16 ms·

Orthodox Privilege (2020)

122 points by omarious 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sn00tz00t 3y ago
Who are the 'real ones™' on HN with the vision to see something that is most often inappropriate or hard to communicate here due to downvoting or lame rules? Take the opportunity to let us know here.
- chrischattin 3y ago
  This place is a progressive echo chamber for sure.
  - dannyobrien 3y ago
    of course, amusingly, it's also well-known as a right-leaning forum too i used to think that the fact that both ideas were in currency indicated that it was probably unbiased. I now think that it probably means that the "right-wing"/"progressive" indicators are too simplistic a way to describe the actual underlying biases.
    - chrischattin 3y ago
      Good point. It's probably more accurate to say it is biased to whatever opinions benefit the YC business model (which is understandable. It's their forum, after all). For example, speaking out against anything other than very lax immigration policy is verboten because driving down American labor costs benefits VC's. Saying anything positive about the previous president will get you downvoted immediately. (This isn't related to my personal political opinions, I'm just using it as an example.)
      - notahacker 3y ago
        There are definitely strands of HN popular opinion that strongly align with YC'S business model (the idea that funding and scale are barometers for success and YC's selection heuristics are actually how you should run your business) but I certainly wouldn't have picked migration as one of the example. If anything, I get the opposite impression when the notion of the threat to devs' one percenter status posed by underpaid and exploited visa recipients willing to wrap text in javascript for a mere 100k per annum comes up, especially if that's compared and contrasted with the general enthusiasm for the idea automating away everyone else's job and replacing it with a UBI. It'd be difficult to find anywhere else quite as hostile to the ads so many YC companies and their acquirers depend on either. They are good examples of the GP's comment about the idea of a position on a line between left and right wing orthodoxy being the wrong way to describe how HN coalesces around ideas though...
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - meeuwer 3y ago
      If the SVB debacle taught us anything, it is that even the most libertarian free-market aficionados love their “nanny state” when it’s them who’s in trouble.
      - p_j_w 3y ago
        Likewise, it's hilarious to see so many right wingers gnashing their teeth about orthodoxy now that Reaganism is out of style.
    - ta8903 3y ago
      >it's also well-known as a right-leaning forum too Where? Not doubting you, but I've never heard anyone describe it that way.
      - narag 3y ago
        Look for articles about HN in non-technical media. Be warned: it's not pretty :) This one is hilarious: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th...
        cubefox 3y ago
        The way the author of this piece spins things seems to me a perfect example of showing just the progressive bias mentioned before.
      - dang 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870
    - linuxftw 3y ago
      This place (commenters) is majority hard-left. Any perception that it's 'right-leaning' is because the moderators are tolerant of non-leftist viewpoints. This, as you may know, constitutes heresy in leftist circles.
      - narag 3y ago
        Moderation and votes are two different things. Moderators only concern themselves with spam and outstanding violations of rules, that are mostly politeness rules. It's not like there are rules against certain ideology. Commenters and voters are the same thing and if we were all hard-left, any different viewpoint would be downvoted into oblivion, no matter what the moderators could think. My guess is that the people around here is a motley crew. Average would be leaning left, but much less than Reddit, to compare with something else.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - leoedin 3y ago
    Technology is inherently about making things better. Whether it's just making a tool easier to use, or fundamentally changing how people behave - it's all about altering what we do now. It's not really possible to be a technologist and a (small c) conservative - the definition being "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.". Being "progressive" - by the dictionary "an advocate of social reform" - is at least compatible with the technologist mindset (although you could still be a technologist without any desire for social reform). Obviously the values held by "Conservative" political parties are not simply about being "conservative" - but it's not particularly surprising that people who like the idea of changing things aren't a big fan of a political movement which is based on doing things the way we always have.
- threeseed 3y ago
  You don't own this website or the people that are here. So you can post whatever you like but you can't demand that the moderators allow it to stay nor can you expect that everyone should upvote you. Your freedoms can't usurp the freedoms of others.
bell-cot 3y ago
(Article is from July 2020, FWIW)
kubb 3y ago
Could be called “conservative bias” as well, but I guess Paul has to be careful with wording.
- chrischattin 3y ago
  That’s funny because the left currently dominates all aspects of culture, academia, work, and society. The orthodox is solidly “progressive” right now.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    The world isn't a binary choice between either left or right. The overwhelming majority of the world operates in the grey middle which is what is codified into policies, laws, precedents, standards, norms etc. And much of it is universal across the world e.g. the concept of professional conduct in companies.
    - chrischattin 3y ago
      Obviously. I'm just talking about the current state of affairs.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        That's the current state of affairs from your viewpoint. Which if you're seeing it through a left/right prism is flawed. Because my point is that most people don't see the world this way.
        malablaster 3y ago
        There something true about it though. People see the world through “my tribe, not my tribe”. Left vs right. Islam vs non-Islam. West vs non-west. Sunni vs Shia. etc.
  - api 3y ago
    Depends on which industries you are in and where you live. If you are in tech or finance this may be true to some extent. If you are in academia it’s definitely true unless you are at one of those far right religious colleges. If you are in construction, energy, manufacturing, or countless other fields it’s either not true or only present to a “token” degree in the form of some sensitivity training seminar you have to listen to for HR onboarding.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
The question is, do truly "orthodox" (in the sense that the essay means: bearing no controversial beliefs) people exist in large numbers? Fully center of every possible overton window? I'd wager these people are extremely rare. I'd guess the majority of people we consider to be fully "orthodox" and uncontroversial actually do have opinions it would be hard to express openly, but they're good at hiding that they have those opinions and "play the role" of an orthodox completely in any social context.
- keiferski 3y ago
  they're good at hiding that they have those opinions I think the answer to this question is that most people simply don't have opinions on the vast majority of subjects, and that "having an opinion" is largely an identity marker of the intellectually-minded – and not a basic quality that everyone has. So it's not so much that such people are good at hiding their unorthodox opinions, but that they haven't really thought about it in the first place. PG's other essay, "Keep Your Identity Small" is a good solution to this tendency of intellectually-minded people to want to have an opinion on everything.
- dauertewigkeit 3y ago
  There are a whole lot of people whose "strategy" for navigating life is to always pick the side of the strongest group. For them being part of the mainstream as a form of protection is of higher priority than being correct/truthful/just/moral. I don't think pg was referring to this demographic, but there are certainly a whole lot of people who even take pride in being mainstream on every topic.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    > ...a whole lot of people whose "strategy" for navigating life is to always pick the side of the strongest group. True. And all too understandable - human history is full of "...and things ended badly for the losing side".
- jstanley 3y ago
  Your question subtly implies that to be "unorthodox" is to merely be not-quite-centered in the Overton Window. But in fact being in the Overton Window at all makes you pretty orthodox.
yarg 3y ago
This is frequently talked about regarding the scientific disciplines - it's very hard to make progress with novel ideas; and this despite the fact that every leap in understanding has been due to the novel contributions of novel minds.
- robg 3y ago
  Great point, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions covers the orthodoxy well and how it inhibits progress based on merit.
keiferski 3y ago
A good essay, and one that relates to a bigger idea, which I think you could summarize as: a major trait of modernity (or post-modernity?) is the insistence that identifying and labeling things that happened in the past prevents them from happening today. You can see this play out with religious belief, politics, biology, on and on. We read about the Salem Witch Trials and laugh at those silly irrational people from the past...and then act in extremely similar ways ourselves. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, but I think studying the origins of popular contemporary ideas (in the way done by Nietzsche or Foucault) [1] is a good start. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_(philosophy)
- 23B1 3y ago
  You're exactly correct on the solution, but allow me to take it down to a more fundamental level; the traditional liberal arts education! 1. Grammar to understand language 2. Logic to construct arguments based on reason 3. Rhetoric to articulate those ideas and refine them based on communicating with others. You're also correct in that it is post-modernism which is the root of much of this weird new orthodoxy. It has its place in academia, it's useful for deconstructing an idea or thing, but no place in running a society in which there must be standards of truth upon which we all agree.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Yeah I wish the Great Books or a similar "classical liberal arts education" would make a comeback, but unfortunately it faces opposition from both the STEM set and contemporary liberal arts departments. Institutionally, I can't think of anyone doing this other than St. John's.
    - Pet_Ant 3y ago
      > Yeah I wish the Great Books or a similar "classical liberal arts education" would make a comeback, Being a better citizen does not result (directly) in a bigger economy and all educational institutions are under pressure to demonstrate how they are better at preparing students for the workforce. The liberal arts education suffers for this.
cabbagehead 3y ago
[dead]
ogou 3y ago
Lots of people happily surrender the cold unknown of self-determination for the warm embrace of conformity. Conformity simplifies, affirms, and diffuses accountability. It's easy to understand the temptation.
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  Besides, it's not like the chances that you will self-determine yourself into a better person than if you went for conformity are that good: after all, it's your first time doing this while the society, on the other hand, has lots of past experience with that, right?
- gnz11 3y ago
  It's just being human. Everyone "surrenders" to conformity in some way, shape or form. In some aspects of life you will be part of an in-group, in others you may lean towards non-conformity. Nothing to do with "temptation" here.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    And you have to conform in some aspects to be nonconformist. If you don't conform in every aspect of your life that's like getting all the answers wrong on a true/false test. Your behavior is just as rigidly defined by society's expectations of you.
gampleman 3y ago
Do people like that actually exist? It seems odd in a society where the words "cancel culture" are virtually inescapable.
RandomLensman 3y ago
Was there on average a good payoff to being fully non-orthodox? Not so sure. Being somewhat heterodox, perhaps, but certainly within limits.
- WJW 3y ago
  In addition to being non-orthodox, you also have to be right AND it has to be about a topic that lends itself to having a good payoff. You can be unorthodox and right about something but since the thing is 80s era laptop stand color scheme design there simply isn't a lot of profit to be had. It is also easy to be unorthodox about an important (high-payoff) thing, but simply be wrong. An airline that makes its route planning based on the idea that the Earth is flat could make an absolute killing if it actually were flat, but it isn't so it can't. The combination of all three is pretty rare.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Many, if not most, unorthodox truths can be very important, but don't offer an individual a large payoff when they believe them. For example, it is the middle ages, and you believe that witches don't exist. This is both an important truth and offers you approximately zero payoff.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Might have even been a negative payoff if you had pursued it more publicly then.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        Yeah, saying unorthodox opinions out loud results in social penalties. That's why examples can't be produced for people who believe unorthodox opinions don't exist.
