6 ms·

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

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)?
  - meeuwer 3y ago
    I meant it in a more technical sense, as in “I start my morning by checking 4-5 news outlets from different corners of the political field and try to figure out what’s really going on by comparing the narratives”. That of course is not sufficient; one has to do their homework on prior history of whatever the contentious issue is. And yes, probably it’s not an activity most people engage in.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      That is certainly a fine practice, but my disagreement is with the claim that doing this is necessary for open-mindedness, and that those who do not are "probably" doing something highly silly.
    - jojohohanon 3y ago
      There was a website aimed at something similar called “the factual” but they never really got the algorithm off the ground before they were bought - by yahoo news by all things.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Hello! I work in local politics as a side-hustle/volunteer effort. This litmus test is absolute bullshit because it ignores the massive swaths of issues that are party orthogonal and don't make headlines. When actually pressed the liberalest liberal who's ever liberaled with a car bumper full of stickers will actually have a unique set of political views once you move past the like six wedge issues and vice versa. And the more interesting one is the reasons behind a view vary wildly. I was taken aback when I talked to a very conservative gay veteran who said that trans people shouldn't be in the military because, "they won't get the care they need" and that people should all have guns to shoot crooked cops. And the other problem is that those "unrelated" views on both sides of the spectrum are actually way more related than people assume and those common threads define the group so it's not at all surprising that you can see a theme and make predictions based on it. An easy one for liberals, asymmetric power dynamics are bad. You can follow this theme to lgbt rights, blm, general anti-corporation, defund the police, drug decriminalization, generally anti-prison, supporting Ukraine, supporting Palestine against Israel, but also supporting Jewish populations at home, reducing the size of the American military, strong labor laws, unions, immigration, defunding ICE, civil rights, anti-insurance/single-payer healthcare, breaking up monopolies, taxing billionaires they all stem from this. You show me a sympathetic underdog and I'll tell you who the liberals will support lol.
BurningFrog 3y ago
Humans are tribal by nature. We also use Motivated Reasoning to convince ourselves that the opinions we hold for tribal reasons are in fact good moral ones we came up with ourselves. I doubt this will change. Act accordingly.
cptnapalm 3y ago
"seem to be independent thinkers, but they pretend to follow the in-group for the purpose of maintaining social harmony" Preference falsification [0]. There's a book called Private Truths, Public Lies by Timur Kuran which delves into this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
bambax 3y ago
> 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 One approach would be to list issues that can't be said aloud today... Many sensitive topics are simply partisan: you can be pro-life or pro-choice, as well as pro- or anti- guns, death penalty, socialism, capitalism, science, war, even democracy! You can say anything on any of those topics without fear of being shunned by everybody. You will upset some people, but not all of them. The only opinions that will get one instantly banned from pretty much everywhere, that I can think of, are sexism and racism. (And rightly so, may I add.) So when someone says "there are things that are true that can't be said", I wonder if they're entertaining thoughts that I would find... unpalatable.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Some things could be true but still taboo. You may believe (with the orthodoxy) that they are false, but this doesn't change the possibility that they are true. And if they are, believing them can't be immoral. (Arguably, even believing falsities can't be immoral, because beliefs aren't the type of thing that are morally right or wrong. It's rather intentions for actions than can be so.)
  - bambax 3y ago
    > Some things could be true but still taboo Well yes, that's the whole discussion. It's possible that some things that are taboo, are true. It's even likely! because why else would there be a taboo? Society doesn't need to put a taboo on things that are obviously, totally wrong, like "the earth is flat". Arguably, a taboo is only needed to hide a possible truth. The question is: what are those things? Or if not the things themselves, the domains, the general topic? I can't think of any subject that cannot even be alluded to, like Voldemort.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - cubefox 3y ago
      You can't think of a subject matter that is taboo?
avgcorrection 3y ago
> 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. Think about this a little more. When you see people being very opinionated against or for something it is most likely in public in broad daylight. They “toe the line” and rally the wagons. But maybe in private—when among friends and they don’t have to put up a front—they can be more nuanced.
cubefox 3y ago
> 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). Discussing them here (in a public forum) isn't really an option. Because they are generally outside the Overton window, they are likely also outside the Overton window here on HN. Which means one would get voted down or flagged if one talked about it here. The safe place to talk about such heretical opinions is between good friends you know wouldn't ostracize you for saying something blasphemous, or when talking to a person you know has a very low tendency for conformity.
oalae5niMiel7qu 3y ago
It's less likely that those people are truly independent, and more likely that they simply brought the orthodox beliefs of their countries of origin to the Bay Area.
- Xcelerate 3y ago
  That’s a good point, although I would still maintain that they constitute a different “type” of person than those that reside in their country of origin, because most people don’t uproot their lives to move between countries. Whether or not that correlates with being more of an independent thinker, I don’t know.
  - oalae5niMiel7qu 3y ago
    There are millions and millions of people streaming across our border as you read this. Perhaps people moving between countries (or at least, from certain countries to certain other countries) is more common than you think.

