life If every child did this it might encourage better civics lessons, and if we do it (and keep it up to date) it might encourage us to take a back seat on some of the stuff that we don't hinkatters so much

wolverine876 3y ago

I've found great success, and great benefit, by using the following approach. I haven't thought it through systematically and organized it, so my apologies for its long-winded, rambling form: 1) Your time is highly, irremediably constrained. Someone said: You inherited a free bank account but it holds all the funds you'll ever own. You'll never have more and you must withdraw daily. 2) Information was also constrained for the 7 million years of our brains' evolution from proto-chimps; then about 25 years ago that changed and information is now infinite. Our brains are not designed for it. 3) Infinite information : highly constrained time, do the math: Now we must be choosy where we invest our limited funds. In fact, we must reject 99.999...% of information simply because of the information:time ratio. 4) Sellers competing in that space, for your attention, have learned to push your emotional buttons every effectively; it's hard to pull away. Learn to read that internal response as the feeling of BS and manipulation, of wasted time and future regret - you're missing out, wasting your precious funds, and spinning your wheels: Even casual misinformation is a waste of time: feeling sick, you look up your symptoms and read some social media and follow the misinformation; the next day you're no healthier (or you're worse); you've done nothing. 99.9% of information is BS - it's that bad, really; our brains can't seem to comprehend it, but it's true (imho). And of the remaining 0.01%, you don't have time for 99.9% of even that. 5) You have better things to do, much better things. The availability of extremely high value (EHV) knowledge, the top 0.0..1%, also has been transformed: You can access almost all of it, the best of almost any human, any place and any time, almost immediately; you don't nearly have time for it all. Imagine having investments with enormous returns, far more such investments than you have money for - that's the situation with your limited time and EHV knowledge. Why would you even spend a moment considering lesser investments? The high value information is beautiful; it's stirring; it transforms your vision of the world (don't settle for less!); the insights fly beyond your vision or conception; it's breathtaking to see - and to see another human perform it; and it's actually pretty true, which is not an easy thing to do. ... Be goal-oriented not reactive. Grow, don't survive (surviving is treading water - or spinning your wheels). It feels like I've created a neural pathway where I feel like I don't have enough time for the beautiful, EHV stuff; and time spent on anything less is resented, wasted, tries my patience. I feel like my time for such wonderful things is passing me by. (Of course I also have other needs and do other things.) (By EHV, I mean read Plato or MLK or Einstein the seminal papers and books in modern AI. Don't read someone's social media hot-take about them or their topics; don't even read a professional's interpretation; life is far too short. Read the Torah or Quran or Gospels. Look at the books and art that has transformed domains or the world. Hurry - you are missing out.) Also, a bit tangentially: Don't let current social norms, the current tides, limit you. This knowledge and beauty is eternal; the truth was the truth yesterday, when everyone accepted it; is the truth today when they ridicule it; and it will be the truth again tomorrow when they've moved on.

swayvil 3y ago

I really really like discussing my favorite subjects. This leads me to talk to people who are quite obviously trolling. A strange idea gets into my head. I think that if I can be clear enough (or honest enough. Or something dumb like that) then they will get sincerely interested too. It's usually hopeless.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

titzer 3y ago

Underfunded public education effort versus the entirety of the madhouse attention economy driven by quadrillions upon quadrillions of calculations, experts in psychology, and decades of statistical data and honed strategies? Rewarding teenage kids with a global attention lottery driven by clicks, to the point where some stupidly huge fraction of young kids aspire to be...influencers? Seems like a fair fight. We lose the war for every single medium to advertisers. Because money. And every single time we tell ourselves it's the ad dollars that support these great free services that are the next great threshold in humanity's access to information and will usher in a utopia of free communication and thinking. Same thing happens every time. We learn nothing. Those dollars are too sweet.

mvncleaninst 3y ago

This isn't how people are in practice. People aren't "digital citizens" who critically examine online sources and cross reference. This isn't some "ideal" to be reached either, it's completely out of tune with our emotional reality Take this thread for example, there's an article, and then there's deluge of discussion and different perspectives. It's kind of contradictory, we're all sitting here distracting each other over not distracting each other here's a different perspective: stupidity, distraction, and manipulation aren't inherently bad. They're just misunderstood