      - immibis 3y ago
        Everyone electrocutes themselves for 8 hours every day because the society demands it. Cognitohazard warning (a.k.a. depressing read): https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
bambax 3y ago
> the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe Is this a typo: whatever is currently...? > If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't, it's only polite to take them at their word, instead of demanding evidence that's impossible to produce Impossible how? That particular example would be extremely easy to test. It's so easy in fact that it's performed many times every day by audiologists. Raise your hand when you hear the sound.
- alberto-m 3y ago
  People suffering from tinnitus constantly hear high-pitched sounds. For a minority of them the sound is really present (produced e.g. by the blood in the vessels near the ear), but for most of them it is an illusion produced by their brain. The latter category have no means to prove someone else they are really hearing the sound.
  - bambax 3y ago
    Ok, but the phrasing "If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't" really doesn't sound like the OP is referring to (constant) tinnitus, instead of an ability.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Impracticable would have been a better word. Audiologists typically aren't just around the corner, and even if they were, the high-pitched noise may no longer be audible in their office.
boffinAudio 3y ago
Personal responsibility is hard. Responsibility for ones nation state, even harder. When you live in a society which is murdering innocent people every twenty minutes, its hard to evaluate ones own privilege in that context - especially if you're ignoring the cost of that action and its effect on your personal life. It doesn't matter how enlightened one is, or how woke - if you're still using streets that were paid for, in the blood of foreign innocents, you're not better than the totalitarian-authoritarian fellow citizen you despise so much because of their privilege. You're both members of a nation state that is abusing its privilege. So its one thing to have an internal civil war on the subject of classes one finds offensive to ones world view - its another thing to ignore the impact of your nations' actions on those not privileged to have been born in it.
dustfinger 3y ago
Maybe it is just early in the morning for me, but I am not confident that I understand why Paul switched the roles in the concluding statement of the essay. > Similarly, if someone says they can think of things that are true but that cannot be said, it's only polite to take them at their word, even if you can't think of any yourself. That statement suggests to me that the responsibility of being polite should fall on those in the orthodox privileged demographic when challenged by those claiming that there are truths that cannot be safely spoken. It seems flipped around from the rolls expressed in the body of the essay, and that has me confused. How would they know to be polite? How is this actually a solution?
- ExitPlatosCave 3y ago
  Possibly... Take them at their word that they can they really believe what they are saying is true. Thus being polite versus thinking they are deliberately deceiving you. But not that you have to also accept what they say as correct or true for yourself.
  - dustfinger 3y ago
    I understand that part of the essay. However; the essay argues that the orthodox privileged group is the one that cannot see that there are truths that cannot be safely expressed, but concludes that this same group should be polite to those that believe such truths exist. If my understanding is correct, how could they know to be polite to those outside of their demographic. For that, they would need to be sympathetic, or at the very least empathetic. I guess my big problem with the concluding statement is that it places the responsibility of resolving the impasse on the demographic that is apparently incapable of imagining the world from the others perspective. That seems futile in the absence of empathy. Whose responsibility is it then, to establish a sense of empathy amongst the majority of the orthodox privileged group (empathy would be needed in the other group as well of course)? Consider also that an obligation to be polite and silence ones voice from engaging in meaningful discourse, may very well be what ultimately leads to an orthodox privileged group in the first place, making the proposed solution a paradox.
Xcelerate 3y ago
I’ve always found it interesting how if you know someone’s strong opinion on issue X, you can typically predict their views on issues Y and Z even though there is no inherently fundamental relation between X, Y, and Z. All you need to know is the country and the time period they live in. The fact that views are so tightly correlated on the basis of party has always fascinated me, and I wonder if there is a way you can measure the amount of “in-groupism” someone exhibits. This is probably just another term for conformity or a lack of independent thinking, as Paul mentions. I was speaking with a relative recently who claimed he was very independent-minded and that his views didn’t match the mainstream. I replied that his views seemed to exactly match the opposite of the views of party X in the U.S. in 2023 and said this doesn’t make you independent, but rather a contrarian. You are still in fact letting party X determine what you think. What is the chance that if born elsewhere your morality would just so happen to match up with the views directly opposite to those of some specific social group in another time period in another part of the world? For someone who is truly an independent thinker, one would expect their views to sometimes match party A, to sometimes match party B, and to sometimes match neither. This isn’t to say that merely being a nonconformist makes someone more likely to be correct; there are bound to be plenty of mistakes even among independent thinkers. Paul has written quite a few essays on this subject, so by now I’m really curious what viewpoint(s) he has that he can’t say aloud (and whether I agree). I’ve noticed in Silicon Valley there are quite a few people who—after deeper conversation with them—seem to be independent thinkers, but they pretend to follow the in-group for the purpose of maintaining social harmony; this seems especially common among people born outside the U.S. living in the Bay Area.
- meeuwer 3y ago
  There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum? If not, they’re likely going with “the current thing” of their preferred echo chamber, which may or may not be real.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    This heuristic would essentially lead one to believe that independent-mindedness is largely not possible would it not (the explicit "probabilistic" claim in the conclusion)?
doriss 3y ago
Very impressive essay, I have this feeling long time ago, but didn't interpret well. I think the best way is to make people realize some of their sensor, mindset or feeling are set by others, especially those silence area we can't even mention. Like a mobile phone's default settings, we have to realize that some things are just set up to be this way and can be presented in other ways.
hibernator149 3y ago
I found that it is really hard to go against the mainstream of the bubble you live in for two reasons: Let's take issue X as an example. One side says X is always true, the other that it is always false. But you think that actually "it depends". The two problems are then: (1) When you don't fully agree with your bubble on X, the more extreme ones will assign you to the opposite bubble and shun you. (2) There are people in the opposite bubble that will pretend to believe X "depends" in order to lure less extreme members over to their own bubble. And many in your bubble will believe that you are one of those. We are so caught up in our tribal thinking that many will simply not believe that you genuinely think "it depends". I believe that this is "by design", that someone is dividing and conquering the public. Many will agree with me here, and then they will finish with "but the other side is too brainwashed to notice"... Knowing that it is a trap, does not help you to avoid it ;)
- preommr 3y ago
  > that someone is dividing and conquering the public. Yea that someone is society. Tribalism happens because the feverent supporters are the ones that actually give money, time, etc. Someone that sees the nuance, is more likely to be okay with either solution, or said another way, not likely to give money to one side because they don't want to fully endorse one side. The people supported then go on to be politicans and media personalities that then force people to pick sides because it's more advantegous to them. It's an oversimplification, and not always applicable but a decent enough explanation for lots of our problems.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I think there's a "the world is entirely grey" presumption here that prevents the full analysis. You're not treating "it depends" as the fully-fledged position that it is. If you did you would see that there are now three positions the originals X, Y, and a new one Z that are incompatible. They can't all be right. X and Y have lots of supporters, why do you presume your new position Z to be correct simply because it lies on one of many possible lines to draw between X and Y? Surely for any real world issue the positions X and Y were the result of someone else's seeing the nuance but landed in a different place than you did.
silexia 3y ago
Or consider that certain laws passed by the government suppress alternative points of view that conflict with the mainstream, so that even if the views are true, they still are squashed.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  US still has a pretty robust First Amendment. Laws violating it consistently get struck down in court.
  - immibis 3y ago
    Ah, but that isn't the only law that restricts speech. Many people already got fired for expressing support for Palestinians, because the law says you can get fired for that.
cies 3y ago
I think "orthodox" here is not the best choice of words. After reading the article I think "mainstream privilege" better captures what PG tries to describe. This because orthodox tend to refer to "wanting to stick to, or go back to, how it was"; which could be very much against the mainstream opinion of today.
- TremendousJudge 3y ago
  That's not what _orthodox_ means to most people. It usually means something like "conforming to established doctrine" (especially in a religious context). The definition you posted would better fit the word _conservative_ in my view.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Literally means something like "correct opinionism" in greek. Which as a lifelong member of the eastern orthodox church I have always found hilarious. Out the gate starting an argument with the name.
motohagiography 3y ago
This works on a micro level in companies where groupthink has taken hold, but also at a macro level where our media exalts sycophancy. Privilege for mouthing orthodoxies describes "the banality of evil," well. It was a reference to people who thought in slogans and recieved clichés, which dulled them to the consequences of what they were actually doing. Coining new phrases to respond to the present may shed some light for younger people who lack perspective, but it doesn't capture the gravity of what we're watching happen. There are precedents with strong predictive power for all of this.
- asow92 3y ago
  > This works on a micro level in companies where groupthink has taken hold, As someone who feels this daily, appealing to politeness as the essay suggests often does help. You're basically living in different versions reality, which is frustrating, but that doesn't mean you can't find some common ground and work together. After-all, it's just a job, and we shouldn't take it personally.
  - stratigos 3y ago
    Except for when those that live in some alternate reality demand that you also abide by their alternate reality or be punished.
    - asow92 3y ago
      /s But isn't it fun to role play as thought criminal in 1984?
woodruffw 3y ago
Insofar as orthodox privilege is a real phenomenon, one of its greatest strengths is its ability to cast a smokescreen around wealth, power, and influence. Paul Graham is an obscenely wealthy and powerful man; he benefits disproportionately from controlling the public discourse around what is or isn’t “orthodox.” This is worth remembering when he (or any other phenomenally wealthy and powerful person) attempts to lay out these kinds of oblique culture war positions.
- robg 3y ago
  Isnt this ad hominem itself a “culture war position”?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    What? No. Y'all use this word way too much get a grip.
  - Floegipoky 3y ago
    No, this is class consciousness, and by conflating these things you've strengthened their point.
    - Floegipoky 3y ago
      I'll assume that this was downvoted because the "culture war" dividing America is one of the preeminent expressions of class warfare in this country, and therefore acknowledging class _is_ inherently engaging in the "culture war". Which, fair point.
