4 ms·

> But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with

> But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons. The idea that being articulate implies intelligence and/or sanity is very common, but really a bit weird. You can find plenty of articulate defences of, say, flat earth theory.

lazide 1y ago
However, there are fewer articulate (and internally consistent) defenses of flat earth theory, than say… particle physics. In my experience. Plenty of timecube style ones, however.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  That's true, but if you want one, you can find one. If you've conditioned yourself to think that articulate==credible, then sometimes it only takes one.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Yes, and this is not just due to the intelligence of the "believers" but due to the fact that describing 2=2=2 in a self-consistent way only takes understanding it while describing 2=2=3 in a way that appears self-consistent requires a true rhetorical genius.
corpMaverick 1y ago
Not all the flat earthers are true believers. Some are there just for the attention or other motives.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dylan604 1y ago
Even with the number of articulate examples like this are far out numbered by the number of inarticulate arguments that the rule still has merit. Exceptions do not make the rule bad.
- Kye 1y ago
  A good rule can be a bad heuristic. In my experience this one misleads more often than it informs.
y0eswddl 1y ago
Ezra Klein's book why we're polarized cover this a bit and basically studies show that intelligence level has little to do with what people believe and more so just affects their ability to defend whichever position they already hold.
- hexator 1y ago
  Speaking of people who are very articulate and also very wrong.
  - y0eswddl 1y ago
    in general, maybe - In not a fan of how sycophantic he's gotten... but this was just the citing of outside studies, not his personal opinion.
- mikepurvis 1y ago
  Indeed, and an articulate, confident defense can also be that much more insidious. I never found it hard to ignore obviously bad-faith talking heads on cable news, but when someone is on a podcast conversation with a host I like, it's much easier to nod along until that moment where they say something demonstrably false and I have to rewind my brain a minute or two to be like... wait a sec, what? How did you get to that position?
  - vacuity 1y ago
    And in a classic stroke of Gell-Mann amnesia, if you're questioning what you just heard, how much should you trust what you were hearing five minutes ago?
  - jkmcf 1y ago
    They were called Sophists in Ancient Greece and were despised by Socrates because their arguments were based, not on truth or facts, but whatever rhetoric would convince the audience.
    - 1y ago
potato3732842 1y ago
>The idea that being articulate implies intelligence and/or sanity is very common, but really a bit weird. You can find plenty of articulate defences of, say, flat earth theory. The author has to say this because the consumers of the author's content would stop being right if the author was constantly dropping truth bombs like "being articulate doesn't make you right" they wouldn't get liked, retweeted, shared, and circle jerked about in the comment section on the front page of HN. Literally every content creating person or company with an established fan base is in this quandary. If Alex Jones said "hey guys the government is right about this one" or Regular Car Reviews said "this Toyota product is not the second coming of christ" they'd hemorrhage viewers and money so they cant say those things no matter how much they personally want to. Someone peddling platitudes to people who fancy themselves intellectuals can't stop any more than a guy who's family business is concrete plants can't just decide one day to do roofing.
- beepbooptheory 1y ago
  Alex Jones literally did this though starting around 2016. This is a strong argument probably but strangely aimed here. Reading the article, it does seem like you and the author agree about everything in this regard? You are kind of just rearticulating one part of their argument as critique about them. Why? Or where do we place the reflex here? What triggered: this author is BS, is pseudointellectual, is bad. We jump here from a small note about articulation and intelligence, to what seems like this massive opportunity to attack not only that argument, but the author, the readers, everyone. Why? Does the particular point here feel like a massive structural weakness? What was the trigger here for you, for lack of better word? Why such a strong feeling?
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Not every internet comment is a disagreement with what it's replying to. The entire "media intended for voluntary casual consumption" industry is rife with these sorts of "gotta keep doing what you're known for" traps. Pretty much every industry with minimal product differentiation is like this to varying extents. Sorry my examples weren't completely devoid of exceptions <eyeroll>. Anyway, two can play this stupid game. Why is it such a problem that I'm alleging this content is basically scratching the same itch in the same way as tabloids but for different demographics? Why do you feel the need to make this out to be an attack on everyone rather than a narrowly targeted "the world do be the way it is" criticism?
thisisbrians 1y ago
Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.
- spencerflem 1y ago
  For example, the author is articulate and wrong about needing to give consideration to republicans :p
- atmavatar 1y ago
  The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author. I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author. The original claim was: > But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons. In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue. Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.
  - LorenPechtel 1y ago
    I think he's using the wrong word here. "Articulate" isn't enough. What you need to do is compare the arguments from both sides about the subject, especially how they address specific things. Who is using facts, who is using emotions? How do claims stand up to time?
morellt 1y ago
Absolutely agree. Many, many abhorrent ideas and perspectives are accepted very often due to them being deliberately well thought-out and appearing more "academic" sounding to the layperson. There are entire organizations (colloquially, "think-tanks") dedicated to writing pamphlets, books, and memos filled with eloquent in-depth talking points that get distributed to their respective talking heads. I can't blame many people today for seeing this problem as the foundation of all mainstream media, instead of taking the time to individually investigate each source of information. However it does lead to this "everything is the opposite of what we're told" hysteria the author talks about
astura 1y ago
Yeah, that really stood out to me, I feel certain positions are monstrous no matter how articulately stated. Saying something really mean in a more palatable way doesn't make it (or the speaker) less mean. This seems like a cognitive bias on the author that they are mistaken for universal truth.

