7 ms·

And it’s wild to think that more than 1/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life support this admin. These are seemingly smart people. The past 10 years or so made me

by lvl155 1y ago

And it’s wild to think that more than 1/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life support this admin. These are seemingly smart people. The past 10 years or so made me realize I don’t know anything about human nature or intellect. Edit: I am in no way saying conservatism is bad and liberalism is good. I have my values in both.

MR_Bulldops 1y ago
I have found the biggest commonality in otherwise intelligent Trump supporters in my life is deep-seated insecurity issues. The second biggest is a life that hasn't gone how they had envisioned and, rather than take accountability, they blame anything but their choices. Though, I think lack of accountability is a symptom of insecurity, so it is wrapped up in the first issue.
fanwood 1y ago
[flagged]
- esafak 1y ago
  And the leadership was supposedly smart too. Intelligence and morality don't necessarily go together.
- monkeyelite 1y ago
  An entire set of countries actually - no division between intelligence. It was a global cultural phenomenon.
  - asah 1y ago
    to be fair, there was lots of resistance within those countries, but not enough to overcome the Guys With Guns(tm).
    - monkeyelite 1y ago
      The point is it has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. if you can’t explain why smart people in good faith participated, you just don’t understand it,
- fartfeatures 1y ago
  The amount of Argumentum ad Nazium / Reductio ad Hitlerum going around at the moment is getting really tiresome. Can we stick to the actual issues instead of invoking Nazis? It’s not helping the discussion.
  - fanwood 1y ago
    The Trump regime is the modern equivalent to the Nazi regime. Just because we don't get to see through the perspective of history doesn't mean it doesn't share all the same characteristics. The only difference with Nazi Germany is that the current democratic institutions in the United States are somewhat stronger than the ones in Germany in the 1930s, which prevent the Trump regime to gain full power. But they have been systematically eroded in the last few years (and especially in the last 6 months), and eventually they will fail too.
mathgeek 1y ago
[flagged]
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - r2_pilot 1y ago
    > And they could be completely correct. Given the consistency of the source material, this seems unlikely to be true.
  - vitro 1y ago
    What? If something, I'd talk about spirituality instead. There can be a spirituality without religion, but also a religion without spirituality. Beware!
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    What? Plenty of religious people chase wealth and power. "Prosperity gospel" is a thing. The Catholic Church is one of the largest landowners in the world. Etc.
  - MisterTea 1y ago
    > Atheism isn't known for the consistency of its source material either. Atheism isn't organized so there's no way to quantify your bullshit.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    Prosperity gospel. And religious people like to point to charitable giving. But studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who, if anything, are likely to skew the numbers more positively) show that across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget," and an additional 5% goes to "church-run programs" (be it after-school care, social, or group activities). If a secular charity - and let's go to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten), we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e., doing what they are being given money to do). I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities regularly spent only one percent of their givings on what they were entitled to enjoy tax exemption for, they'd likely have such a status revoked. And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions. A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget. So.
ilaksh 1y ago
They have a worldview that is so different it is effectively an alternate reality. This mostly comes from seeing different information streams or being in different social circles.
- DemiGuru 1y ago
  The same could be said of any worldview. So tell me—what part of UNESCO’s decision to admit the “State of Palestine” as a Member State strikes you as objectively righteous?
  - ilaksh 1y ago
    I didn't say I thought it was objectively righteous. I didn't say anything about my worldview. It seems objective that many civilians have been killed and a lot of land stolen. But my point is that things that seem objective to one group of people might be objectively false to another group. Which isn't to say that there is no real truth. Just that the premises people hold are so different that the worlds are not compatible.
    - DemiGuru 1y ago
      "...a lot of land stolen" let me just say that your limited understanding is painful.
      - ilaksh 1y ago
        Can you explain? I'm going to ignore your arrogant decision because I am genuinely curious. What is it about Israeli "settlements" that makes it different from stealing land?
        DemiGuru 1y ago
        Only in a morally inverted world is a nation blamed for keeping land it took while fending off an attack.
silveira 1y ago
Intelligence sometimes manifests as doing the wrong thing in the most convoluted way.
- spacebanana7 1y ago
  Intelligence also gives people the power to reconcile morality or economic theory with almost any desire. The worst ideas come from the smart people who can persuade themselves and others of inevitable success.
ignoramous 1y ago
> These are seemingly smart people. Engs all think they and their peers are very logical and super smart. They must be because of all the world changing apps/services/monies they make...? I've fallen in to this trap.
- pstuart 1y ago
  Clarity of words will help: * Intelligence is the computational power one is born with * Stupid/smart is the effective utilization of that intelligence Lots of intelligent people do lots of stupid things (mea culpa)
saubeidl 1y ago
Being good at math or engineering doesn't make you good at empathy, sociology, politics or any number of other functions.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  And of course this applies to comments in the discussion as well…
- Insanity 1y ago
  Agreed, however, people with a good education _usually_ learn think intelligently about a variety of problems. By which I mean, they understand how to fact check sources, how to think critically about information presented to them, and how to validate their own assumptions. Edit: removing a sentence that came across as offensive.
  - jajko 1y ago
    First part yes, second hell no, why the heck the need to do such baseless attacks. We have plenty of sociopathic a-holes in Europe as well, I'd say more than plenty on all levels of society in all countries.
    - Insanity 1y ago
      I didn’t think it was an “attack”, but merely an observation and a question. But I can see how it can read as an “attack”, I’ll update the comment. Thanks for calling it out!
  - throw0101b 1y ago
    > Agreed, however, people with a good education _usually_ learn think intelligently about a variety of problems. Depends on the problem you're trying to solve. Perhaps it's "how can I get more for myself?" versus "how I improve the lives of humanity?".
Workaccount2 1y ago
[flagged]
- pstuart 1y ago
  I don't think you realize that the Culture War is originating from the Right, and that it's a tar trap for those on the Left. More so, that the whole point of this War is to foster anger and division, so that we squabble amongst ourselves rather than the elite who own us all.
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    I don't think that's quite right. I think over the last 10 years a lot of the anti-corporate energy of Occupy Wall Street has been funnelled - by means of the culture war - into "identity" issues that have little potential to harm corporate power or profits. I would argue that this did not originate on the right or left but was the result of a political class that's beholden to endless donations. To me, one really clear example of this is immigration. As recently as 2016, Bernie Sanders was saying that mass immigration is a Koch Brothers strategy for keeping wages low[1]. I think he was right. But the left has been cajoled away from this position over time because it had the potential to harm their corporate donors. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
    - pstuart 1y ago
      > I don't think that's quite right. I think over the last 10 years a lot of the anti-corporate energy of Occupy Wall Street has been funnelled - by means of the culture war - into "identity" issues that have little potential to harm corporate power or profits. I would argue that this did not originate on the right or left but was the result of a political class that's beholden to endless donations. No disrespect, but that makes no sense. This version of the Culture Wars have been with us for decades. Before the Trans Panic™ there was the Gay Panic. Abortion was a non-issue (even for Republicans) until they realized they could rally the troops around dead babies. And racism? That's been part of the very fabric of the US since the beginning. Immigration has been well-documented in how waves of newcomers have been despised until a generation later when they're settled in and they can turn around and hate on the new crop (Irish, German, Italian, etc). Hating newcomers is a veritable tradition. As to the donor class etc, yes, the Democratic Elites are looking after the elites and not the people (shocking!), but it doesn't mean rank and file Democrats are that way (note: I am not a party member). The "both sides are the same" bit has traditionally had a fair amount of truth in that (the elites thing), but now that the GOP is the Party of Trump that can longer be said.
pstuart 1y ago
And you'll find that almost all of those people are deeply religious, and that's not a coincidence. There's a surrender of thought to authoritative power in both cases. I share the same horrible experience of having these last 10 years open my eyes wide to the reality of humanity.
- david38 1y ago
  This is reactionary, elitist, and false. I know many of “those people” and not a single one of them religious. American leftist insults always go like this - X is bad, but only if it originated from us. The self loathing is amazing. * Religion is bad, but only if it’s Christianity. * Men are bad, unless they’re trans * Gender is a social construct, but race is real * culture is important, unless it’s associated with whites, because they don’t have culture Right wing is a semi balancing act * religion is good, unless Muslim * men aren’t necessarily good or bad. They can be heros or villains * boys naturally fight with sticks, it’s not taught * American culture is just as valid as any other Not exactly a mirror image, but enough team loyalty and justification goes on so people can pat themselves on the back as smart while the other team is delusional