    - Levitz 3y ago
      I think that's naive. Class consciousness is being aware that those with wealth are the ones who set the orthodoxy to begin with. Paul Graham writing a blogspot is irrelevant, he is barely exercising his position while doing so. Look for corporate meddling into politics and culture war if you want a smokescreen. The current culture wars being identity-based isn't an accident, for example, there won't be a worker's right month same as there won't be a worker's right parade, no corporation is putting money into that.
karmakaze 3y ago
I see this as the yappy little dog that's only yappy when its owner is around to 'back em up'. We can't really blame the dog growing up in its environment and turning out the way it did. We should all avoid bubbles and have more intermingling of groups so we don't end up with default views for too many things.
avgcorrection 3y ago
Alexa, what is ideology?
whalesalad 3y ago
My favorite use of chatgpt is having it explain pg's posts to me. It does a pretty good job there.
stratigos 3y ago
If you dont believe Orthodox Privelege exists, work in San Francisco for a few years. Provided you are a critical thinker, it will become obvious that the culture is akin to excommunication for declaring the universe is not geocentric.
Floegipoky 3y ago
On the one hand, I think this highlights an important "blind spot" in human thought. Our ideas and creativity are hugely influenced by our environment and prevailing social conventions. It's strange he doesn't use the term "Overton Window", because that's exactly what he's talking about and it seems useful to place his thoughts in context with the existing body. On the other hand, I vehemently disagree with the implicit assertion that any truth should be acceptable to give power. It's easy to filter, twist, and reassemble the truth to deceive and manipulate. Humanity has already paid too steep a price learning why some truths and ideas must be rejected. In fact, the ideology of "free speech absolutism" is itself an orthodoxy specific to a relatively small cultural bubble, and it's objectively quite extreme.
- cubefox 3y ago
  > Humanity has already paid too steep a price learning why some truths and ideas must be rejected. Honest question: When is it ever advantageous to reject truths? I always remind myself of the Litany of Gendlin: What is true is already so. Owning up to it doesn't make it worse. Not being open about it doesn't make it go away. And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with. Anything untrue isn't there to be lived. People can stand what is true, for they are already enduring it.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > When is it ever advantageous to reject truths? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy I.e. It becomes problematic when it involves human behavior at a stereotypical level. This isn't to say that stereotypes don't sometimes exist for preexisting (non-self-fulfilling) reasons, but even some people prone to sociopathy can leave good lives if properly treated.
    - oalae5niMiel7qu 3y ago
      Treating sociopaths is not the same as lying about sociopaths or sociopathy because you think doing so will prevent sociopathy.
ebiester 3y ago
I will defend "orthodox privilege." The problem with unorthodox thinkers, as Graham defines them, is that they are often not grounded in expertise. For example, I will take an unorthodox opinion of my own: Neither socialism nor capitalism are great economic systems and we need novel thought on new economic systems that are not based in industrial revolution assumptions. (Another, to give a guttural rather than intellectual reaction from some: I believe we should change the culture that gender is not presented publicly until the child chooses a gender. They are also given provisional names that are unisex and are allowed to choose their own name at puberty.) However, I have not spent the years of deep thought to truly develop the arguments. While I have a lot more invested into gender studies than the average human, I am not an expert. Expert goes far further than reading a few books and watching some YouTube videos. The burden on me is far higher than just saying, "this is what I believe" because they are unsubstantiated. The truth is that if you have a plethora of unorthodox views, it is likely because you have not performed in-depth research to be an expert. You likely do not understand the landscape of the arguments, the historical context and critiques, and the nuances to the argument because understanding all of that can take months of study and interaction with the experts. That doesn't mean that you need some sort of degree: An unorthodox opinion that is well-substantiated, for example, is Tim Ferriss's examination of psychedelics. He has obviously put in the work and has put money in experts' hands to validate those ideas. This is in stark contrast to the work that many put into their unorthodox opinions. But ultimately, most people would do better if they acknowledged that their opinions in places outside their expertise are largely shallow.
- bambax 3y ago
  This is a great point. Not the final answer, maybe, but an important observation: that paradox often stems from ignorance. It could be argued (it is sometimes argued) that ignorance fuels creativity ("he did it because he didn't know it was impossible", etc.); but more often than not, creativity stems from a deep familiarity with a given topic, and the ability to detect / invent connections between different subject matters that are not obvious, or indeed visible to anyone else.
- cubefox 3y ago
  I think the examples you name aren't what pg has in mind. It's more like saying "God doesn't exist" in the year 1800. It was highly taboo to say something like this, and doing so would immediately damage your social standing. The other point is: he doesn't argue one should ignore expert opinions in general. He just says that what is sayable in public likely has important blindspots, to which any expert is subject to as well.
thegrim33 3y ago
Tangent to this idea, is the idea that if you consume news from an extremely biased source, as long as their biases align with your biases, it seems like a "neutral" or unbiased source and you simply can't believe people who say that your news is biased. In actuality, if you were actually consuming an unbiased news source, you would be exposed to ideas and arguments you disagree with, you would be exposed to all sides of issues. You would read things you like, and things you don't like. It would make arguments for things you believe in, and good faith arguments for things you don't.
- cubefox 3y ago
  In communist countries there was some sort of limited freedom of speech (there is a specific name to it, but I forgot) which allowed lively debate, but only within tight boundaries. The problem with this is that it creates an illusion that there is freedom of speech. Because after all, disagreement is allowed to exist. But only as long as the disagreement doesn't touch on topics that are forbidden by the censors. Now the same arguably exists in democratic forums as well. Except here it mostly isn't a literal censor, but an invisible Overton window, that dictates what is in the realm of being debatable, and what must not be questioned by anyone.
  - immibis 3y ago
    Capitalist countries have this too. You can say "free Israel", but if you say "free Palestine" you get doxxed, fired from your job and maybe evicted from your home. It's more subtle, because instead of immediately getting taken and sent to a gulag for your speech, the path is somewhat indirect, but still just as clear.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      I think realistically "free Palestine" wouldn't get you fired, just like "free Israel" wouldn't. I think a better example is this: Saying "black lives matter" is perfectly acceptable, but saying "white lives matter" would probably get you in massive trouble.
figassis 3y ago
I don't think conventional minded people think there can't be things that you can't say that are true. I think they believe that you'd be aware of the things that would get you in trouble, and that those things were already explored and collectively rejected by society (or most of it), and there is no point in you pushing it with "...but I really do want to say it". They know some people think those things and they're fine with it. They're not fine with you chanting it. Basically, get your group if like minded people and talk about it in your closed walls. Especially the things that are or might be true, it's important to understand that: - They might be harmful to others, true or not - Others may need to be harmed in order for society to find if some of those are true, but you might already have figured out that they are - Those true things might be an obstacle for society to remain stable and cohesive - Maybe those true things can bring some progress, but they might not be worth the cost All in all, I think society has a mechanism to self censor and some are ok with it, some aren't. I however do not agree that unencumbered freedom of speech will lead to a better society. But yes, I do think some taboos today are excessive.
Animats 3y ago
This article is mostly about a nomenclature issue. It's reframing "conventional wisdom" as "orthodox privilege". That may or may not be useful. See "Overton window."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
notShabu 3y ago
One of the "benefits" of traditional society is that there's a stronger gravitational pull towards the orthodox. e.g. dealing with the majority case deals with 80% of all cases. VS in a more diverse group, the biggest pie slice might only be 20% The system has a much higher burden of complexity to deal with edge cases. An argument can be made that Dunbar's number sets a cap on the complexity a system can deal with. External scaffolding like a legal system increases system capacity which then reduces how necessary the orthodox gravity is.
neilv 3y ago
I wonder whether this line of thought started with particular ideas of the writer that are currently taboo. If so, given that the writer seems wealthy, influential, and connected, presumably those taboo ideas might see movement towards implementation or acceptance.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Yeah. I know nothing about the author, but do know that there are ideas out there that everyone knows you can't express sincere interest in. Even the orthodox know this, and would agree that it is unsafe to do so. You don't praise the community organization ability of MS13 in a police bar shortly after a cop has been killed by a gang member. If non-black, you don't throw around the N word in certain company, under the philosophy that doing so will desensitize the word. Certain topics involving sex aren't mentioned. Etcetera.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Real-world examples would have been nice. I don't know how generalizable this is to people in the real world. That is to say not that I don't think that many people default to this about particular topics, but that at this point in time many people have heard anecdotes (if it hasn't happened to them) about authority figures or experts disbelieving something real, as in physicians saying it's "all in your head" to something that turns out to be stage 4 cancer, or whatever. Thus it should be easy to at least make a crack in the armor of anyone with orthodox privilege in one area by reference to these modern-day events where people are disbelieved, and even abusively so (in the case of medicine). Sure, politeness might work too, but only in creating a veneer of tolerance. An appeal to politeness does not crack the armor the way an example of modern orthodox being wrong would.
- vekker 3y ago
  I think real-world examples are very dangerous to provide here, because they can easily derail the conversation into arguing about the validity of those examples, because if they are currently unconventional ideas, someone with orthodox privilege will see them as simply false, and bad examples. That's the blindness referred to. The Zeitgeist around the date PG wrote this article is probably no coincidence; if you really want recent examples of divisive topics. Historical examples are great for that reason, and there are plenty in the history of science. One typical example I love, is Wegener's theory of continental drift and how long it was ridiculed, hindering scientific progress, before it was finally accepted many decades later, in the form of the theory of plate tectonics.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    The Zeitgeist of that time was an example of the reverse of orthodox privilege (as discussed in the article). Or so it seemed to me. As competing orthodoxies were actively fighting out in the open, each with their own powerful champions. Meanwhile everyone who depends on a job to survive knows that there are opinions that you just don't bring up. So it seems to me orthodox privilege, in the vein brought up by Graham, is really a subset of power privilege.
jojohohanon 3y ago
Thanks for this. It was a blind spot I didn’t realize I had.
ttarabbia 3y ago
I credit 2 books with helping (hopefully?) with the ability to question the overlap between what I see as truth and orthodoxy. But What If We're Wrong [1] by Chuck Klosterman and Against Method [2] by Paul Feyeraband. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_What_If_We%27re_Wrong%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_What_If_We%27re_Wrong%3F 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
- ttarabbia 3y ago
  Hadn't seen either mentioned

