8 ms·

You type so much and say nothing at all.

wpietri 12y ago
I'm open to constructive criticism, but I'm not seeing much here. Would you care to try again? I think I said some very specific things.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Constructive criticism: The content of ideas is infinitely more important than the identity of the person speaking the ideas. To deny this is to deny basic rationality, and is infinitely more harmful on a longer time scale. That you come in arguing is likely part of the problem. There is no such thing as an idea that is above criticism. The problem here, the one highlighted by the article, is that the radicals being complained about disagree with both of these concepts - things which are the cornerstone of an open dialogue, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society. With that in mind, how can you simultaneously hold the dissonant beliefs that rationality is important, and that one of its primary tenets should be ignored?
  - innguest 12y ago
    Finally someone says what needs to be said. This is all. Either you understand arguments stand for themselves, or you are a relativist that thinks arguments vary in validity depending on whose mouth they're coming from. If I find out someone is a relativist I never discuss anything with them ever again. Those people are sophists without knowing - they just think "if I talk a lot I must be having a debate!". They have much reading in front of them, which they usually don't get to ever do. Those are the people that had rather die than think. I ignore them but I make sure they know it's because they are a relativist. If we all ostracized relativists we would be able to better tell the extremists from those that have something to say.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    Excellent. This is the crux of the question. Ideas have to be evaluated on their content, not according to the identity of the authors, otherwise civilized discourse is shut down.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      As I've done elsewhere, let me use the example of interracial marriage, an idea whose evaluation has changed over time: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh... Note that the content of the idea hasn't changed, but the evaluation has. Look in particular at the second graph, where black people came to the now-correct answer long before white people. Black people on average had it right 25 years before white people. So it would seem to me that on topics of race, identity of speaker can be helpful in evaluating views.
      - atlantic 12y ago
        I don't follow your argument. Take something like Newton's theory of motion. It stands or falls on its mathematical and experimental foundations. It doesn't matter if Newton belonged to the gentry, if he treated his servants badly or if he beat his wife. That's not pertinent to the truth of the theory. If the logic sound? Are the experiments reproducible? That's the only part that matters. As for the example you've given - a Gallup poll - there is no right or wrong answer to a poll. Nobody ever "got it right". If people are simply expressing an opinion, there isn't any right or wrong answer. Opinions are what they are, and they change over time.
        wpietri 12y ago
        I think your division of things discussed into "true facts" and "opinion" is not particularly subtle, but let's run with it. Most of what is discussed falls into the latter category, opinion. That includes things very relevant to people's lives, like who enjoys equal protection under the law. Approaching a conversation about a topic of social justice as if it's as simple, clear, and verifiable as Newtonian mechanics is the wrong approach. XKCD lampooned that here: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/ I'd add that even science isn't as clear as you make it out to be. Newtonian mechanics weren't really true; they were just an approximation adequate to the time. As Box writes, "all models are wrong, but some are useful." It took us a few hundred years to understand their limits. Out that struggle came quantum mechanics and relativity. Of that transition, Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." So as much as we'd like to pretend that science proceeds differently, it is also a social process. Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is the standard place to start reading about that, but there's now a large body of literature on the anthropology of science.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    You have claimed that's a primary tenet of rationality, but you haven't demonstrated that. Why? Because most discussion happens in shorthand. You don't have a comprehensive theory of the nature and uses of discourse. You have a cobbled-together collection of experiences and values and notions, just like the rest of us. Unfortunately, because of your personal experience, you know some things more than others. That's just the nature of the beast. Identity informs understanding; understanding shapes identity. Because I spend every day dealing with computers I have a better understanding of computers than people who don't. Because I don't spend every day dealing with racism, I have a poorer understanding of racism than people who do. > There is no such thing as an idea that is above criticism. Sure. And in the privacy of your own home, you can criticize any idea you want. But when you are talking to other people, you have no right to be heard. Freedom of speech is important, but it does not trump freedom of association.