  - pstuart 1y ago
    "False" I can entertain, but reactionary? Elitist? Huh? Your list of grievances is like a Fox News handout for viewers to remember what they hate about DemonRats. Your "assumptions": * Religion is bad, but only if it’s Christianity. * Men are bad, unless they’re trans * Gender is a social construct, but race is real * culture is important, unless it’s associated with whites, because they don’t have culture Can be "fixed": * Your Religion is yours, don't make it mine (regardless of which flavored cult) * Men no longer get to be the boss just because they're men * Gender is a personal "choice" * Culture is important (and "white culture" is tempting to make light of in that it's "punching up", and it's kind of Wonder Bread bland). LOL IRL on the right wing balancing act, but I'll agree with the statements except for the blanket "religion is good" (it's conditional), and the Islamophobia (which I love as much as I love christianity). I'm happy for you that you have people to pat you on the back and tell you you're smart -- we all could use a little emotional support. Edit: I only have two Trump supporters in my friend list -- they are both intelligent, kind, and devoutly religious. Obviously I have n=2 personally, but it's a thing to very Christian and very Trumpy. It's an observation, not a judgement.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
They're probably smart, but also assholes. Being kind to others and being smart aren't mutually exclusive.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
  Being an asshole is one thing. But thinking you can be an asshole by proxy by becoming an asshole's victim, is something else entirely.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    They're not assholes by proxy, they're also assholes. They were before, and they will continue to be after. They're seeking maximum asshole alignment and some recognize that while supporting the primary asshole may be causing them pain, it's lesser than the pain of the people they've always wanted to hurt.
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
      Well, we disagree on our asshole classification. To me a true experienced asshole notices when another asshole is about to swindle them. There is some inexplicable tendency for swindlers to get swindled, but that's probably more at the periphery. Not sure if those qualify as assholes. I'll have to think about it.
      - micromacrofoot 1y ago
        I'm just talking about people who are angry and mean to the point that it's harmful to themselves
        3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
        I see the general phenomenon of those people as an outlet for a set of social defects we have. Keep in mind that "immigrants bad" and so on cultural wars repertoire is always the go-to of populists when they want to point to an easy enemy to rile up the population. It works because it's like short-circuiting. You have the easy to identify superficial traits, and so the current goes straight through, and shorts the system. Except it's social electricity in this case. My point is while we can blame the individual assholes in this, their generation itself is an inevitability in the right toxic environment. These populist explanations seek to address real concerns of people like bad work conditions, inflation and so on, but it invents an easy to digest (and entirely wrong) premise about why their lives are bad. I wish I could say hating the assholes works, but that's just another short-circuiting of social electricity. Polarization, hate, enemies. It all just serves to divide and conquer us. Unity is strength, division is weaknesss.
ReptileMan 1y ago
And it’s wild to think that less than 2/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life don't support this admin. These are seemingly smart people.
3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
Intelligence is not general. It can be. But rarely is. Most people contextualize their knowledge and skills, they divide to conquer, as generalizing is hard. Especially hard in a fragmented, divided world. Those seemingly smart people are likely all smart. But they have no idea how to take their skills from one area and apply them to another. So they fall for really stupid BS outside their area of specialization.
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
I think it’s a symptom of how bad the democrats are. They can’t create a compelling message that people really care about. “I am a little better” just doesn’t cut it anymore
- watwut 1y ago
  Nothing is ever fault of conservatives and libertarians. No matter what, someone else has to be blamed.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    Complaining about them isn’t going to win elections for the democrats.
    - watwut 1y ago
      Conservatives won the election by complaining about Democrats, often lying about them. By being as insulting and offensive as possible. Elections in republican land are not won by being constructive and letting republicans lie and insult. That is how they were lost. There should be a lot more and a lot louder complaining about conservatives.
jmyeet 1y ago
This is a deep topic but let me try and summarize. The key concept here is "transhumanism" [1]. This is a very popular belief among Silicon Valley CEOs. Followers have deluded themselves into thinking their genes are special and they think about what they can do to ensure this transhuman future. It usually means having as many children as possible a la Elon Musk. Thing is, transhumanism is simply eugenics [2]. It's tech-flavored white supremacy [3]. [1]: https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/silicon-valley-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/silicon-valley-art... [2]: https://www.seenandunseen.com/transhumanism-eugenics-digital-age https://www.seenandunseen.com/transhumanism-eugenics-digital... [3]: https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2023/01/19/transhumanism-is-eugenics-for-educated-white-liberals/ https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2023/01/19/transhumanism-...
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
A couple of things I've realized as I've gotten older: 1. Intelligence does not transfer across domains. E.g. being good at making money doesn't necessarily make you qualified in other areas. And vice versa, as Isaac Newton is famously quoted as saying "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men" after losing a ton of money in the South Sea Bubble. 2. Many (most) people view their identity as a membership in some group, however that is defined. Most people like to pretend to argue about policy, but they're really arguing about their group membership. 3. Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion is incredibly difficult for most people, perhaps even moreso for people who are nominally smart in other domains. Doubly so if it goes against your group membership as pointed out in #2. Regarding "And it’s wild to think that more than 1/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life support this admin" specifically, at least in my experience, many of the devs don't support Trump as much as they chaffed against some of the cultural changes Democrats led (woefully unsuccessfully in my opinion) and so they hooked their wagon to Trump. E.g. this is my personal opinion, but I think "the left" really did go overboard with language policing, recognizing racial group membership above all else when it comes to diversity, labeling any valid discussion of the pros and cons of biological men in women's sports as "transphobic", the utter dishonesty in pretending Biden would be capable for another term and thus denying a real primary, etc. etc. And, to be blunt about it, for a very long time the Democratic party had almost nothing to offer for white men - indeed, in many aspects "old white men" became an acceptable derogatory term amongst the left. How they expected that would win them elections in the US is beyond me. So don't get me wrong, I think Trump is worse in nearly every way, but I think a lot of the dev supporters I've seen of Trump are less full-on MAGA folks than libertarian types who thought Trump would challenge the excesses of the left (and are now having a hard time admitting his full-on fascist behavior).
- ajuc 1y ago
  Intelligence is just computing power. If you have false beliefs as the basis for your computation you just get wrong results faster. What people mean by intelligent person is often someone who: - has more computing power - spends their time using that computing power - checks their assumptions and biases regularly - over time accumulates more correct beliefs than others If you get lots of computing power but don't do the other things - you get a dumber person than average. Because they accumulate more wrong results than everybody else. This is how you get tech bros - great at math and programming, dumb as a shoe about everything else.
glitchc 1y ago
The online space (Reddit, HN, others) is so deeply embedded with groupthink that people have lost the ability to see other points of view or debate topics of interest. To me it's very clear why the government is leaving UNESCO (and over time the UN at large). The UN is dysfunctional and does not work. It used to be a source of soft power for the States, but hasn't been so for the better part of this century. Meanwhile, the US continues to fund it even though it is currently running a massive deficit. It doesn't make sense to continue throwing good money after bad, especially when funds are scarce. Let other nations pick up the funding slack. Likely they will not and the UN will collapse, as it should. Something new can be built from its ashes. Many people agree with this rather pragmatic view. If you want to have a discussion, debate the points I made above instead of hurling insults and ad hominem attacks.
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ivell 1y ago
    It is also the place where world opinion is shaped. West has majority of veto powers which it used to its advantage. West had also condemned other nations in the same forums in the past.
- esseph 1y ago
  Why is the US the only country in the world denying Israeli crimes in Gaza? That's how I know the UN no longer matters.
  - glitchc 1y ago
    Because the rest of the world denies Palestinian crimes in Israel.
    - pxc 1y ago
      Resistance of occupation, including violent resistance, is not a crime under international law.
_fat_santa 1y ago