122 points by omarious 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Who are the 'real ones™' on HN with the vision to see something that is most often inappropriate or hard to communicate here due to downvoting or lame rules? Take the opportunity to let us know here.

chrischattin 3y ago
This place is a progressive echo chamber for sure.
- dannyobrien 3y ago
  of course, amusingly, it's also well-known as a right-leaning forum too i used to think that the fact that both ideas were in currency indicated that it was probably unbiased. I now think that it probably means that the "right-wing"/"progressive" indicators are too simplistic a way to describe the actual underlying biases.
  - chrischattin 3y ago
    Good point. It's probably more accurate to say it is biased to whatever opinions benefit the YC business model (which is understandable. It's their forum, after all). For example, speaking out against anything other than very lax immigration policy is verboten because driving down American labor costs benefits VC's. Saying anything positive about the previous president will get you downvoted immediately. (This isn't related to my personal political opinions, I'm just using it as an example.)
    - notahacker 3y ago
      There are definitely strands of HN popular opinion that strongly align with YC'S business model (the idea that funding and scale are barometers for success and YC's selection heuristics are actually how you should run your business) but I certainly wouldn't have picked migration as one of the example. If anything, I get the opposite impression when the notion of the threat to devs' one percenter status posed by underpaid and exploited visa recipients willing to wrap text in javascript for a mere 100k per annum comes up, especially if that's compared and contrasted with the general enthusiasm for the idea automating away everyone else's job and replacing it with a UBI. It'd be difficult to find anywhere else quite as hostile to the ads so many YC companies and their acquirers depend on either. They are good examples of the GP's comment about the idea of a position on a line between left and right wing orthodoxy being the wrong way to describe how HN coalesces around ideas though...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - meeuwer 3y ago
    If the SVB debacle taught us anything, it is that even the most libertarian free-market aficionados love their “nanny state” when it’s them who’s in trouble.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      Likewise, it's hilarious to see so many right wingers gnashing their teeth about orthodoxy now that Reaganism is out of style.
  - ta8903 3y ago
    >it's also well-known as a right-leaning forum too Where? Not doubting you, but I've never heard anyone describe it that way.
    - narag 3y ago
      Look for articles about HN in non-technical media. Be warned: it's not pretty :) This one is hilarious: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th...
      - cubefox 3y ago
        The way the author of this piece spins things seems to me a perfect example of showing just the progressive bias mentioned before.
    - dang 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    This place (commenters) is majority hard-left. Any perception that it's 'right-leaning' is because the moderators are tolerant of non-leftist viewpoints. This, as you may know, constitutes heresy in leftist circles.
    - narag 3y ago
      Moderation and votes are two different things. Moderators only concern themselves with spam and outstanding violations of rules, that are mostly politeness rules. It's not like there are rules against certain ideology. Commenters and voters are the same thing and if we were all hard-left, any different viewpoint would be downvoted into oblivion, no matter what the moderators could think. My guess is that the people around here is a motley crew. Average would be leaning left, but much less than Reddit, to compare with something else.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- leoedin 3y ago
  Technology is inherently about making things better. Whether it's just making a tool easier to use, or fundamentally changing how people behave - it's all about altering what we do now. It's not really possible to be a technologist and a (small c) conservative - the definition being "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.". Being "progressive" - by the dictionary "an advocate of social reform" - is at least compatible with the technologist mindset (although you could still be a technologist without any desire for social reform). Obviously the values held by "Conservative" political parties are not simply about being "conservative" - but it's not particularly surprising that people who like the idea of changing things aren't a big fan of a political movement which is based on doing things the way we always have.
threeseed 3y ago
You don't own this website or the people that are here. So you can post whatever you like but you can't demand that the moderators allow it to stay nor can you expect that everyone should upvote you. Your freedoms can't usurp the freedoms of others.