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)?
- meeuwer 3y ago
  I meant it in a more technical sense, as in “I start my morning by checking 4-5 news outlets from different corners of the political field and try to figure out what’s really going on by comparing the narratives”. That of course is not sufficient; one has to do their homework on prior history of whatever the contentious issue is. And yes, probably it’s not an activity most people engage in.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    That is certainly a fine practice, but my disagreement is with the claim that doing this is necessary for open-mindedness, and that those who do not are "probably" doing something highly silly.
  - jojohohanon 3y ago
    There was a website aimed at something similar called “the factual” but they never really got the algorithm off the ground before they were bought - by yahoo news by all things.
Spivak 3y ago
Hello! I work in local politics as a side-hustle/volunteer effort. This litmus test is absolute bullshit because it ignores the massive swaths of issues that are party orthogonal and don't make headlines. When actually pressed the liberalest liberal who's ever liberaled with a car bumper full of stickers will actually have a unique set of political views once you move past the like six wedge issues and vice versa. And the more interesting one is the reasons behind a view vary wildly. I was taken aback when I talked to a very conservative gay veteran who said that trans people shouldn't be in the military because, "they won't get the care they need" and that people should all have guns to shoot crooked cops. And the other problem is that those "unrelated" views on both sides of the spectrum are actually way more related than people assume and those common threads define the group so it's not at all surprising that you can see a theme and make predictions based on it. An easy one for liberals, asymmetric power dynamics are bad. You can follow this theme to lgbt rights, blm, general anti-corporation, defund the police, drug decriminalization, generally anti-prison, supporting Ukraine, supporting Palestine against Israel, but also supporting Jewish populations at home, reducing the size of the American military, strong labor laws, unions, immigration, defunding ICE, civil rights, anti-insurance/single-payer healthcare, breaking up monopolies, taxing billionaires they all stem from this. You show me a sympathetic underdog and I'll tell you who the liberals will support lol.

BurningFrog 3y ago

Humans are tribal by nature. We also use Motivated Reasoning to convince ourselves that the opinions we hold for tribal reasons are in fact good moral ones we came up with ourselves. I doubt this will change. Act accordingly.

cptnapalm 3y ago

"seem to be independent thinkers, but they pretend to follow the in-group for the purpose of maintaining social harmony" Preference falsification [0]. There's a book called Private Truths, Public Lies by Timur Kuran which delves into this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification

bambax 3y ago

> 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 One approach would be to list issues that can't be said aloud today... Many sensitive topics are simply partisan: you can be pro-life or pro-choice, as well as pro- or anti- guns, death penalty, socialism, capitalism, science, war, even democracy! You can say anything on any of those topics without fear of being shunned by everybody. You will upset some people, but not all of them. The only opinions that will get one instantly banned from pretty much everywhere, that I can think of, are sexism and racism. (And rightly so, may I add.) So when someone says "there are things that are true that can't be said", I wonder if they're entertaining thoughts that I would find... unpalatable.

cubefox 3y ago
Some things could be true but still taboo. You may believe (with the orthodoxy) that they are false, but this doesn't change the possibility that they are true. And if they are, believing them can't be immoral. (Arguably, even believing falsities can't be immoral, because beliefs aren't the type of thing that are morally right or wrong. It's rather intentions for actions than can be so.)
- bambax 3y ago
  > Some things could be true but still taboo Well yes, that's the whole discussion. It's possible that some things that are taboo, are true. It's even likely! because why else would there be a taboo? Society doesn't need to put a taboo on things that are obviously, totally wrong, like "the earth is flat". Arguably, a taboo is only needed to hide a possible truth. The question is: what are those things? Or if not the things themselves, the domains, the general topic? I can't think of any subject that cannot even be alluded to, like Voldemort.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - cubefox 3y ago
    You can't think of a subject matter that is taboo?

avgcorrection 3y ago

> 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. Think about this a little more. When you see people being very opinionated against or for something it is most likely in public in broad daylight. They “toe the line” and rally the wagons. But maybe in private—when among friends and they don’t have to put up a front—they can be more nuanced.

cubefox 3y ago

> 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). Discussing them here (in a public forum) isn't really an option. Because they are generally outside the Overton window, they are likely also outside the Overton window here on HN. Which means one would get voted down or flagged if one talked about it here. The safe place to talk about such heretical opinions is between good friends you know wouldn't ostracize you for saying something blasphemous, or when talking to a person you know has a very low tendency for conformity.

oalae5niMiel7qu 3y ago

It's less likely that those people are truly independent, and more likely that they simply brought the orthodox beliefs of their countries of origin to the Bay Area.

Xcelerate 3y ago
That’s a good point, although I would still maintain that they constitute a different “type” of person than those that reside in their country of origin, because most people don’t uproot their lives to move between countries. Whether or not that correlates with being more of an independent thinker, I don’t know.
- oalae5niMiel7qu 3y ago
  There are millions and millions of people streaming across our border as you read this. Perhaps people moving between countries (or at least, from certain countries to certain other countries) is more common than you think.