I've seen the same thing. What I've seen is most of those folks that supported them during the campaign are now pretty quiet. During the campaign it was "cool" to support Trump and the republicans but now that the dude's in office, most are seeing that campaigns are very different from the administrations. Looking back I blame the Democrats for running horrible candidates and the gaslighting that their candidates were actually great and were as "cool" as the Trump team. It just felt so disingenuous when you heard Democrats saying that Biden was still very with it and even more disingenuous when they said that Harris/Walz were a great pick. And now the folks that said it was disingenuous were not wrong, cause after the campaign ended and Trump was in office seemingly everyone that praised Biden and then Harris then flipped the script and started saying what everyone was thinking all along (that Biden was not fit to serve and Harris wasn't a great candidate). I talked to alot of guys that flipped from D to R this past election and just about every one of them said a version of: "do they think we are stupid??". The Democrats have a hubris problem, they think that just because they run someone and tell folks that the person is great, everyone will just automatically buy into that. That's just not how it works and you have to make a genuinely convincing argument and that argument can't be "the other guys is worse"
- addicted 1y ago
  The Democrats have a structural problem. The party is defined as being composed of the people who are already elected. So the priority of the Democratic Party ends up reflecting the priorities of those who are already in office, which is to make sure the incumbents get reelected. This means there's very little incentive to expand the electorate (which would mean younger voters, who are likely to vote younger candidates, so that threatens the aging incumbents), or spend resources in expanding the map (because by definition there are no incumbents there whose interests are represented in the party). For as advanced as the US political system is, it's incredibly backwards when it comes to professionalization of the political parties. A good comparison is the BJP in India. Setting aside policy, ideological issues for a moment, what they're really good at is being professional. The head of the party is not elected, and constantly rotates the party representative in each election, keeping their bench deep. They also have a soft age limit. In a way, Donald Trump's greatest contribution to the Republican Party was destroying the incumbency advantage for Republicans. As a result the Republican slate was completely refreshed with younger (although generally worse) candidates, but while it may have made the party significantly worse from a policy/ideology perspective, it has made it politically stronger.
boringg 1y ago
There are so many wide ranging forms of intelligence. Being an exceptional engineer or a high functioning executive/CEO you may have a very narrow slice of intelligence or capability. It does not in any way mean you have an understanding of how the world works or general knowledge. I agree -- it is surprising how many high achieving people have such poor understanding of how the world/society/countries work. It's almost like our education system's specificity hasn't done a good job on civics broadly.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  It’s prioritizing material wealth above other pursuits. Not only in their own lives, but as the primary measure of success. One side effect of this is that they stop investing effort in things that don’t generate material wealth. Personally, I think that tends to turn people into dicks (non-transaction friendships are valuable to me), but they do them.
spacebanana7 1y ago
Steelman their position. Try finding reasons good people would vote for Trump, or at least sincere mistakes of reasoning that a good person could make.
- watwut 1y ago
  They were steelmanned for years and that is how theu got powerful. Maybe we should stop to do it and start to interpret their words accurately. Sometime, cruelty is the point and there is only delusion in trying to project "good reasons". It is loosing strategy.
  - spacebanana7 1y ago
    To get Trump supporters to vote for you it's important to beat Trump at addressing their concerns. Even a small swing of 5-10% of them could win an election.
    - watwut 1y ago
      Addressing their concerns will do nothing, just as it did nothing in the past. They will hate you for addressing their concerns and blame you for things Trump caused. Each time they were given something, they just got more aggressive and harmful Yes small swings could change election results, but none of them will come from Trump voters. This argument just serves to more politics further to the right. Those people wanted harm, wanted to cause pain and addressing their concerns does not provide any of that.
- JTbane 1y ago
  I'll give them a steelman: They thought Trump would reduce their taxes (he hasn't, by and large). They thought Trump would cut government waste (he did the opposite). They thought Trump's tough-guy persona would convince foreign countries to fall in line (it hasn't, they have shunned the USA).
dantillberg 1y ago
> These are seemingly smart people. They _are_ smart people. There's more to the differences in perspective than "lib smart, maga stupid".
- johndoe90 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - recursive 1y ago
    I think there's also more to it than that.
  - tombert 1y ago
    Most people are idiots. No party has a monopoly on being stupid.
- tombert 1y ago
  There is more to life but I do have to question the intelligence of anyone who believed that Trump was going to somehow lower grocery prices by implementing tariffs. It almost doesn’t even make grammatical sense to say “raising prices will lower prices”, let alone any kind of rational sense.
- mindslight 1y ago
  At this point there really isn't. The only political philosophy that meshes with Trumpism is anarcho-capitalism. If Trumpists were generally espousing anarcho-capitalism, I could respect that they were coming from a different fleshed-out perspective and we could debate the merits of it. But they are not! Rather Trumpists appeal to widely varying political ideals, but then when you try to apply a specific one to different actions of the regime it's either just crickets or a Gish gallop. So the straightforward conclusion is there is a glaring lack of any sort of coherent analysis.
- nobunaga 1y ago
  If your intelligent in your work, but completely retarded when it comes to society , information gathering and independent thinking rather than regurgiate whatever your oranged tanned cheeto says, then no, your not smart. You just have been able to condition your brain to do something over and over again. Intelligence and smartness isnt about doing one thing well.
SirFatty 1y ago
My father passed in 2019, in cleaning up the house I came across a walnut display case with 10 or so real $2 bills with Trumps picture on them, sealed in plastic. I had no idea my Dad had gone down that path, or why... I've been on this earth a long time, and I too realize I don’t know anything about human nature or intellect.
addicted 1y ago
To be fair, a lot of people were fooled by the first term. In the first term Trump hired a lot of retired or retiring generals. They may not have been subject matter experts, but that's fine, since they had subject matter experts within their departments, and they had the ability to organize, lead and execute. But most importantly, most of them had a pretty strong sense of ethics and loyalty to the country and constitution. The generals, and the people they hired, and even the Trump lackeys who were nonetheless being watched by the generals, helped keep Trump's worst impulses in check. In Term 2, on the other hand, Trump has explicitly picked people who are completely unqualified (this is a mafia tactic to ensure the individual's loyalty is entirely to you since they know they would never have got the job they did on merit) and their primary skills lie in right wing TV and Podcasts. So these people prioritize effect and show for their followers, and are loyal to no one but Trump. And they've been selected primarily because they're incapable of doing the jobs they've been hired for well, so it's a stark 180 from the first term.
unsupp0rted 1y ago
> These are seemingly smart people. If someone who seems smart disagrees with me then there's only 1 explanation
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Aurornis 1y ago
It took me a long time to realize that most people don’t make any effort to understand politics beyond surface level headlines. A lot of people treat politics like they behave in the HN comment section: They see the headline, arrive at a conclusion based on previous assumptions, and head straight to the comment section to argue their side without ever even making an effort to read the article. With politics, politicians are experts at crafting headlines and sound bites that feed these people their confirmation bias and tickle the part of the brain that says this person is on your side. I’ve had some success discussing issues with these people calmly and openly, adding facts one at a time until they realize the situation isn’t what they thought. There are a lot of “That can’t be right” lightbulbs going off as the facts start to conflict with their idea of how the world works. This goes for both extremes of the political spectrum, BTW.
- cogman10 1y ago
  The problem is that politics, particularly in the US, tends to push people into binary thinking. I certainly do not love the Trump admin and think Kamala would easily do better. However, that does not mean the Trump admin has done nothing I agree with. There are nice parts to the OBBB that directly benefit me. Further, I think the approach to H1Bs, removing the lottery and instead basing it on salary, is the right move. I say this because regardless of admin, there's going to be things you like and dislike. What seems to happen is people get completely sucked in a media bubble which only reports the good or bad of their political opponents. Even the worst and most evil world leaders in history did good or had some good policies. There's never been a pure evil or good leader. Unfortunately, people want to flatten the world and remove the nuance "if so and so did it, it must be good/bad".
  - eldaisfish 1y ago
    a more appropriate way of looking at this would be incentives. Who, in the government, stands to benefit from revising the H1B system? Even if you agree with the action, you may not not agree with the motivation. Your line of thinking is like saying that the British Raj was terrible for India, but the British built railways, which was a good thing. Good and bad do not exist in isolation. The British built railways in india so they could more effectively extract wealth, not out of the benevolence of their hearts. It is much the same with the US government.
bushbaba 1y ago
Maybe take a few minutes to talk to the other side to better understand their thoughts and why they have such thoughts. Sadly I’ve noticed understanding and tolerance of diverse perspectives went out the window lately.
- atoav 1y ago
  I do and did. In my youth one of my best friends slowly became a neo nazi, with lines like: "foreigners should be herded together and exterminated". After one particular discussion he conceeded: "I know you're factually correct, but I don't care, because this is what I want". And this is the point were further discussion was useless.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  [flagged]
- fn-mote 1y ago
  To be clear, sadly, “lately” covers a longer time than the current administration.
