4 ms·

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforc

by md224 13y ago

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself. You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where any threat can be transformed into reinforcement.

StavrosK 13y ago
Very true. You can't use the fact that someone has something bad to say about you to actually improve your perceived value. It's strictly[1] more probable that you're worse if there is criticism than if there isn't. [1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.
- contextual 13y ago
  Many HN readers like to rationalize-away inconvenient truths as if it were a game. When I see that kind of weaksauce response, I'm on the right track.
- pasquinelli 13y ago
  how is it strictly more probable? a person's value and the criticism they receive are independent things. and i don't see any reason to think that for every valid criticism there isn't a corresponding invalid criticism. why should it be that the person being criticized is more likely to be wrong than the critic?
- endtime 13y ago
  I think the related but slightly more general claim is that you cannot update your beliefs in the same direction for both of two exhaustive and exclusive outcomes. In this case, if people disagreeing with you reinforces your beliefs, then it should be the case that everyone agreeing with you makes you question those beliefs. (This might be reasonable if you are e.g. in a mental asylum.)
2muchcoffeeman 13y ago
Not really. Smart people are just as susceptible to logical fallacies as average people. Perhaps more so since they can 'reason out' the fallacies they make. I find I need to constantly double check myself to see I'm not missing something. But this is not a new phenomenon.
- d3gamer 13y ago
  heh, humblebrag much? :P
enraged_camel 13y ago
It's a form of self-delusion whereby you start from a place of supreme self-assurance and the existence of critics only serves to further your confidence. I mean, make no mistake: the parent not only has no idea what he's talking about, his thinking also suffers from multiple logical fallacies. Let's go through a few of them. 1. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Sure. Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? I told one of my coworkers that I ordered a week's worth, and guess what: she asked me if she could try it with me. 2. Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating. No, eating "real food" (whatever that means) persisted throughout human history because we did not have any alternatives. It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal, or should be accepted as such.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? Well, no one. But, you know, if you're kind of in a "I want the convenience of eating my food from a pre-mixed sack" mode, it's not illogical that you may be less social with your mealtimes. "Hey, bring your sack over to my place and we'll gulp them down in 5 minutes together!" >It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal I am trying to think of something that "kinda just happens" 100% of the time with no effort, but that's not normal. Isn't that the definition of normal?
jamesaguilar 13y ago
Yes, it is totally inaccurate. It is like the people who performed witch hunts: "If she doesn't admit to being a witch, she must be lying. If she admits to being a witch, then obviously she is because why would anyone admit to that?" If either outcome of a test -- criticism, ~criticsm -- increases your prior belief estimate, you need to have another look at Bayes' theorem.
nitrogen 13y ago
Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? I vote that we colloquially dub this the "fight makes right" fallacy. And yes, I find it more than vaguely troubling.

by md224 13y ago

StavrosK 13y ago

Very true. You can't use the fact that someone has something bad to say about you to actually improve your perceived value. It's strictly[1] more probable that you're worse if there is criticism than if there isn't. [1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.

contextual 13y ago
Many HN readers like to rationalize-away inconvenient truths as if it were a game. When I see that kind of weaksauce response, I'm on the right track.
pasquinelli 13y ago
how is it strictly more probable? a person's value and the criticism they receive are independent things. and i don't see any reason to think that for every valid criticism there isn't a corresponding invalid criticism. why should it be that the person being criticized is more likely to be wrong than the critic?
endtime 13y ago
I think the related but slightly more general claim is that you cannot update your beliefs in the same direction for both of two exhaustive and exclusive outcomes. In this case, if people disagreeing with you reinforces your beliefs, then it should be the case that everyone agreeing with you makes you question those beliefs. (This might be reasonable if you are e.g. in a mental asylum.)

2muchcoffeeman 13y ago

Not really. Smart people are just as susceptible to logical fallacies as average people. Perhaps more so since they can 'reason out' the fallacies they make. I find I need to constantly double check myself to see I'm not missing something. But this is not a new phenomenon.

d3gamer 13y ago
heh, humblebrag much? :P

enraged_camel 13y ago

It's a form of self-delusion whereby you start from a place of supreme self-assurance and the existence of critics only serves to further your confidence. I mean, make no mistake: the parent not only has no idea what he's talking about, his thinking also suffers from multiple logical fallacies. Let's go through a few of them. 1. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Sure. Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? I told one of my coworkers that I ordered a week's worth, and guess what: she asked me if she could try it with me. 2. Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating. No, eating "real food" (whatever that means) persisted throughout human history because we did not have any alternatives. It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal, or should be accepted as such.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? Well, no one. But, you know, if you're kind of in a "I want the convenience of eating my food from a pre-mixed sack" mode, it's not illogical that you may be less social with your mealtimes. "Hey, bring your sack over to my place and we'll gulp them down in 5 minutes together!" >It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal I am trying to think of something that "kinda just happens" 100% of the time with no effort, but that's not normal. Isn't that the definition of normal?

jamesaguilar 13y ago

Yes, it is totally inaccurate. It is like the people who performed witch hunts: "If she doesn't admit to being a witch, she must be lying. If she admits to being a witch, then obviously she is because why would anyone admit to that?" If either outcome of a test -- criticism, ~criticsm -- increases your prior belief estimate, you need to have another look at Bayes' theorem.

nitrogen 13y ago

Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? I vote that we colloquially dub this the "fight makes right" fallacy. And yes, I find it more than vaguely troubling.