bell-cot 3y ago

(Article is from July 2020, FWIW)

kubb 3y ago

Could be called “conservative bias” as well, but I guess Paul has to be careful with wording.

chrischattin 3y ago
That’s funny because the left currently dominates all aspects of culture, academia, work, and society. The orthodox is solidly “progressive” right now.
- threeseed 3y ago
  The world isn't a binary choice between either left or right. The overwhelming majority of the world operates in the grey middle which is what is codified into policies, laws, precedents, standards, norms etc. And much of it is universal across the world e.g. the concept of professional conduct in companies.
  - chrischattin 3y ago
    Obviously. I'm just talking about the current state of affairs.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      That's the current state of affairs from your viewpoint. Which if you're seeing it through a left/right prism is flawed. Because my point is that most people don't see the world this way.
      - malablaster 3y ago
        There something true about it though. People see the world through “my tribe, not my tribe”. Left vs right. Islam vs non-Islam. West vs non-west. Sunni vs Shia. etc.
- api 3y ago
  Depends on which industries you are in and where you live. If you are in tech or finance this may be true to some extent. If you are in academia it’s definitely true unless you are at one of those far right religious colleges. If you are in construction, energy, manufacturing, or countless other fields it’s either not true or only present to a “token” degree in the form of some sensitivity training seminar you have to listen to for HR onboarding.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

The question is, do truly "orthodox" (in the sense that the essay means: bearing no controversial beliefs) people exist in large numbers? Fully center of every possible overton window? I'd wager these people are extremely rare. I'd guess the majority of people we consider to be fully "orthodox" and uncontroversial actually do have opinions it would be hard to express openly, but they're good at hiding that they have those opinions and "play the role" of an orthodox completely in any social context.

keiferski 3y ago
they're good at hiding that they have those opinions I think the answer to this question is that most people simply don't have opinions on the vast majority of subjects, and that "having an opinion" is largely an identity marker of the intellectually-minded – and not a basic quality that everyone has. So it's not so much that such people are good at hiding their unorthodox opinions, but that they haven't really thought about it in the first place. PG's other essay, "Keep Your Identity Small" is a good solution to this tendency of intellectually-minded people to want to have an opinion on everything.
dauertewigkeit 3y ago
There are a whole lot of people whose "strategy" for navigating life is to always pick the side of the strongest group. For them being part of the mainstream as a form of protection is of higher priority than being correct/truthful/just/moral. I don't think pg was referring to this demographic, but there are certainly a whole lot of people who even take pride in being mainstream on every topic.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  > ...a whole lot of people whose "strategy" for navigating life is to always pick the side of the strongest group. True. And all too understandable - human history is full of "...and things ended badly for the losing side".
jstanley 3y ago
Your question subtly implies that to be "unorthodox" is to merely be not-quite-centered in the Overton Window. But in fact being in the Overton Window at all makes you pretty orthodox.

yarg 3y ago

This is frequently talked about regarding the scientific disciplines - it's very hard to make progress with novel ideas; and this despite the fact that every leap in understanding has been due to the novel contributions of novel minds.

robg 3y ago
Great point, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions covers the orthodoxy well and how it inhibits progress based on merit.

keiferski 3y ago

A good essay, and one that relates to a bigger idea, which I think you could summarize as: a major trait of modernity (or post-modernity?) is the insistence that identifying and labeling things that happened in the past prevents them from happening today. You can see this play out with religious belief, politics, biology, on and on. We read about the Salem Witch Trials and laugh at those silly irrational people from the past...and then act in extremely similar ways ourselves. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, but I think studying the origins of popular contemporary ideas (in the way done by Nietzsche or Foucault) [1] is a good start. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_(philosophy)

23B1 3y ago
You're exactly correct on the solution, but allow me to take it down to a more fundamental level; the traditional liberal arts education! 1. Grammar to understand language 2. Logic to construct arguments based on reason 3. Rhetoric to articulate those ideas and refine them based on communicating with others. You're also correct in that it is post-modernism which is the root of much of this weird new orthodoxy. It has its place in academia, it's useful for deconstructing an idea or thing, but no place in running a society in which there must be standards of truth upon which we all agree.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Yeah I wish the Great Books or a similar "classical liberal arts education" would make a comeback, but unfortunately it faces opposition from both the STEM set and contemporary liberal arts departments. Institutionally, I can't think of anyone doing this other than St. John's.
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    > Yeah I wish the Great Books or a similar "classical liberal arts education" would make a comeback, Being a better citizen does not result (directly) in a bigger economy and all educational institutions are under pressure to demonstrate how they are better at preparing students for the workforce. The liberal arts education suffers for this.

cabbagehead 3y ago

[dead]

ogou 3y ago

Lots of people happily surrender the cold unknown of self-determination for the warm embrace of conformity. Conformity simplifies, affirms, and diffuses accountability. It's easy to understand the temptation.

