shw1n

6 ms·

31.
by shw1n 2y ago
just by being able to understand why you believe what you believe, for each individual view center-ish is not a requirement, but a correlation -- rarely will someone independently come up with views that 100% match the somewhat-arbitrary po
32.
by shw1n 2y ago
correct, but then those individuals could explain those views popularity is not the same as tribal, tribal implies a blind following -- when individuals cannot explain why they believe something
33.
by shw1n 2y ago
agreed, this would be ideal if maybe practically impossible
34.
by shw1n 2y ago
agreed -- I also think social media exacerbated this
35.
by shw1n 2y ago
yep, this is the "intentional" moderate which I also classify as tribal distinctly different from the "accidental" moderate who could harbor indignation against racial prejudice as one of their views https://w
36.
by shw1n 2y ago
Actually I think people in traditional organized religions like Christianity are on the whole more self-aware than secular people who fall into the same religious behavior in random topics, because they acknowledge the "faith" c
37.
by shw1n 2y ago
yep, this is exactly it -- it's not where you end up, it's the inability to separate from a group there are tribalists on the left, right, and in the middle
38.
by shw1n 2y ago
Ironically this seems like an example of the tribalism my essay is about -- I agree with his essay, but only partially agree with the graph I think the hump could be slightly shifted left or right, but the points on the graph are the averag
39.
by shw1n 2y ago
PG has two different terms for it in his essay: unintentional moderates vs intentional moderates https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html That's what represents the two circled areas in the graph, though I realize if people
40.
by shw1n 2y ago
exactly
41.
by shw1n 2y ago
posting my explanation of the graph from another comment here "it was meant as a visual specifically for Paul Graham's article here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html I should probably generate a new one or just
42.
by shw1n 2y ago
this is exactly it, from here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
43.
by shw1n 2y ago
it was meant as a visual specifically for Paul Graham's article here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple peopl
44.
by shw1n 2y ago
Yeah I fully accept that there could be valid dots in the top left (or even top right) corners, just didn't include them to keep the chart's point simple and b/c it was also based on Paul Graham's article which made the
45.
by shw1n 2y ago
I personally think this is the right approach, where you can assign probabilities to the unknowns (the "thinking in bets" section) Because then the discussions/research switch toward data and evidence, with the results downst
46.
by shw1n 2y ago
yeah this is a very real risk
47.
by shw1n 2y ago
I take this angle when I detect dogma now
48.
by shw1n 2y ago
I don't think I ever make the only-nuanced-opinion claim, the claim I'm making here is many people don't want to have useful discussions, they just want to proselytize I actually say there are reasons to persevere and encou
49.
by shw1n 2y ago
The assumption that social ambushes only occur for horrific beliefs is an amazingly naive take on humanity. By this logic it's implied that the women burned in the Salem witch trials must've done something to deserve it. I've
50.
by shw1n 2y ago
Not sure if you read the article, because it's quite plainly stated that my reason for writing it is precisely because I have discussed it with many friends (and continue to do so) Unless I encounter a signal that someone wants to re
51.
by shw1n 2y ago
nailed it (and ty for the welcome!)
52.
by shw1n 2y ago
lol I literally said PG noticed this, not me but this is a great example of what my essay was highlighting
53.
by shw1n 2y ago
this is me trying haha
54.
by shw1n 2y ago
I guess recognizing when you're desiring a certain outcome so much you put blinders on to contradicting evidence my method is to constantly try and prove my beliefs wrong, via the "oscillating" I describe in the piece
55.
by shw1n 2y ago
agreed, but if the seed of doubt can be planted at all then I consider this essay successful
56.
by shw1n 2y ago
smart friend
57.
by shw1n 2y ago
I'm not sure where I see we disagree? I actually agree with everything you said, mostly just want people whose views are actually tribal and not open to discussion to acknowledge them as such, via: "If someone is self-aware enough
58.
by shw1n 2y ago
I guess the dots should be described as "average of all views" PG explains it better here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
59.
by shw1n 2y ago
agreed actually, I'm not preaching moderation or apolitical-ness, I'm arguing for merely acknowledging when a view is reason-based vs tribal in nature see my reply to rdegges
60.
by shw1n 2y ago
I actually agree, I don't think people should merely dismiss differences on issues that strike at core values -- I think it's okay to cut friends/family off on huge differences in values. I have actually done this to both lef

More ›