ruffrey 1y ago
I've been toying with the following attempt to explain all this: - Information bubbles (this is the top issue, and it's really incredibly persuasive) - Geographic location and social environment - Lack of time to deeply evaluate truth vs noise and consider multiple sides of an issue - Conviction of values - how much does a person believe their values are tied to the political view (leads to subtly drawing emotional conclusions and implicitly trusting a political party) - Belief that due to one's own intelligence, one is not subject to propaganda (a clearly false belief that many smart people fall into) Deep emotional awareness is not as strongly related to intelligence as people think.
dayvid 1y ago
Smart people in a bubble will confidently apply their intellect to things they have no first-hand experience with
mk89 1y ago
Do they support some policies or everything that this administration proposes? In my experience I have seldom seen people who believe 100% in whatever party/government does. Most of the time it's a few topics that matter - be it immigration, or less taxes, or whatever. However, they are not gonna protest for leaving UNESCO. They might find it stupid, but probably they find topic XYZ more important. So they suck it up and move on. Then there are the believers - everything the administration does is great. But I like to believe and think they are a minority.
- rapind 1y ago
  > But I like to believe and think they are a minority. There's a lot of MAGA hats out there man. Historically, has it ever been a good thing when so many people believe everything one man says is pure truth? I mean, even if I agreed with every policy, the extent and dedication of this cultish behaviour would give me pause.
  - mk89 1y ago
    The nice thing about democracy and politics in general is that everyone can have an opinion and a way to see something. Many MAGA hats don't all mean the same. I doubt all of his supporters like the tariffs, or how he is dealing with Russia, or Israel, or, or or... However, I believe that some of the core policies (hard on immigration, etc) somehow find a common agreement. And even in those core policies, some might like different approaches. And yet in total they do feel they support this administration. The issue is when people let all happen because one of the core problems must be solved at all costs. Meaning the administration solves that one core problem you really wanted fixed, but the price to pay is equally bad, and yet you just look down and let it all happen, because it's convenient and doesn't affect you in the short term. In my opinion, this has become more and more common with whichever party we elect, except some are more vocal about it than others.
    - rapind 1y ago
      My only point, without discussing policy at all, is that it's a cult of personality, with all that entails (not good). I think a failure to recognize this as either naive or intentional.
wnevets 1y ago
> These are seemingly smart people. The past 10 years or so made me realize I don’t know anything about human nature or intellect. just remember, there is nothing more easy to manipulate than an insecure male.
alpineman 1y ago
There is just a shocking lack of empathy in the world today. Selfishness is off the scale. I personally blame social media and the financialization of everything for this. A person's entire self-worth can be reduced to the size of their 401K and their instagram reels (brunch, dog, destination wedding, hike, repeat). Depressing.
redleader55 1y ago
I think(lol) that assuming the other side stupid is one of the big failures of current political environment. Honestly, I'm baffled that is "ok" to say something like "the other side is stupid" without being called out harshly for it. Using weasel words expressions like "seemingly smart people" doesn't make it better, it makes it worse.
- verall 1y ago
  Do you mean it's a political failure as in it leads to electoral losses or it's a moral failure as in it shouldn't be "ok"?
- crote 1y ago
  In theory I'd love to agree with you. In practice we are way past that. I'm totally fine debating whether the sky is blue with someone claiming it's gray because it is usually overcast. I'm happy to entertain the motion that the sky could be bronze - with a reference to ancient Greece and pretty sunsets. At the end of the day we can just agree to disagree and move on. But I'm not going to debate whether the sky is blue with someone yelling that the sky MUST be green because obviously clouds are green. They have moved so far from the truth that they are either arguing in bad faith or just plain delusional. Neither case is worth even the slightest snippet of my time: I'd have a better chance of success trying to explain my viewpoint to a tree. It isn't politics anymore, it has turned into religion or sports.
  - redleader55 1y ago
    Sure, but you forget something. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone you consider inferior to you and they know it(eg. "Trump supporters are morons"). This makes them vote with the person who is willing to have that discussion. That lost the democrats the previous election and has all the chances to happen again in 3 years. I'm not American, and while I do follow US politics, I see the signs closer to home in Europe, where all the "idiots" are voting with worrying candidates for the same reason - the "nice" parties are ignoring them and calling them idiots, subhumans, TikTok drones, etc.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
CrackerNews 1y ago
There are several reasons. First, developers are threatened by foreign competition and that third feels that Trump would protect them. Second, this presidency represents a change from previous DEI policies and that third may benefit from it. Third, they feel previous administrations were too soft on crime around their neighborhoods, and their tolerance for permissiveness ran out. They want action done to benefit them at any cost.
throwawaygmbno 1y ago
I'm a black developer and have never had another developer tell me about their support for Trump. The past 10 years have made it plainly obvious why. It has also made me realize how difficult life was for my parents and grandparents, who were all born before the civil rights act. The civil rights act passed when Trump was in college so he and the other elderly members of the other branches also saw the lead up to it. Every action I see is to prevent anything like that again. Or to personally enrich themselves.
primitivesuave 1y ago
If you are searching for some insight into human nature and intellect, you may find the history of the Roman Republic (and it's transition to an empire) to have shocking parallels to modern-day events. Trump is remarkably similar to Sulla, who showed the next generation of leaders how to break the rules to gain power. Caesar is coming...
isolli 1y ago
What is wild to me is that all the replies I read are written as if everyone on this forum obviously agreed and those who don't are "others" not worth thinking about. I'm not a US citizen and did not have to make a choice, but I could see plenty of reasons not to vote for the Democratic candidate: the establishment had tried to run a candidate that was obviously unfit for office and parachuted a replacement at the last minute; the Democratic response to covid was atrocious (yes, the irony of Trump capturing that slice of the vote does not escape me); the issue of males (transwomen) in female sports and prisons... Whether those reasons outweighed the obvious (to me) negatives is everyone's choice to make when casting their vote... but the inability to understand the other side (and brag about it) seems odd for all the smart people here.
landl0rd 1y ago
The CCP has been lobbying the World Heritage Evaluation Committee for a long time now to increase its number of sites. This directly promote’s china’s false narrative of “5,000 years continuous civilization” with attached mythos (despite much of the early evidence coming from the mythical Shiji, china simply blackmails academics into silence with source access and mainland collaboration to maintain a monopoly on her historical narrative) and this idea of a “glorious past”, which is also critical for maintaining her “reunification” narrative and justifying current or future control of Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong… this extends to baseless and historical claims like state propaganda claiming the Yuan founded beijing to support this totalizing metanarrative “grand arc” type story the chicoms attempt to construct. Meanwhile 28 of the 196 state parties to the world heritage convention have no sites listed at all. Of course, Taiwan has no sites at all. It’s well known that many of the UN bodies and similar international orgs have been wholly captured by china or her new axis of evil. Ghebreyesus, for example, has been china’s man from the get-go. American dollars should not go to support a grand red chinese narrative. UNESCO has, in recent years: - published an “anti-racism toolkit” - campaigned to “#ChangeMENtalities”, to “reshape masculinities for gender equality” - published “comprehensive sexuality education” that is strongly at odds with many Americans views on how such things ought to be taught - published ai ethics recommendations that focus on issues like “gender” and “climate” - run partnerships to “get every learner climate-ready” In other words, it’s operating out of its original scope, doing things that are clearly and massively one-sided. I recognize the NGO-industrial complex, along with much of mass media and culture, has been so wholly captured by the left for long enough that y’all can see a change back to the status quo as disruptive or odd. But the other half of the Overton window does still exist. A lot of what the current administration has done is stupid or wrong, but my tax dollars being sent to this organization would also be stupid and wrong.
- zipy124 1y ago
  These are literally within its remit. It's the "Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation". All of these issues are educational, scientific or cultural. And even so comparing research around gender with the indisputable fact of climate change is a rather twisted way of reasoning.
shadowgovt 1y ago
It is a common categorical error to assume that people good at math or complex electromechanical systems must also be good at ethics, morality, or philosophy. We see a bodybuilder good at lifting things, or a bricklayer good at building houses, and we don't assume they also have an opinion on nicomachean ethics that should be entertained. Similar, usually, with entertainers. But we sometimes assume that someone really good at structuring database queries for optimal retrieval efficiency must respect the separation of labor from capital value or the challenges of providing for the needs of eight billion people because they are people. I have to assume it's because we think that if you're good at one "labor of the mind" you must be good at the others (and, probably, because too few of us also have nearly enough respect for how much thought goes into making a wall that won't fall down).