Joker_vD 3y ago
Besides, it's not like the chances that you will self-determine yourself into a better person than if you went for conformity are that good: after all, it's your first time doing this while the society, on the other hand, has lots of past experience with that, right?
gnz11 3y ago
It's just being human. Everyone "surrenders" to conformity in some way, shape or form. In some aspects of life you will be part of an in-group, in others you may lean towards non-conformity. Nothing to do with "temptation" here.
- Spivak 3y ago
  And you have to conform in some aspects to be nonconformist. If you don't conform in every aspect of your life that's like getting all the answers wrong on a true/false test. Your behavior is just as rigidly defined by society's expectations of you.

gampleman 3y ago

Do people like that actually exist? It seems odd in a society where the words "cancel culture" are virtually inescapable.

RandomLensman 3y ago

Was there on average a good payoff to being fully non-orthodox? Not so sure. Being somewhat heterodox, perhaps, but certainly within limits.

WJW 3y ago
In addition to being non-orthodox, you also have to be right AND it has to be about a topic that lends itself to having a good payoff. You can be unorthodox and right about something but since the thing is 80s era laptop stand color scheme design there simply isn't a lot of profit to be had. It is also easy to be unorthodox about an important (high-payoff) thing, but simply be wrong. An airline that makes its route planning based on the idea that the Earth is flat could make an absolute killing if it actually were flat, but it isn't so it can't. The combination of all three is pretty rare.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Many, if not most, unorthodox truths can be very important, but don't offer an individual a large payoff when they believe them. For example, it is the middle ages, and you believe that witches don't exist. This is both an important truth and offers you approximately zero payoff.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Might have even been a negative payoff if you had pursued it more publicly then.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Yeah, saying unorthodox opinions out loud results in social penalties. That's why examples can't be produced for people who believe unorthodox opinions don't exist.
    - immibis 3y ago
      Everyone electrocutes themselves for 8 hours every day because the society demands it. Cognitohazard warning (a.k.a. depressing read): https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

bambax 3y ago

> the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe Is this a typo: whatever is currently...? > If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't, it's only polite to take them at their word, instead of demanding evidence that's impossible to produce Impossible how? That particular example would be extremely easy to test. It's so easy in fact that it's performed many times every day by audiologists. Raise your hand when you hear the sound.

alberto-m 3y ago
People suffering from tinnitus constantly hear high-pitched sounds. For a minority of them the sound is really present (produced e.g. by the blood in the vessels near the ear), but for most of them it is an illusion produced by their brain. The latter category have no means to prove someone else they are really hearing the sound.
- bambax 3y ago
  Ok, but the phrasing "If someone says they can hear a high-pitched noise that you can't" really doesn't sound like the OP is referring to (constant) tinnitus, instead of an ability.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Impracticable would have been a better word. Audiologists typically aren't just around the corner, and even if they were, the high-pitched noise may no longer be audible in their office.

boffinAudio 3y ago

Personal responsibility is hard. Responsibility for ones nation state, even harder. When you live in a society which is murdering innocent people every twenty minutes, its hard to evaluate ones own privilege in that context - especially if you're ignoring the cost of that action and its effect on your personal life. It doesn't matter how enlightened one is, or how woke - if you're still using streets that were paid for, in the blood of foreign innocents, you're not better than the totalitarian-authoritarian fellow citizen you despise so much because of their privilege. You're both members of a nation state that is abusing its privilege. So its one thing to have an internal civil war on the subject of classes one finds offensive to ones world view - its another thing to ignore the impact of your nations' actions on those not privileged to have been born in it.

dustfinger 3y ago

Maybe it is just early in the morning for me, but I am not confident that I understand why Paul switched the roles in the concluding statement of the essay. > Similarly, if someone says they can think of things that are true but that cannot be said, it's only polite to take them at their word, even if you can't think of any yourself. That statement suggests to me that the responsibility of being polite should fall on those in the orthodox privileged demographic when challenged by those claiming that there are truths that cannot be safely spoken. It seems flipped around from the rolls expressed in the body of the essay, and that has me confused. How would they know to be polite? How is this actually a solution?

ExitPlatosCave 3y ago
Possibly... Take them at their word that they can they really believe what they are saying is true. Thus being polite versus thinking they are deliberately deceiving you. But not that you have to also accept what they say as correct or true for yourself.
- dustfinger 3y ago
  I understand that part of the essay. However; the essay argues that the orthodox privileged group is the one that cannot see that there are truths that cannot be safely expressed, but concludes that this same group should be polite to those that believe such truths exist. If my understanding is correct, how could they know to be polite to those outside of their demographic. For that, they would need to be sympathetic, or at the very least empathetic. I guess my big problem with the concluding statement is that it places the responsibility of resolving the impasse on the demographic that is apparently incapable of imagining the world from the others perspective. That seems futile in the absence of empathy. Whose responsibility is it then, to establish a sense of empathy amongst the majority of the orthodox privileged group (empathy would be needed in the other group as well of course)? Consider also that an obligation to be polite and silence ones voice from engaging in meaningful discourse, may very well be what ultimately leads to an orthodox privileged group in the first place, making the proposed solution a paradox.

Xcelerate 3y ago

I’ve always found it interesting how if you know someone’s strong opinion on issue X, you can typically predict their views on issues Y and Z even though there is no inherently fundamental relation between X, Y, and Z. All you need to know is the country and the time period they live in. The fact that views are so tightly correlated on the basis of party has always fascinated me, and I wonder if there is a way you can measure the amount of “in-groupism” someone exhibits. This is probably just another term for conformity or a lack of independent thinking, as Paul mentions. I was speaking with a relative recently who claimed he was very independent-minded and that his views didn’t match the mainstream. I replied that his views seemed to exactly match the opposite of the views of party X in the U.S. in 2023 and said this doesn’t make you independent, but rather a contrarian. You are still in fact letting party X determine what you think. What is the chance that if born elsewhere your morality would just so happen to match up with the views directly opposite to those of some specific social group in another time period in another part of the world? For someone who is truly an independent thinker, one would expect their views to sometimes match party A, to sometimes match party B, and to sometimes match neither. This isn’t to say that merely being a nonconformist makes someone more likely to be correct; there are bound to be plenty of mistakes even among independent thinkers. Paul has written quite a few essays on this subject, so by now I’m really curious what viewpoint(s) he has that he can’t say aloud (and whether I agree). I’ve noticed in Silicon Valley there are quite a few people who—after deeper conversation with them—seem to be independent thinkers, but they pretend to follow the in-group for the purpose of maintaining social harmony; this seems especially common among people born outside the U.S. living in the Bay Area.