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > Identity informs understanding; understanding shapes identity. That doesn't imply the non-existence of objective reality. A fact is a fact regardless of the identity of the speaker. > Because I don't spend every day dealing with racism, I have a poorer understanding of racism than people who do. It is possible for a PhD to learn something from an undergrad. Moreover, it isn't strictly less understanding anyway, it's a different perspective. Which is all the more reason why people should try to hear each other. > But when you are talking to other people, you have no right to be heard. Freedom of speech is important, but it does not trump freedom of association. Not listening to someone (i.e. ignoring them) is not the same thing as attacking them because they said something you don't want to hear.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        > That doesn't imply the non-existence of objective reality. A fact is a fact regardless of the identity of the speaker. Sure. And facts are extremely hard things to find. With all the money we spend on science, we have a relatively small number of them. What individuals have is mainly opinions about facts. That's why discussions seeking truth are such hard and subtle work. It's also why facts are frequently irrelevant to people's behaviors in this realm. See, for example, this graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-... It isn't a graph of people coming to reasoned understanding on a topic. It's a graph of people with old opinions dying off. > It is possible for a PhD to learn something from an undergrad. Moreover, it isn't strictly less understanding anyway, it's a different perspective. Which is all the more reason why people should try to hear each other. I strongly believe it is less understanding. As a member of various dominant groups, my understanding of things like race and gender was very coarse. That's because I didn't have to pay any attention to those things; they almost always worked in my favor. When that's not the case, people are forced to pay more attention. If you want to argue that generally attention does not lead to better understanding, you're really arguing that discussion is futile, because a major function of discussion is to turn people's attention to a topic. > Not listening to someone (i.e. ignoring them) is not the same thing as attacking them because they said something you don't want to hear. I agree with that, but don't see its relevance to the discussion. Could you say more?
- Moshe_Silnorin 12y ago
  You disagree with the tenets that make "being open to criticism" possible. Arguments do not where the skin of their speakers. They're sexless, skinless things. Your ideology destroys the fungibility of arguments, requiring that we pay strict attention to the provenance of any idea that pertains to your sacred issues, gender and race. Obviously, this poisons the information economy around these issues and much nonsense is taken as fact.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Arguments don't do anything. People use arguments. Those people have histories, and their histories are material when considering what they do with those arguments. I agree that the truth isn't influenced by race or gender. But one's perception of truth is influenced by one's experiences, and those experiences currently have heavy race and gender components. So if getting at the truth is the true goal, then one must be enormously careful to discover and work against one's own biases. If you're looking for a way to get started on that, try Harvard's Project Implicit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp I used to think that I wasn't biased. But instead I just didn't want to be biased. There's a big difference, and seeing that helped me see how wrong I was to think that my experiences didn't influence my opinions.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Oh, and one more point. The "information economy" is only part of how society actually changes. Look at this graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-... Is that a graph of people being convinced by rational argument? No, it's mainly people with old ideas dying off. It would be great if the world worked like you say, but it doesn't. Even science doesn't. Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
classicsnoot 12y ago
You type so little and say so much.
dang 12y ago
> You type so much and say nothing at all. Please don't post drive-by insults to HN.