by lvl155 1y ago

MR_Bulldops 1y ago

I have found the biggest commonality in otherwise intelligent Trump supporters in my life is deep-seated insecurity issues. The second biggest is a life that hasn't gone how they had envisioned and, rather than take accountability, they blame anything but their choices. Though, I think lack of accountability is a symptom of insecurity, so it is wrapped up in the first issue.

fanwood 1y ago

[flagged]

esafak 1y ago
And the leadership was supposedly smart too. Intelligence and morality don't necessarily go together.
monkeyelite 1y ago
An entire set of countries actually - no division between intelligence. It was a global cultural phenomenon.
- asah 1y ago
  to be fair, there was lots of resistance within those countries, but not enough to overcome the Guys With Guns(tm).
  - monkeyelite 1y ago
    The point is it has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. if you can’t explain why smart people in good faith participated, you just don’t understand it,
fartfeatures 1y ago
The amount of Argumentum ad Nazium / Reductio ad Hitlerum going around at the moment is getting really tiresome. Can we stick to the actual issues instead of invoking Nazis? It’s not helping the discussion.
- fanwood 1y ago
  The Trump regime is the modern equivalent to the Nazi regime. Just because we don't get to see through the perspective of history doesn't mean it doesn't share all the same characteristics. The only difference with Nazi Germany is that the current democratic institutions in the United States are somewhat stronger than the ones in Germany in the 1930s, which prevent the Trump regime to gain full power. But they have been systematically eroded in the last few years (and especially in the last 6 months), and eventually they will fail too.

mathgeek 1y ago

[flagged]

gjsman-1000 1y ago
[flagged]
- r2_pilot 1y ago
  > And they could be completely correct. Given the consistency of the source material, this seems unlikely to be true.
- vitro 1y ago
  What? If something, I'd talk about spirituality instead. There can be a spirituality without religion, but also a religion without spirituality. Beware!
- alistairSH 1y ago
  What? Plenty of religious people chase wealth and power. "Prosperity gospel" is a thing. The Catholic Church is one of the largest landowners in the world. Etc.
- MisterTea 1y ago
  > Atheism isn't known for the consistency of its source material either. Atheism isn't organized so there's no way to quantify your bullshit.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  Prosperity gospel. And religious people like to point to charitable giving. But studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who, if anything, are likely to skew the numbers more positively) show that across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget," and an additional 5% goes to "church-run programs" (be it after-school care, social, or group activities). If a secular charity - and let's go to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten), we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e., doing what they are being given money to do). I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities regularly spent only one percent of their givings on what they were entitled to enjoy tax exemption for, they'd likely have such a status revoked. And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions. A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget. So.

ilaksh 1y ago

They have a worldview that is so different it is effectively an alternate reality. This mostly comes from seeing different information streams or being in different social circles.

DemiGuru 1y ago
The same could be said of any worldview. So tell me—what part of UNESCO’s decision to admit the “State of Palestine” as a Member State strikes you as objectively righteous?
- ilaksh 1y ago
  I didn't say I thought it was objectively righteous. I didn't say anything about my worldview. It seems objective that many civilians have been killed and a lot of land stolen. But my point is that things that seem objective to one group of people might be objectively false to another group. Which isn't to say that there is no real truth. Just that the premises people hold are so different that the worlds are not compatible.
  - DemiGuru 1y ago
    "...a lot of land stolen" let me just say that your limited understanding is painful.
    - ilaksh 1y ago
      Can you explain? I'm going to ignore your arrogant decision because I am genuinely curious. What is it about Israeli "settlements" that makes it different from stealing land?
      - DemiGuru 1y ago
        Only in a morally inverted world is a nation blamed for keeping land it took while fending off an attack.

silveira 1y ago

Intelligence sometimes manifests as doing the wrong thing in the most convoluted way.

spacebanana7 1y ago
Intelligence also gives people the power to reconcile morality or economic theory with almost any desire. The worst ideas come from the smart people who can persuade themselves and others of inevitable success.

ignoramous 1y ago

> These are seemingly smart people. Engs all think they and their peers are very logical and super smart. They must be because of all the world changing apps/services/monies they make...? I've fallen in to this trap.

pstuart 1y ago
Clarity of words will help: * Intelligence is the computational power one is born with * Stupid/smart is the effective utilization of that intelligence Lots of intelligent people do lots of stupid things (mea culpa)

saubeidl 1y ago

Being good at math or engineering doesn't make you good at empathy, sociology, politics or any number of other functions.

andsoitis 1y ago
And of course this applies to comments in the discussion as well…
Insanity 1y ago
Agreed, however, people with a good education _usually_ learn think intelligently about a variety of problems. By which I mean, they understand how to fact check sources, how to think critically about information presented to them, and how to validate their own assumptions. Edit: removing a sentence that came across as offensive.
- jajko 1y ago
  First part yes, second hell no, why the heck the need to do such baseless attacks. We have plenty of sociopathic a-holes in Europe as well, I'd say more than plenty on all levels of society in all countries.
  - Insanity 1y ago
    I didn’t think it was an “attack”, but merely an observation and a question. But I can see how it can read as an “attack”, I’ll update the comment. Thanks for calling it out!
- throw0101b 1y ago
  > Agreed, however, people with a good education _usually_ learn think intelligently about a variety of problems. Depends on the problem you're trying to solve. Perhaps it's "how can I get more for myself?" versus "how I improve the lives of humanity?".

Workaccount2 1y ago

[flagged]

pstuart 1y ago
I don't think you realize that the Culture War is originating from the Right, and that it's a tar trap for those on the Left. More so, that the whole point of this War is to foster anger and division, so that we squabble amongst ourselves rather than the elite who own us all.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  I don't think that's quite right. I think over the last 10 years a lot of the anti-corporate energy of Occupy Wall Street has been funnelled - by means of the culture war - into "identity" issues that have little potential to harm corporate power or profits. I would argue that this did not originate on the right or left but was the result of a political class that's beholden to endless donations. To me, one really clear example of this is immigration. As recently as 2016, Bernie Sanders was saying that mass immigration is a Koch Brothers strategy for keeping wages low[1]. I think he was right. But the left has been cajoled away from this position over time because it had the potential to harm their corporate donors. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
  - pstuart 1y ago
    > I don't think that's quite right. I think over the last 10 years a lot of the anti-corporate energy of Occupy Wall Street has been funnelled - by means of the culture war - into "identity" issues that have little potential to harm corporate power or profits. I would argue that this did not originate on the right or left but was the result of a political class that's beholden to endless donations. No disrespect, but that makes no sense. This version of the Culture Wars have been with us for decades. Before the Trans Panic™ there was the Gay Panic. Abortion was a non-issue (even for Republicans) until they realized they could rally the troops around dead babies. And racism? That's been part of the very fabric of the US since the beginning. Immigration has been well-documented in how waves of newcomers have been despised until a generation later when they're settled in and they can turn around and hate on the new crop (Irish, German, Italian, etc). Hating newcomers is a veritable tradition. As to the donor class etc, yes, the Democratic Elites are looking after the elites and not the people (shocking!), but it doesn't mean rank and file Democrats are that way (note: I am not a party member). The "both sides are the same" bit has traditionally had a fair amount of truth in that (the elites thing), but now that the GOP is the Party of Trump that can longer be said.

pstuart 1y ago

And you'll find that almost all of those people are deeply religious, and that's not a coincidence. There's a surrender of thought to authoritative power in both cases. I share the same horrible experience of having these last 10 years open my eyes wide to the reality of humanity.

david38 1y ago
This is reactionary, elitist, and false. I know many of “those people” and not a single one of them religious. American leftist insults always go like this - X is bad, but only if it originated from us. The self loathing is amazing. * Religion is bad, but only if it’s Christianity. * Men are bad, unless they’re trans * Gender is a social construct, but race is real * culture is important, unless it’s associated with whites, because they don’t have culture Right wing is a semi balancing act * religion is good, unless Muslim * men aren’t necessarily good or bad. They can be heros or villains * boys naturally fight with sticks, it’s not taught * American culture is just as valid as any other Not exactly a mirror image, but enough team loyalty and justification goes on so people can pat themselves on the back as smart while the other team is delusional
- pstuart 1y ago
  "False" I can entertain, but reactionary? Elitist? Huh? Your list of grievances is like a Fox News handout for viewers to remember what they hate about DemonRats. Your "assumptions": * Religion is bad, but only if it’s Christianity. * Men are bad, unless they’re trans * Gender is a social construct, but race is real * culture is important, unless it’s associated with whites, because they don’t have culture Can be "fixed": * Your Religion is yours, don't make it mine (regardless of which flavored cult) * Men no longer get to be the boss just because they're men * Gender is a personal "choice" * Culture is important (and "white culture" is tempting to make light of in that it's "punching up", and it's kind of Wonder Bread bland). LOL IRL on the right wing balancing act, but I'll agree with the statements except for the blanket "religion is good" (it's conditional), and the Islamophobia (which I love as much as I love christianity). I'm happy for you that you have people to pat you on the back and tell you you're smart -- we all could use a little emotional support. Edit: I only have two Trump supporters in my friend list -- they are both intelligent, kind, and devoutly religious. Obviously I have n=2 personally, but it's a thing to very Christian and very Trumpy. It's an observation, not a judgement.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

They're probably smart, but also assholes. Being kind to others and being smart aren't mutually exclusive.