meeuwer 3y ago
There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum? If not, they’re likely going with “the current thing” of their preferred echo chamber, which may or may not be real.
- mistermann 3y ago
  This heuristic would essentially lead one to believe that independent-mindedness is largely not possible would it not (the explicit "probabilistic" claim in the conclusion)?

doriss 3y ago

Very impressive essay, I have this feeling long time ago, but didn't interpret well. I think the best way is to make people realize some of their sensor, mindset or feeling are set by others, especially those silence area we can't even mention. Like a mobile phone's default settings, we have to realize that some things are just set up to be this way and can be presented in other ways.

hibernator149 3y ago

I found that it is really hard to go against the mainstream of the bubble you live in for two reasons: Let's take issue X as an example. One side says X is always true, the other that it is always false. But you think that actually "it depends". The two problems are then: (1) When you don't fully agree with your bubble on X, the more extreme ones will assign you to the opposite bubble and shun you. (2) There are people in the opposite bubble that will pretend to believe X "depends" in order to lure less extreme members over to their own bubble. And many in your bubble will believe that you are one of those. We are so caught up in our tribal thinking that many will simply not believe that you genuinely think "it depends". I believe that this is "by design", that someone is dividing and conquering the public. Many will agree with me here, and then they will finish with "but the other side is too brainwashed to notice"... Knowing that it is a trap, does not help you to avoid it ;)

preommr 3y ago
> that someone is dividing and conquering the public. Yea that someone is society. Tribalism happens because the feverent supporters are the ones that actually give money, time, etc. Someone that sees the nuance, is more likely to be okay with either solution, or said another way, not likely to give money to one side because they don't want to fully endorse one side. The people supported then go on to be politicans and media personalities that then force people to pick sides because it's more advantegous to them. It's an oversimplification, and not always applicable but a decent enough explanation for lots of our problems.
- Spivak 3y ago
  I think there's a "the world is entirely grey" presumption here that prevents the full analysis. You're not treating "it depends" as the fully-fledged position that it is. If you did you would see that there are now three positions the originals X, Y, and a new one Z that are incompatible. They can't all be right. X and Y have lots of supporters, why do you presume your new position Z to be correct simply because it lies on one of many possible lines to draw between X and Y? Surely for any real world issue the positions X and Y were the result of someone else's seeing the nuance but landed in a different place than you did.

silexia 3y ago

Or consider that certain laws passed by the government suppress alternative points of view that conflict with the mainstream, so that even if the views are true, they still are squashed.

jimbokun 3y ago
US still has a pretty robust First Amendment. Laws violating it consistently get struck down in court.
- immibis 3y ago
  Ah, but that isn't the only law that restricts speech. Many people already got fired for expressing support for Palestinians, because the law says you can get fired for that.

cies 3y ago

I think "orthodox" here is not the best choice of words. After reading the article I think "mainstream privilege" better captures what PG tries to describe. This because orthodox tend to refer to "wanting to stick to, or go back to, how it was"; which could be very much against the mainstream opinion of today.

TremendousJudge 3y ago
That's not what _orthodox_ means to most people. It usually means something like "conforming to established doctrine" (especially in a religious context). The definition you posted would better fit the word _conservative_ in my view.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Literally means something like "correct opinionism" in greek. Which as a lifelong member of the eastern orthodox church I have always found hilarious. Out the gate starting an argument with the name.

motohagiography 3y ago

This works on a micro level in companies where groupthink has taken hold, but also at a macro level where our media exalts sycophancy. Privilege for mouthing orthodoxies describes "the banality of evil," well. It was a reference to people who thought in slogans and recieved clichés, which dulled them to the consequences of what they were actually doing. Coining new phrases to respond to the present may shed some light for younger people who lack perspective, but it doesn't capture the gravity of what we're watching happen. There are precedents with strong predictive power for all of this.

asow92 3y ago
> This works on a micro level in companies where groupthink has taken hold, As someone who feels this daily, appealing to politeness as the essay suggests often does help. You're basically living in different versions reality, which is frustrating, but that doesn't mean you can't find some common ground and work together. After-all, it's just a job, and we shouldn't take it personally.
- stratigos 3y ago
  Except for when those that live in some alternate reality demand that you also abide by their alternate reality or be punished.
  - asow92 3y ago
    /s But isn't it fun to role play as thought criminal in 1984?

woodruffw 3y ago

Insofar as orthodox privilege is a real phenomenon, one of its greatest strengths is its ability to cast a smokescreen around wealth, power, and influence. Paul Graham is an obscenely wealthy and powerful man; he benefits disproportionately from controlling the public discourse around what is or isn’t “orthodox.” This is worth remembering when he (or any other phenomenally wealthy and powerful person) attempts to lay out these kinds of oblique culture war positions.

robg 3y ago
Isnt this ad hominem itself a “culture war position”?
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  What? No. Y'all use this word way too much get a grip.
- Floegipoky 3y ago
  No, this is class consciousness, and by conflating these things you've strengthened their point.
  - Floegipoky 3y ago
    I'll assume that this was downvoted because the "culture war" dividing America is one of the preeminent expressions of class warfare in this country, and therefore acknowledging class _is_ inherently engaging in the "culture war". Which, fair point.
  - Levitz 3y ago
    I think that's naive. Class consciousness is being aware that those with wealth are the ones who set the orthodoxy to begin with. Paul Graham writing a blogspot is irrelevant, he is barely exercising his position while doing so. Look for corporate meddling into politics and culture war if you want a smokescreen. The current culture wars being identity-based isn't an accident, for example, there won't be a worker's right month same as there won't be a worker's right parade, no corporation is putting money into that.

karmakaze 3y ago

I see this as the yappy little dog that's only yappy when its owner is around to 'back em up'. We can't really blame the dog growing up in its environment and turning out the way it did. We should all avoid bubbles and have more intermingling of groups so we don't end up with default views for too many things.

avgcorrection 3y ago

Alexa, what is ideology?

whalesalad 3y ago

My favorite use of chatgpt is having it explain pg's posts to me. It does a pretty good job there.

stratigos 3y ago

If you dont believe Orthodox Privelege exists, work in San Francisco for a few years. Provided you are a critical thinker, it will become obvious that the culture is akin to excommunication for declaring the universe is not geocentric.

Floegipoky 3y ago

On the one hand, I think this highlights an important "blind spot" in human thought. Our ideas and creativity are hugely influenced by our environment and prevailing social conventions. It's strange he doesn't use the term "Overton Window", because that's exactly what he's talking about and it seems useful to place his thoughts in context with the existing body. On the other hand, I vehemently disagree with the implicit assertion that any truth should be acceptable to give power. It's easy to filter, twist, and reassemble the truth to deceive and manipulate. Humanity has already paid too steep a price learning why some truths and ideas must be rejected. In fact, the ideology of "free speech absolutism" is itself an orthodoxy specific to a relatively small cultural bubble, and it's objectively quite extreme.

cubefox 3y ago
> Humanity has already paid too steep a price learning why some truths and ideas must be rejected. Honest question: When is it ever advantageous to reject truths? I always remind myself of the Litany of Gendlin: What is true is already so. Owning up to it doesn't make it worse. Not being open about it doesn't make it go away. And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with. Anything untrue isn't there to be lived. People can stand what is true, for they are already enduring it.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > When is it ever advantageous to reject truths? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy I.e. It becomes problematic when it involves human behavior at a stereotypical level. This isn't to say that stereotypes don't sometimes exist for preexisting (non-self-fulfilling) reasons, but even some people prone to sociopathy can leave good lives if properly treated.
  - oalae5niMiel7qu 3y ago
    Treating sociopaths is not the same as lying about sociopaths or sociopathy because you think doing so will prevent sociopathy.

