7 ms·

I'm interested in reading opposing views, but not stupid ones. If there's a large inferential gap, it often takes me a while to tell the difference. Does this

by dspeyer 13y ago

I'm interested in reading opposing views, but not stupid ones. If there's a large inferential gap, it often takes me a while to tell the difference. Does this software have a way to distinguish?

jeremyjh 13y ago
Did you read the article? No, software cannot tell you which views are "stupid". However, this approach finds people who are similar to or share common ground with you apart from some particular view - which would still act as a filter.
- mcguire 13y ago
  In other words, if the recommendations are based on similarities in your interests outside the disagreement then you may be less likely to find them "stupid".
dublinben 13y ago
It's easier to find non-stupid views that you disagree with if you don't look online. Weekly political magazines represent every corner of the political spectrum, and are much better written than any random blog. You can also read books by the intellectual giants that you disagree with, to witness the original arguments, not their passed-down derivatives.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It's worth noting that "passed-down derivatives" can be worse or better than the original. Most-to-all of these positions were developed by serious thinkers but weren't handed down from a source of Truth on high.
Houshalter 13y ago
I'd be interested, maybe, in seeing opposing political views or different opinions on economics, or something like that. Because I'm interested in those things and because I'm not very certain that my current beliefs are correct, when I even have a belief. Just today a friend introduced me to a good documentary that partially changed my view of nuclear power and I learned a lot. However I wouldn't want to get stuck with something that is a complete waste of time, like creationism, or religion, or abortion, or something along those lines. Or something that just doesn't interest me, like, say, climate change or conspiracy theories.
- joshuacc 13y ago
  Personally, I have found that even in those areas where I find the intellectual position X to be a complete waste of time, it is still well worth my time to engage empathetically with people who strongly believe X. I am unlikely to have my mind changed, but I am more likely to understand my fellow human beings better than if I just dismiss all people who believe X.
dredmorbius 13y ago
So much this. I found myself in a number of discussions on G+ with 1) Libertardians and 2) climate denialists (among a few others). What I came to realize in the case of both after a time was that both tended to exhibit very similar patterns of iterating through various logical fallacies and/or mythical arguments. Your Logical Fallacy Is (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com) is one of many decent collections of common fallacies (tu quoque turns out to be one of the more common as it happens). Another is reiteration of tired old arguments. Every so often I'd run into someone who actually had intelligent objections or arguments to positions (generally not on either of the topics above, I eventually used them simply as weeders for people not worth wasting my time on -- which I suppose is yet another filter). In particular there's the problem of what I'm coming to call "lies of distraction" -- various forms of argument and/or presentation which serve little purpose other than to divert your time and energy from stuff that matters. And yes, HN can fall into that category at times.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  Calling your opponents names like "Libertardians" makes it hard to take you seriously.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Having looked extensively into the tenets, roots, and motivations of Libertarianism, it's a pretty solid, if sad, conclusion of mine. I've yet to find anyone who can effectively explain it defend their stance. The roots in highly discredited laissez faire beliefs, social Darwinism, fascism,racism, and industrialist interventions, to say nothing of the utter rediculousness of Von Mises' Praxeology, the vast disinformation apparatus, and intentional misrepresentation of the foundations of economics only ice the cake.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      The parent wasn't disagreeing with any factual claim you were making, but to puerile name-calling. Unless there is a serious "Libertardian" tradition of thought that I've missed, your response here doesn't address that - you can call someone wrong without calling them names.

by dspeyer 13y ago

I'm interested in reading opposing views, but not stupid ones. If there's a large inferential gap, it often takes me a while to tell the difference. Does this software have a way to distinguish?

jeremyjh 13y ago

Did you read the article? No, software cannot tell you which views are "stupid". However, this approach finds people who are similar to or share common ground with you apart from some particular view - which would still act as a filter.

mcguire 13y ago
In other words, if the recommendations are based on similarities in your interests outside the disagreement then you may be less likely to find them "stupid".

dublinben 13y ago

It's easier to find non-stupid views that you disagree with if you don't look online. Weekly political magazines represent every corner of the political spectrum, and are much better written than any random blog. You can also read books by the intellectual giants that you disagree with, to witness the original arguments, not their passed-down derivatives.

dllthomas 13y ago
It's worth noting that "passed-down derivatives" can be worse or better than the original. Most-to-all of these positions were developed by serious thinkers but weren't handed down from a source of Truth on high.

Houshalter 13y ago

I'd be interested, maybe, in seeing opposing political views or different opinions on economics, or something like that. Because I'm interested in those things and because I'm not very certain that my current beliefs are correct, when I even have a belief. Just today a friend introduced me to a good documentary that partially changed my view of nuclear power and I learned a lot. However I wouldn't want to get stuck with something that is a complete waste of time, like creationism, or religion, or abortion, or something along those lines. Or something that just doesn't interest me, like, say, climate change or conspiracy theories.

joshuacc 13y ago
Personally, I have found that even in those areas where I find the intellectual position X to be a complete waste of time, it is still well worth my time to engage empathetically with people who strongly believe X. I am unlikely to have my mind changed, but I am more likely to understand my fellow human beings better than if I just dismiss all people who believe X.

dredmorbius 13y ago

So much this. I found myself in a number of discussions on G+ with 1) Libertardians and 2) climate denialists (among a few others). What I came to realize in the case of both after a time was that both tended to exhibit very similar patterns of iterating through various logical fallacies and/or mythical arguments. Your Logical Fallacy Is (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com) is one of many decent collections of common fallacies (tu quoque turns out to be one of the more common as it happens). Another is reiteration of tired old arguments. Every so often I'd run into someone who actually had intelligent objections or arguments to positions (generally not on either of the topics above, I eventually used them simply as weeders for people not worth wasting my time on -- which I suppose is yet another filter). In particular there's the problem of what I'm coming to call "lies of distraction" -- various forms of argument and/or presentation which serve little purpose other than to divert your time and energy from stuff that matters. And yes, HN can fall into that category at times.

ahomescu1 13y ago
Calling your opponents names like "Libertardians" makes it hard to take you seriously.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Having looked extensively into the tenets, roots, and motivations of Libertarianism, it's a pretty solid, if sad, conclusion of mine. I've yet to find anyone who can effectively explain it defend their stance. The roots in highly discredited laissez faire beliefs, social Darwinism, fascism,racism, and industrialist interventions, to say nothing of the utter rediculousness of Von Mises' Praxeology, the vast disinformation apparatus, and intentional misrepresentation of the foundations of economics only ice the cake.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    The parent wasn't disagreeing with any factual claim you were making, but to puerile name-calling. Unless there is a serious "Libertardian" tradition of thought that I've missed, your response here doesn't address that - you can call someone wrong without calling them names.