3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
Being an asshole is one thing. But thinking you can be an asshole by proxy by becoming an asshole's victim, is something else entirely.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  They're not assholes by proxy, they're also assholes. They were before, and they will continue to be after. They're seeking maximum asshole alignment and some recognize that while supporting the primary asshole may be causing them pain, it's lesser than the pain of the people they've always wanted to hurt.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
    Well, we disagree on our asshole classification. To me a true experienced asshole notices when another asshole is about to swindle them. There is some inexplicable tendency for swindlers to get swindled, but that's probably more at the periphery. Not sure if those qualify as assholes. I'll have to think about it.
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      I'm just talking about people who are angry and mean to the point that it's harmful to themselves
      - 3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago
        I see the general phenomenon of those people as an outlet for a set of social defects we have. Keep in mind that "immigrants bad" and so on cultural wars repertoire is always the go-to of populists when they want to point to an easy enemy to rile up the population. It works because it's like short-circuiting. You have the easy to identify superficial traits, and so the current goes straight through, and shorts the system. Except it's social electricity in this case. My point is while we can blame the individual assholes in this, their generation itself is an inevitability in the right toxic environment. These populist explanations seek to address real concerns of people like bad work conditions, inflation and so on, but it invents an easy to digest (and entirely wrong) premise about why their lives are bad. I wish I could say hating the assholes works, but that's just another short-circuiting of social electricity. Polarization, hate, enemies. It all just serves to divide and conquer us. Unity is strength, division is weaknesss.

ReptileMan 1y ago

And it’s wild to think that less than 2/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life don't support this admin. These are seemingly smart people.

3cats-in-a-coat 1y ago

Intelligence is not general. It can be. But rarely is. Most people contextualize their knowledge and skills, they divide to conquer, as generalizing is hard. Especially hard in a fragmented, divided world. Those seemingly smart people are likely all smart. But they have no idea how to take their skills from one area and apply them to another. So they fall for really stupid BS outside their area of specialization.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

I think it’s a symptom of how bad the democrats are. They can’t create a compelling message that people really care about. “I am a little better” just doesn’t cut it anymore

watwut 1y ago
Nothing is ever fault of conservatives and libertarians. No matter what, someone else has to be blamed.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  Complaining about them isn’t going to win elections for the democrats.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Conservatives won the election by complaining about Democrats, often lying about them. By being as insulting and offensive as possible. Elections in republican land are not won by being constructive and letting republicans lie and insult. That is how they were lost. There should be a lot more and a lot louder complaining about conservatives.

jmyeet 1y ago

This is a deep topic but let me try and summarize. The key concept here is "transhumanism" [1]. This is a very popular belief among Silicon Valley CEOs. Followers have deluded themselves into thinking their genes are special and they think about what they can do to ensure this transhuman future. It usually means having as many children as possible a la Elon Musk. Thing is, transhumanism is simply eugenics [2]. It's tech-flavored white supremacy [3]. [1]: https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/silicon-valley-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/silicon-valley-art... [2]: https://www.seenandunseen.com/transhumanism-eugenics-digital-age https://www.seenandunseen.com/transhumanism-eugenics-digital... [3]: https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2023/01/19/transhumanism-is-eugenics-for-educated-white-liberals/ https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2023/01/19/transhumanism-...

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

A couple of things I've realized as I've gotten older: 1. Intelligence does not transfer across domains. E.g. being good at making money doesn't necessarily make you qualified in other areas. And vice versa, as Isaac Newton is famously quoted as saying "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men" after losing a ton of money in the South Sea Bubble. 2. Many (most) people view their identity as a membership in some group, however that is defined. Most people like to pretend to argue about policy, but they're really arguing about their group membership. 3. Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion is incredibly difficult for most people, perhaps even moreso for people who are nominally smart in other domains. Doubly so if it goes against your group membership as pointed out in #2. Regarding "And it’s wild to think that more than 1/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life support this admin" specifically, at least in my experience, many of the devs don't support Trump as much as they chaffed against some of the cultural changes Democrats led (woefully unsuccessfully in my opinion) and so they hooked their wagon to Trump. E.g. this is my personal opinion, but I think "the left" really did go overboard with language policing, recognizing racial group membership above all else when it comes to diversity, labeling any valid discussion of the pros and cons of biological men in women's sports as "transphobic", the utter dishonesty in pretending Biden would be capable for another term and thus denying a real primary, etc. etc. And, to be blunt about it, for a very long time the Democratic party had almost nothing to offer for white men - indeed, in many aspects "old white men" became an acceptable derogatory term amongst the left. How they expected that would win them elections in the US is beyond me. So don't get me wrong, I think Trump is worse in nearly every way, but I think a lot of the dev supporters I've seen of Trump are less full-on MAGA folks than libertarian types who thought Trump would challenge the excesses of the left (and are now having a hard time admitting his full-on fascist behavior).

ajuc 1y ago
Intelligence is just computing power. If you have false beliefs as the basis for your computation you just get wrong results faster. What people mean by intelligent person is often someone who: - has more computing power - spends their time using that computing power - checks their assumptions and biases regularly - over time accumulates more correct beliefs than others If you get lots of computing power but don't do the other things - you get a dumber person than average. Because they accumulate more wrong results than everybody else. This is how you get tech bros - great at math and programming, dumb as a shoe about everything else.

glitchc 1y ago

The online space (Reddit, HN, others) is so deeply embedded with groupthink that people have lost the ability to see other points of view or debate topics of interest. To me it's very clear why the government is leaving UNESCO (and over time the UN at large). The UN is dysfunctional and does not work. It used to be a source of soft power for the States, but hasn't been so for the better part of this century. Meanwhile, the US continues to fund it even though it is currently running a massive deficit. It doesn't make sense to continue throwing good money after bad, especially when funds are scarce. Let other nations pick up the funding slack. Likely they will not and the UN will collapse, as it should. Something new can be built from its ashes. Many people agree with this rather pragmatic view. If you want to have a discussion, debate the points I made above instead of hurling insults and ad hominem attacks.

monero-xmr 1y ago
[flagged]
- ivell 1y ago
  It is also the place where world opinion is shaped. West has majority of veto powers which it used to its advantage. West had also condemned other nations in the same forums in the past.
esseph 1y ago
Why is the US the only country in the world denying Israeli crimes in Gaza? That's how I know the UN no longer matters.
- glitchc 1y ago
  Because the rest of the world denies Palestinian crimes in Israel.
  - pxc 1y ago
    Resistance of occupation, including violent resistance, is not a crime under international law.