lazide 1y ago

However, there are fewer articulate (and internally consistent) defenses of flat earth theory, than say… particle physics. In my experience. Plenty of timecube style ones, however.

rsynnott 1y ago
That's true, but if you want one, you can find one. If you've conditioned yourself to think that articulate==credible, then sometimes it only takes one.
whatshisface 1y ago
Yes, and this is not just due to the intelligence of the "believers" but due to the fact that describing 2=2=2 in a self-consistent way only takes understanding it while describing 2=2=3 in a way that appears self-consistent requires a true rhetorical genius.

corpMaverick 1y ago

Not all the flat earthers are true believers. Some are there just for the attention or other motives.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dylan604 1y ago

Even with the number of articulate examples like this are far out numbered by the number of inarticulate arguments that the rule still has merit. Exceptions do not make the rule bad.

Kye 1y ago
A good rule can be a bad heuristic. In my experience this one misleads more often than it informs.

y0eswddl 1y ago

Ezra Klein's book why we're polarized cover this a bit and basically studies show that intelligence level has little to do with what people believe and more so just affects their ability to defend whichever position they already hold.

hexator 1y ago
Speaking of people who are very articulate and also very wrong.
- y0eswddl 1y ago
  in general, maybe - In not a fan of how sycophantic he's gotten... but this was just the citing of outside studies, not his personal opinion.
mikepurvis 1y ago
Indeed, and an articulate, confident defense can also be that much more insidious. I never found it hard to ignore obviously bad-faith talking heads on cable news, but when someone is on a podcast conversation with a host I like, it's much easier to nod along until that moment where they say something demonstrably false and I have to rewind my brain a minute or two to be like... wait a sec, what? How did you get to that position?
- vacuity 1y ago
  And in a classic stroke of Gell-Mann amnesia, if you're questioning what you just heard, how much should you trust what you were hearing five minutes ago?
- jkmcf 1y ago
  They were called Sophists in Ancient Greece and were despised by Socrates because their arguments were based, not on truth or facts, but whatever rhetoric would convince the audience.
  - 1y ago

potato3732842 1y ago

>The idea that being articulate implies intelligence and/or sanity is very common, but really a bit weird. You can find plenty of articulate defences of, say, flat earth theory. The author has to say this because the consumers of the author's content would stop being right if the author was constantly dropping truth bombs like "being articulate doesn't make you right" they wouldn't get liked, retweeted, shared, and circle jerked about in the comment section on the front page of HN. Literally every content creating person or company with an established fan base is in this quandary. If Alex Jones said "hey guys the government is right about this one" or Regular Car Reviews said "this Toyota product is not the second coming of christ" they'd hemorrhage viewers and money so they cant say those things no matter how much they personally want to. Someone peddling platitudes to people who fancy themselves intellectuals can't stop any more than a guy who's family business is concrete plants can't just decide one day to do roofing.

beepbooptheory 1y ago
Alex Jones literally did this though starting around 2016. This is a strong argument probably but strangely aimed here. Reading the article, it does seem like you and the author agree about everything in this regard? You are kind of just rearticulating one part of their argument as critique about them. Why? Or where do we place the reflex here? What triggered: this author is BS, is pseudointellectual, is bad. We jump here from a small note about articulation and intelligence, to what seems like this massive opportunity to attack not only that argument, but the author, the readers, everyone. Why? Does the particular point here feel like a massive structural weakness? What was the trigger here for you, for lack of better word? Why such a strong feeling?
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Not every internet comment is a disagreement with what it's replying to. The entire "media intended for voluntary casual consumption" industry is rife with these sorts of "gotta keep doing what you're known for" traps. Pretty much every industry with minimal product differentiation is like this to varying extents. Sorry my examples weren't completely devoid of exceptions <eyeroll>. Anyway, two can play this stupid game. Why is it such a problem that I'm alleging this content is basically scratching the same itch in the same way as tabloids but for different demographics? Why do you feel the need to make this out to be an attack on everyone rather than a narrowly targeted "the world do be the way it is" criticism?

thisisbrians 1y ago

Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.

spencerflem 1y ago
For example, the author is articulate and wrong about needing to give consideration to republicans :p
atmavatar 1y ago
The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author. I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author. The original claim was: > But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons. In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue. Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.
- LorenPechtel 1y ago
  I think he's using the wrong word here. "Articulate" isn't enough. What you need to do is compare the arguments from both sides about the subject, especially how they address specific things. Who is using facts, who is using emotions? How do claims stand up to time?

morellt 1y ago

Absolutely agree. Many, many abhorrent ideas and perspectives are accepted very often due to them being deliberately well thought-out and appearing more "academic" sounding to the layperson. There are entire organizations (colloquially, "think-tanks") dedicated to writing pamphlets, books, and memos filled with eloquent in-depth talking points that get distributed to their respective talking heads. I can't blame many people today for seeing this problem as the foundation of all mainstream media, instead of taking the time to individually investigate each source of information. However it does lead to this "everything is the opposite of what we're told" hysteria the author talks about

astura 1y ago

Yeah, that really stood out to me, I feel certain positions are monstrous no matter how articulately stated. Saying something really mean in a more palatable way doesn't make it (or the speaker) less mean. This seems like a cognitive bias on the author that they are mistaken for universal truth.