ebiester 3y ago

I will defend "orthodox privilege." The problem with unorthodox thinkers, as Graham defines them, is that they are often not grounded in expertise. For example, I will take an unorthodox opinion of my own: Neither socialism nor capitalism are great economic systems and we need novel thought on new economic systems that are not based in industrial revolution assumptions. (Another, to give a guttural rather than intellectual reaction from some: I believe we should change the culture that gender is not presented publicly until the child chooses a gender. They are also given provisional names that are unisex and are allowed to choose their own name at puberty.) However, I have not spent the years of deep thought to truly develop the arguments. While I have a lot more invested into gender studies than the average human, I am not an expert. Expert goes far further than reading a few books and watching some YouTube videos. The burden on me is far higher than just saying, "this is what I believe" because they are unsubstantiated. The truth is that if you have a plethora of unorthodox views, it is likely because you have not performed in-depth research to be an expert. You likely do not understand the landscape of the arguments, the historical context and critiques, and the nuances to the argument because understanding all of that can take months of study and interaction with the experts. That doesn't mean that you need some sort of degree: An unorthodox opinion that is well-substantiated, for example, is Tim Ferriss's examination of psychedelics. He has obviously put in the work and has put money in experts' hands to validate those ideas. This is in stark contrast to the work that many put into their unorthodox opinions. But ultimately, most people would do better if they acknowledged that their opinions in places outside their expertise are largely shallow.

bambax 3y ago
This is a great point. Not the final answer, maybe, but an important observation: that paradox often stems from ignorance. It could be argued (it is sometimes argued) that ignorance fuels creativity ("he did it because he didn't know it was impossible", etc.); but more often than not, creativity stems from a deep familiarity with a given topic, and the ability to detect / invent connections between different subject matters that are not obvious, or indeed visible to anyone else.
cubefox 3y ago
I think the examples you name aren't what pg has in mind. It's more like saying "God doesn't exist" in the year 1800. It was highly taboo to say something like this, and doing so would immediately damage your social standing. The other point is: he doesn't argue one should ignore expert opinions in general. He just says that what is sayable in public likely has important blindspots, to which any expert is subject to as well.

thegrim33 3y ago

Tangent to this idea, is the idea that if you consume news from an extremely biased source, as long as their biases align with your biases, it seems like a "neutral" or unbiased source and you simply can't believe people who say that your news is biased. In actuality, if you were actually consuming an unbiased news source, you would be exposed to ideas and arguments you disagree with, you would be exposed to all sides of issues. You would read things you like, and things you don't like. It would make arguments for things you believe in, and good faith arguments for things you don't.

cubefox 3y ago
In communist countries there was some sort of limited freedom of speech (there is a specific name to it, but I forgot) which allowed lively debate, but only within tight boundaries. The problem with this is that it creates an illusion that there is freedom of speech. Because after all, disagreement is allowed to exist. But only as long as the disagreement doesn't touch on topics that are forbidden by the censors. Now the same arguably exists in democratic forums as well. Except here it mostly isn't a literal censor, but an invisible Overton window, that dictates what is in the realm of being debatable, and what must not be questioned by anyone.
- immibis 3y ago
  Capitalist countries have this too. You can say "free Israel", but if you say "free Palestine" you get doxxed, fired from your job and maybe evicted from your home. It's more subtle, because instead of immediately getting taken and sent to a gulag for your speech, the path is somewhat indirect, but still just as clear.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    I think realistically "free Palestine" wouldn't get you fired, just like "free Israel" wouldn't. I think a better example is this: Saying "black lives matter" is perfectly acceptable, but saying "white lives matter" would probably get you in massive trouble.

figassis 3y ago

I don't think conventional minded people think there can't be things that you can't say that are true. I think they believe that you'd be aware of the things that would get you in trouble, and that those things were already explored and collectively rejected by society (or most of it), and there is no point in you pushing it with "...but I really do want to say it". They know some people think those things and they're fine with it. They're not fine with you chanting it. Basically, get your group if like minded people and talk about it in your closed walls. Especially the things that are or might be true, it's important to understand that: - They might be harmful to others, true or not - Others may need to be harmed in order for society to find if some of those are true, but you might already have figured out that they are - Those true things might be an obstacle for society to remain stable and cohesive - Maybe those true things can bring some progress, but they might not be worth the cost All in all, I think society has a mechanism to self censor and some are ok with it, some aren't. I however do not agree that unencumbered freedom of speech will lead to a better society. But yes, I do think some taboos today are excessive.

Animats 3y ago

This article is mostly about a nomenclature issue. It's reframing "conventional wisdom" as "orthodox privilege". That may or may not be useful. See "Overton window."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

notShabu 3y ago

One of the "benefits" of traditional society is that there's a stronger gravitational pull towards the orthodox. e.g. dealing with the majority case deals with 80% of all cases. VS in a more diverse group, the biggest pie slice might only be 20% The system has a much higher burden of complexity to deal with edge cases. An argument can be made that Dunbar's number sets a cap on the complexity a system can deal with. External scaffolding like a legal system increases system capacity which then reduces how necessary the orthodox gravity is.

neilv 3y ago

I wonder whether this line of thought started with particular ideas of the writer that are currently taboo. If so, given that the writer seems wealthy, influential, and connected, presumably those taboo ideas might see movement towards implementation or acceptance.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Yeah. I know nothing about the author, but do know that there are ideas out there that everyone knows you can't express sincere interest in. Even the orthodox know this, and would agree that it is unsafe to do so. You don't praise the community organization ability of MS13 in a police bar shortly after a cop has been killed by a gang member. If non-black, you don't throw around the N word in certain company, under the philosophy that doing so will desensitize the word. Certain topics involving sex aren't mentioned. Etcetera.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

Real-world examples would have been nice. I don't know how generalizable this is to people in the real world. That is to say not that I don't think that many people default to this about particular topics, but that at this point in time many people have heard anecdotes (if it hasn't happened to them) about authority figures or experts disbelieving something real, as in physicians saying it's "all in your head" to something that turns out to be stage 4 cancer, or whatever. Thus it should be easy to at least make a crack in the armor of anyone with orthodox privilege in one area by reference to these modern-day events where people are disbelieved, and even abusively so (in the case of medicine). Sure, politeness might work too, but only in creating a veneer of tolerance. An appeal to politeness does not crack the armor the way an example of modern orthodox being wrong would.

vekker 3y ago
I think real-world examples are very dangerous to provide here, because they can easily derail the conversation into arguing about the validity of those examples, because if they are currently unconventional ideas, someone with orthodox privilege will see them as simply false, and bad examples. That's the blindness referred to. The Zeitgeist around the date PG wrote this article is probably no coincidence; if you really want recent examples of divisive topics. Historical examples are great for that reason, and there are plenty in the history of science. One typical example I love, is Wegener's theory of continental drift and how long it was ridiculed, hindering scientific progress, before it was finally accepted many decades later, in the form of the theory of plate tectonics.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  The Zeitgeist of that time was an example of the reverse of orthodox privilege (as discussed in the article). Or so it seemed to me. As competing orthodoxies were actively fighting out in the open, each with their own powerful champions. Meanwhile everyone who depends on a job to survive knows that there are opinions that you just don't bring up. So it seems to me orthodox privilege, in the vein brought up by Graham, is really a subset of power privilege.

jojohohanon 3y ago

Thanks for this. It was a blind spot I didn’t realize I had.

ttarabbia 3y ago

I credit 2 books with helping (hopefully?) with the ability to question the overlap between what I see as truth and orthodoxy. But What If We're Wrong [1] by Chuck Klosterman and Against Method [2] by Paul Feyeraband. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_What_If_We%27re_Wrong%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_What_If_We%27re_Wrong%3F 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

ttarabbia 3y ago
Hadn't seen either mentioned