_fat_santa 1y ago

I've seen the same thing. What I've seen is most of those folks that supported them during the campaign are now pretty quiet. During the campaign it was "cool" to support Trump and the republicans but now that the dude's in office, most are seeing that campaigns are very different from the administrations. Looking back I blame the Democrats for running horrible candidates and the gaslighting that their candidates were actually great and were as "cool" as the Trump team. It just felt so disingenuous when you heard Democrats saying that Biden was still very with it and even more disingenuous when they said that Harris/Walz were a great pick. And now the folks that said it was disingenuous were not wrong, cause after the campaign ended and Trump was in office seemingly everyone that praised Biden and then Harris then flipped the script and started saying what everyone was thinking all along (that Biden was not fit to serve and Harris wasn't a great candidate). I talked to alot of guys that flipped from D to R this past election and just about every one of them said a version of: "do they think we are stupid??". The Democrats have a hubris problem, they think that just because they run someone and tell folks that the person is great, everyone will just automatically buy into that. That's just not how it works and you have to make a genuinely convincing argument and that argument can't be "the other guys is worse"

addicted 1y ago
The Democrats have a structural problem. The party is defined as being composed of the people who are already elected. So the priority of the Democratic Party ends up reflecting the priorities of those who are already in office, which is to make sure the incumbents get reelected. This means there's very little incentive to expand the electorate (which would mean younger voters, who are likely to vote younger candidates, so that threatens the aging incumbents), or spend resources in expanding the map (because by definition there are no incumbents there whose interests are represented in the party). For as advanced as the US political system is, it's incredibly backwards when it comes to professionalization of the political parties. A good comparison is the BJP in India. Setting aside policy, ideological issues for a moment, what they're really good at is being professional. The head of the party is not elected, and constantly rotates the party representative in each election, keeping their bench deep. They also have a soft age limit. In a way, Donald Trump's greatest contribution to the Republican Party was destroying the incumbency advantage for Republicans. As a result the Republican slate was completely refreshed with younger (although generally worse) candidates, but while it may have made the party significantly worse from a policy/ideology perspective, it has made it politically stronger.

boringg 1y ago

There are so many wide ranging forms of intelligence. Being an exceptional engineer or a high functioning executive/CEO you may have a very narrow slice of intelligence or capability. It does not in any way mean you have an understanding of how the world works or general knowledge. I agree -- it is surprising how many high achieving people have such poor understanding of how the world/society/countries work. It's almost like our education system's specificity hasn't done a good job on civics broadly.

ethbr1 1y ago
It’s prioritizing material wealth above other pursuits. Not only in their own lives, but as the primary measure of success. One side effect of this is that they stop investing effort in things that don’t generate material wealth. Personally, I think that tends to turn people into dicks (non-transaction friendships are valuable to me), but they do them.

spacebanana7 1y ago

Steelman their position. Try finding reasons good people would vote for Trump, or at least sincere mistakes of reasoning that a good person could make.

watwut 1y ago
They were steelmanned for years and that is how theu got powerful. Maybe we should stop to do it and start to interpret their words accurately. Sometime, cruelty is the point and there is only delusion in trying to project "good reasons". It is loosing strategy.
- spacebanana7 1y ago
  To get Trump supporters to vote for you it's important to beat Trump at addressing their concerns. Even a small swing of 5-10% of them could win an election.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Addressing their concerns will do nothing, just as it did nothing in the past. They will hate you for addressing their concerns and blame you for things Trump caused. Each time they were given something, they just got more aggressive and harmful Yes small swings could change election results, but none of them will come from Trump voters. This argument just serves to more politics further to the right. Those people wanted harm, wanted to cause pain and addressing their concerns does not provide any of that.
JTbane 1y ago
I'll give them a steelman: They thought Trump would reduce their taxes (he hasn't, by and large). They thought Trump would cut government waste (he did the opposite). They thought Trump's tough-guy persona would convince foreign countries to fall in line (it hasn't, they have shunned the USA).

dantillberg 1y ago

> These are seemingly smart people. They _are_ smart people. There's more to the differences in perspective than "lib smart, maga stupid".

johndoe90 1y ago
[flagged]
- recursive 1y ago
  I think there's also more to it than that.
- tombert 1y ago
  Most people are idiots. No party has a monopoly on being stupid.
tombert 1y ago
There is more to life but I do have to question the intelligence of anyone who believed that Trump was going to somehow lower grocery prices by implementing tariffs. It almost doesn’t even make grammatical sense to say “raising prices will lower prices”, let alone any kind of rational sense.
mindslight 1y ago
At this point there really isn't. The only political philosophy that meshes with Trumpism is anarcho-capitalism. If Trumpists were generally espousing anarcho-capitalism, I could respect that they were coming from a different fleshed-out perspective and we could debate the merits of it. But they are not! Rather Trumpists appeal to widely varying political ideals, but then when you try to apply a specific one to different actions of the regime it's either just crickets or a Gish gallop. So the straightforward conclusion is there is a glaring lack of any sort of coherent analysis.
nobunaga 1y ago
If your intelligent in your work, but completely retarded when it comes to society , information gathering and independent thinking rather than regurgiate whatever your oranged tanned cheeto says, then no, your not smart. You just have been able to condition your brain to do something over and over again. Intelligence and smartness isnt about doing one thing well.

SirFatty 1y ago

My father passed in 2019, in cleaning up the house I came across a walnut display case with 10 or so real $2 bills with Trumps picture on them, sealed in plastic. I had no idea my Dad had gone down that path, or why... I've been on this earth a long time, and I too realize I don’t know anything about human nature or intellect.

addicted 1y ago

To be fair, a lot of people were fooled by the first term. In the first term Trump hired a lot of retired or retiring generals. They may not have been subject matter experts, but that's fine, since they had subject matter experts within their departments, and they had the ability to organize, lead and execute. But most importantly, most of them had a pretty strong sense of ethics and loyalty to the country and constitution. The generals, and the people they hired, and even the Trump lackeys who were nonetheless being watched by the generals, helped keep Trump's worst impulses in check. In Term 2, on the other hand, Trump has explicitly picked people who are completely unqualified (this is a mafia tactic to ensure the individual's loyalty is entirely to you since they know they would never have got the job they did on merit) and their primary skills lie in right wing TV and Podcasts. So these people prioritize effect and show for their followers, and are loyal to no one but Trump. And they've been selected primarily because they're incapable of doing the jobs they've been hired for well, so it's a stark 180 from the first term.

unsupp0rted 1y ago

> These are seemingly smart people. If someone who seems smart disagrees with me then there's only 1 explanation

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Aurornis 1y ago

It took me a long time to realize that most people don’t make any effort to understand politics beyond surface level headlines. A lot of people treat politics like they behave in the HN comment section: They see the headline, arrive at a conclusion based on previous assumptions, and head straight to the comment section to argue their side without ever even making an effort to read the article. With politics, politicians are experts at crafting headlines and sound bites that feed these people their confirmation bias and tickle the part of the brain that says this person is on your side. I’ve had some success discussing issues with these people calmly and openly, adding facts one at a time until they realize the situation isn’t what they thought. There are a lot of “That can’t be right” lightbulbs going off as the facts start to conflict with their idea of how the world works. This goes for both extremes of the political spectrum, BTW.

cogman10 1y ago
The problem is that politics, particularly in the US, tends to push people into binary thinking. I certainly do not love the Trump admin and think Kamala would easily do better. However, that does not mean the Trump admin has done nothing I agree with. There are nice parts to the OBBB that directly benefit me. Further, I think the approach to H1Bs, removing the lottery and instead basing it on salary, is the right move. I say this because regardless of admin, there's going to be things you like and dislike. What seems to happen is people get completely sucked in a media bubble which only reports the good or bad of their political opponents. Even the worst and most evil world leaders in history did good or had some good policies. There's never been a pure evil or good leader. Unfortunately, people want to flatten the world and remove the nuance "if so and so did it, it must be good/bad".
- eldaisfish 1y ago
  a more appropriate way of looking at this would be incentives. Who, in the government, stands to benefit from revising the H1B system? Even if you agree with the action, you may not not agree with the motivation. Your line of thinking is like saying that the British Raj was terrible for India, but the British built railways, which was a good thing. Good and bad do not exist in isolation. The British built railways in india so they could more effectively extract wealth, not out of the benevolence of their hearts. It is much the same with the US government.

bushbaba 1y ago

Maybe take a few minutes to talk to the other side to better understand their thoughts and why they have such thoughts. Sadly I’ve noticed understanding and tolerance of diverse perspectives went out the window lately.

atoav 1y ago
I do and did. In my youth one of my best friends slowly became a neo nazi, with lines like: "foreigners should be herded together and exterminated". After one particular discussion he conceeded: "I know you're factually correct, but I don't care, because this is what I want". And this is the point were further discussion was useless.
Tadpole9181 1y ago
[flagged]
fn-mote 1y ago
To be clear, sadly, “lately” covers a longer time than the current administration.