I'm open to constructive criticism, but I'm not seeing much here. Would you care to try again? I think I said some very specific things.

Karunamon 12y ago
Constructive criticism: The content of ideas is infinitely more important than the identity of the person speaking the ideas. To deny this is to deny basic rationality, and is infinitely more harmful on a longer time scale. That you come in arguing is likely part of the problem. There is no such thing as an idea that is above criticism. The problem here, the one highlighted by the article, is that the radicals being complained about disagree with both of these concepts - things which are the cornerstone of an open dialogue, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society. With that in mind, how can you simultaneously hold the dissonant beliefs that rationality is important, and that one of its primary tenets should be ignored?
- innguest 12y ago
  Finally someone says what needs to be said. This is all. Either you understand arguments stand for themselves, or you are a relativist that thinks arguments vary in validity depending on whose mouth they're coming from. If I find out someone is a relativist I never discuss anything with them ever again. Those people are sophists without knowing - they just think "if I talk a lot I must be having a debate!". They have much reading in front of them, which they usually don't get to ever do. Those are the people that had rather die than think. I ignore them but I make sure they know it's because they are a relativist. If we all ostracized relativists we would be able to better tell the extremists from those that have something to say.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Excellent. This is the crux of the question. Ideas have to be evaluated on their content, not according to the identity of the authors, otherwise civilized discourse is shut down.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    As I've done elsewhere, let me use the example of interracial marriage, an idea whose evaluation has changed over time: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh... Note that the content of the idea hasn't changed, but the evaluation has. Look in particular at the second graph, where black people came to the now-correct answer long before white people. Black people on average had it right 25 years before white people. So it would seem to me that on topics of race, identity of speaker can be helpful in evaluating views.
    - atlantic 12y ago
      I don't follow your argument. Take something like Newton's theory of motion. It stands or falls on its mathematical and experimental foundations. It doesn't matter if Newton belonged to the gentry, if he treated his servants badly or if he beat his wife. That's not pertinent to the truth of the theory. If the logic sound? Are the experiments reproducible? That's the only part that matters. As for the example you've given - a Gallup poll - there is no right or wrong answer to a poll. Nobody ever "got it right". If people are simply expressing an opinion, there isn't any right or wrong answer. Opinions are what they are, and they change over time.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        I think your division of things discussed into "true facts" and "opinion" is not particularly subtle, but let's run with it. Most of what is discussed falls into the latter category, opinion. That includes things very relevant to people's lives, like who enjoys equal protection under the law. Approaching a conversation about a topic of social justice as if it's as simple, clear, and verifiable as Newtonian mechanics is the wrong approach. XKCD lampooned that here: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/ I'd add that even science isn't as clear as you make it out to be. Newtonian mechanics weren't really true; they were just an approximation adequate to the time. As Box writes, "all models are wrong, but some are useful." It took us a few hundred years to understand their limits. Out that struggle came quantum mechanics and relativity. Of that transition, Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." So as much as we'd like to pretend that science proceeds differently, it is also a social process. Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is the standard place to start reading about that, but there's now a large body of literature on the anthropology of science.
- wpietri 12y ago
  You have claimed that's a primary tenet of rationality, but you haven't demonstrated that. Why? Because most discussion happens in shorthand. You don't have a comprehensive theory of the nature and uses of discourse. You have a cobbled-together collection of experiences and values and notions, just like the rest of us. Unfortunately, because of your personal experience, you know some things more than others. That's just the nature of the beast. Identity informs understanding; understanding shapes identity. Because I spend every day dealing with computers I have a better understanding of computers than people who don't. Because I don't spend every day dealing with racism, I have a poorer understanding of racism than people who do. > There is no such thing as an idea that is above criticism. Sure. And in the privacy of your own home, you can criticize any idea you want. But when you are talking to other people, you have no right to be heard. Freedom of speech is important, but it does not trump freedom of association.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Identity informs understanding; understanding shapes identity. That doesn't imply the non-existence of objective reality. A fact is a fact regardless of the identity of the speaker. > Because I don't spend every day dealing with racism, I have a poorer understanding of racism than people who do. It is possible for a PhD to learn something from an undergrad. Moreover, it isn't strictly less understanding anyway, it's a different perspective. Which is all the more reason why people should try to hear each other. > But when you are talking to other people, you have no right to be heard. Freedom of speech is important, but it does not trump freedom of association. Not listening to someone (i.e. ignoring them) is not the same thing as attacking them because they said something you don't want to hear.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      > That doesn't imply the non-existence of objective reality. A fact is a fact regardless of the identity of the speaker. Sure. And facts are extremely hard things to find. With all the money we spend on science, we have a relatively small number of them. What individuals have is mainly opinions about facts. That's why discussions seeking truth are such hard and subtle work. It's also why facts are frequently irrelevant to people's behaviors in this realm. See, for example, this graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-... It isn't a graph of people coming to reasoned understanding on a topic. It's a graph of people with old opinions dying off. > It is possible for a PhD to learn something from an undergrad. Moreover, it isn't strictly less understanding anyway, it's a different perspective. Which is all the more reason why people should try to hear each other. I strongly believe it is less understanding. As a member of various dominant groups, my understanding of things like race and gender was very coarse. That's because I didn't have to pay any attention to those things; they almost always worked in my favor. When that's not the case, people are forced to pay more attention. If you want to argue that generally attention does not lead to better understanding, you're really arguing that discussion is futile, because a major function of discussion is to turn people's attention to a topic. > Not listening to someone (i.e. ignoring them) is not the same thing as attacking them because they said something you don't want to hear. I agree with that, but don't see its relevance to the discussion. Could you say more?
Moshe_Silnorin 12y ago
You disagree with the tenets that make "being open to criticism" possible. Arguments do not where the skin of their speakers. They're sexless, skinless things. Your ideology destroys the fungibility of arguments, requiring that we pay strict attention to the provenance of any idea that pertains to your sacred issues, gender and race. Obviously, this poisons the information economy around these issues and much nonsense is taken as fact.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Arguments don't do anything. People use arguments. Those people have histories, and their histories are material when considering what they do with those arguments. I agree that the truth isn't influenced by race or gender. But one's perception of truth is influenced by one's experiences, and those experiences currently have heavy race and gender components. So if getting at the truth is the true goal, then one must be enormously careful to discover and work against one's own biases. If you're looking for a way to get started on that, try Harvard's Project Implicit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp I used to think that I wasn't biased. But instead I just didn't want to be biased. There's a big difference, and seeing that helped me see how wrong I was to think that my experiences didn't influence my opinions.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Oh, and one more point. The "information economy" is only part of how society actually changes. Look at this graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-... Is that a graph of people being convinced by rational argument? No, it's mainly people with old ideas dying off. It would be great if the world worked like you say, but it doesn't. Even science doesn't. Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

classicsnoot 12y ago

You type so little and say so much.

dang 12y ago

> You type so much and say nothing at all. Please don't post drive-by insults to HN.