ruffrey 1y ago

I've been toying with the following attempt to explain all this: - Information bubbles (this is the top issue, and it's really incredibly persuasive) - Geographic location and social environment - Lack of time to deeply evaluate truth vs noise and consider multiple sides of an issue - Conviction of values - how much does a person believe their values are tied to the political view (leads to subtly drawing emotional conclusions and implicitly trusting a political party) - Belief that due to one's own intelligence, one is not subject to propaganda (a clearly false belief that many smart people fall into) Deep emotional awareness is not as strongly related to intelligence as people think.

dayvid 1y ago

Smart people in a bubble will confidently apply their intellect to things they have no first-hand experience with

mk89 1y ago

Do they support some policies or everything that this administration proposes? In my experience I have seldom seen people who believe 100% in whatever party/government does. Most of the time it's a few topics that matter - be it immigration, or less taxes, or whatever. However, they are not gonna protest for leaving UNESCO. They might find it stupid, but probably they find topic XYZ more important. So they suck it up and move on. Then there are the believers - everything the administration does is great. But I like to believe and think they are a minority.

rapind 1y ago
> But I like to believe and think they are a minority. There's a lot of MAGA hats out there man. Historically, has it ever been a good thing when so many people believe everything one man says is pure truth? I mean, even if I agreed with every policy, the extent and dedication of this cultish behaviour would give me pause.
- mk89 1y ago
  The nice thing about democracy and politics in general is that everyone can have an opinion and a way to see something. Many MAGA hats don't all mean the same. I doubt all of his supporters like the tariffs, or how he is dealing with Russia, or Israel, or, or or... However, I believe that some of the core policies (hard on immigration, etc) somehow find a common agreement. And even in those core policies, some might like different approaches. And yet in total they do feel they support this administration. The issue is when people let all happen because one of the core problems must be solved at all costs. Meaning the administration solves that one core problem you really wanted fixed, but the price to pay is equally bad, and yet you just look down and let it all happen, because it's convenient and doesn't affect you in the short term. In my opinion, this has become more and more common with whichever party we elect, except some are more vocal about it than others.
  - rapind 1y ago
    My only point, without discussing policy at all, is that it's a cult of personality, with all that entails (not good). I think a failure to recognize this as either naive or intentional.

wnevets 1y ago

> These are seemingly smart people. The past 10 years or so made me realize I don’t know anything about human nature or intellect. just remember, there is nothing more easy to manipulate than an insecure male.

alpineman 1y ago

There is just a shocking lack of empathy in the world today. Selfishness is off the scale. I personally blame social media and the financialization of everything for this. A person's entire self-worth can be reduced to the size of their 401K and their instagram reels (brunch, dog, destination wedding, hike, repeat). Depressing.

redleader55 1y ago

I think(lol) that assuming the other side stupid is one of the big failures of current political environment. Honestly, I'm baffled that is "ok" to say something like "the other side is stupid" without being called out harshly for it. Using weasel words expressions like "seemingly smart people" doesn't make it better, it makes it worse.

verall 1y ago
Do you mean it's a political failure as in it leads to electoral losses or it's a moral failure as in it shouldn't be "ok"?
crote 1y ago
In theory I'd love to agree with you. In practice we are way past that. I'm totally fine debating whether the sky is blue with someone claiming it's gray because it is usually overcast. I'm happy to entertain the motion that the sky could be bronze - with a reference to ancient Greece and pretty sunsets. At the end of the day we can just agree to disagree and move on. But I'm not going to debate whether the sky is blue with someone yelling that the sky MUST be green because obviously clouds are green. They have moved so far from the truth that they are either arguing in bad faith or just plain delusional. Neither case is worth even the slightest snippet of my time: I'd have a better chance of success trying to explain my viewpoint to a tree. It isn't politics anymore, it has turned into religion or sports.
- redleader55 1y ago
  Sure, but you forget something. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone you consider inferior to you and they know it(eg. "Trump supporters are morons"). This makes them vote with the person who is willing to have that discussion. That lost the democrats the previous election and has all the chances to happen again in 3 years. I'm not American, and while I do follow US politics, I see the signs closer to home in Europe, where all the "idiots" are voting with worrying candidates for the same reason - the "nice" parties are ignoring them and calling them idiots, subhumans, TikTok drones, etc.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

CrackerNews 1y ago

There are several reasons. First, developers are threatened by foreign competition and that third feels that Trump would protect them. Second, this presidency represents a change from previous DEI policies and that third may benefit from it. Third, they feel previous administrations were too soft on crime around their neighborhoods, and their tolerance for permissiveness ran out. They want action done to benefit them at any cost.

throwawaygmbno 1y ago

I'm a black developer and have never had another developer tell me about their support for Trump. The past 10 years have made it plainly obvious why. It has also made me realize how difficult life was for my parents and grandparents, who were all born before the civil rights act. The civil rights act passed when Trump was in college so he and the other elderly members of the other branches also saw the lead up to it. Every action I see is to prevent anything like that again. Or to personally enrich themselves.

primitivesuave 1y ago

If you are searching for some insight into human nature and intellect, you may find the history of the Roman Republic (and it's transition to an empire) to have shocking parallels to modern-day events. Trump is remarkably similar to Sulla, who showed the next generation of leaders how to break the rules to gain power. Caesar is coming...

isolli 1y ago

What is wild to me is that all the replies I read are written as if everyone on this forum obviously agreed and those who don't are "others" not worth thinking about. I'm not a US citizen and did not have to make a choice, but I could see plenty of reasons not to vote for the Democratic candidate: the establishment had tried to run a candidate that was obviously unfit for office and parachuted a replacement at the last minute; the Democratic response to covid was atrocious (yes, the irony of Trump capturing that slice of the vote does not escape me); the issue of males (transwomen) in female sports and prisons... Whether those reasons outweighed the obvious (to me) negatives is everyone's choice to make when casting their vote... but the inability to understand the other side (and brag about it) seems odd for all the smart people here.

landl0rd 1y ago

The CCP has been lobbying the World Heritage Evaluation Committee for a long time now to increase its number of sites. This directly promote’s china’s false narrative of “5,000 years continuous civilization” with attached mythos (despite much of the early evidence coming from the mythical Shiji, china simply blackmails academics into silence with source access and mainland collaboration to maintain a monopoly on her historical narrative) and this idea of a “glorious past”, which is also critical for maintaining her “reunification” narrative and justifying current or future control of Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong… this extends to baseless and historical claims like state propaganda claiming the Yuan founded beijing to support this totalizing metanarrative “grand arc” type story the chicoms attempt to construct. Meanwhile 28 of the 196 state parties to the world heritage convention have no sites listed at all. Of course, Taiwan has no sites at all. It’s well known that many of the UN bodies and similar international orgs have been wholly captured by china or her new axis of evil. Ghebreyesus, for example, has been china’s man from the get-go. American dollars should not go to support a grand red chinese narrative. UNESCO has, in recent years: - published an “anti-racism toolkit” - campaigned to “#ChangeMENtalities”, to “reshape masculinities for gender equality” - published “comprehensive sexuality education” that is strongly at odds with many Americans views on how such things ought to be taught - published ai ethics recommendations that focus on issues like “gender” and “climate” - run partnerships to “get every learner climate-ready” In other words, it’s operating out of its original scope, doing things that are clearly and massively one-sided. I recognize the NGO-industrial complex, along with much of mass media and culture, has been so wholly captured by the left for long enough that y’all can see a change back to the status quo as disruptive or odd. But the other half of the Overton window does still exist. A lot of what the current administration has done is stupid or wrong, but my tax dollars being sent to this organization would also be stupid and wrong.

zipy124 1y ago
These are literally within its remit. It's the "Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation". All of these issues are educational, scientific or cultural. And even so comparing research around gender with the indisputable fact of climate change is a rather twisted way of reasoning.

shadowgovt 1y ago

It is a common categorical error to assume that people good at math or complex electromechanical systems must also be good at ethics, morality, or philosophy. We see a bodybuilder good at lifting things, or a bricklayer good at building houses, and we don't assume they also have an opinion on nicomachean ethics that should be entertained. Similar, usually, with entertainers. But we sometimes assume that someone really good at structuring database queries for optimal retrieval efficiency must respect the separation of labor from capital value or the challenges of providing for the needs of eight billion people because they are people. I have to assume it's because we think that if you're good at one "labor of the mind" you must be good at the others (and, probably, because too few of us also have nearly enough respect for how much thought goes into making a wall that won't fall down).