Live data from Hacker News

Be careful about what you dislike

lucumr.pocoo.org

111–120 of 176 posts

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#111
post #104
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems…

You don't need to understand something well to be justified in having a strong opinion about it. Your belief should be based on the evidence you have, even if that means a small amount that leads you to an extreme conclusion. Otherwise you will have a bias toward the median belief, and there's no reason to expect, in general, that a median belief is any better than an extreme one. The strength of your evidence should…

If you don't understand something well, then any opinion you might claim to have on it is not actually on it, but rather on what you currently understand it to be. In that case, why not just say that you simply don't know enough to have an informed opinion?

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#112

I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundame…

I've found it very difficult to write/argue gray-ish about any topic.

Either it's positive or it's negative.

The way between is full of self-contradictions and footnotes. That makes a difficult read/conversation.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds though. It's very easy for people to lose the thread of an argument if it is chock full of footnotes. I try to aim for "strong opinions, weakly held" - present a specific, actionable and strong position but be open to changing it if a better argument is made.

More to the point, nuanced opinions are at odds with clickbait/flamebait. If you want to get lots of attention and start a big internet fight, say the most outrageous aggressive thing you can, and argue sloppily, with just enough reasoning behind you to get the folks who agree with you to come fight for your side.

I don't consider internet "debates" something to seek replication.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#114
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More to the point, nuanced opinions are at odds with clickbait/flamebait. If you want to get lots of attention and start a big internet fight, say the most outrageous aggressive thing you can, and argue sloppily, with just enough reasoning behind you to get the folks who agree with you to come fight for your side.

I don't consider internet "debates" something to seek replication.

It also works in presidential elections.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#115

I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundame…

Espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds though. It's very easy for people to lose the thread of an argument if it is chock full of footnotes. I try to aim for "strong opinions, weakly held" - present a specific, actionable and strong position but be open to changing it if a better argument is made.

There's a parable of a guy who lost his keys in the park at night. Upon realizing he lost his keys, he begins to look for the keys in the street near a street lamp. When his friend asks why he's looking for his keys in the street instead of in the park where he lost them, the guy responds that the light is better in the street.

It's true that espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds, but the fact is, reality is often nuanced. Glossing over that nuance to make your argument more effective is like searching where there's light. Sure, it's more persuasive, but if you are persuading toward an incorrect idea, what are you really accomplishing?

Of course as Asimov's Relativity of Wrong points out, not all wrongs are equal. It may be worthwhile to persuade someone of a not-very-wrong given limited resources. But this sort of compromise has problems of its own. A social justice movement that ignores the nuance of handling white men's needs is effective until it needs white men's cooperation but instead generates backlash (Trump). The devil is in the details.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. The fundamental problem with ISDS is not its lack of transparency, but that it allows corporations to sue governments for domestic policy changes in the first place.

Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. It's not like you will be invaded if you break the rules of the agreement and ISDS rules against you, you will simply be kicked out if you don't follow the rules. Why do morons spread fear about this shit?

> Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written.

Huh? ISDS isn't about enforcing the trade deal (which might also go to arbitration), it's a separate issue.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#117
post #69
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that people who sit in the greys tend to be very worried about their public perception or have very little passion beyond maintaining personal comfort. The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. To me it's the difference between a leader and a worker bee.

> The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems…

There are people for whom Ego and social status are more important than life itself. They, like you, and the OP who stated effectively "I can't converse with people who have strongly held opinions", are usually people with such little confidence that the only thing they have going for them is the hope that a nice suit and not rocking the boat will get them through life comfortably.

There are people who are there to accomplish an objective such as completing a project or achieving a goal. Those people will present strong opinions to each other, and often will call each other names and hack things out. But, at the end of the day, they are motivated to explore the other sides opinion in order to discourage it and that fosters the growth of character that can admit they are wrong. They learn which discussions are important as a group, which cause the group to go in a completely insane tangent that will accomplish nothing, and which discussions don't matter; 90% of the debates you have don't mean a thing and often whether you're using one method or another is pointless so long as the work gets done to spec.

People who debate on ego and their own inflated sense of importance do not present discreet arguments, and are incapable of having a discussion about achieving a goal or completing an objective. Forgive my vitriol, but after seeing those people flush untold millions down the drain and hurt people and families countless times, they belong flipping burgers or in a mass grave.

If your job gets to the point, or is going in the direction of such catastrophe that you might as well not be there, it's time to have a "course correction" discussion with your boss. You don't have to walk in with your resignation letter in your pocket, but a simple "X is really stupid, here's why". Don't blame people, don't make assumptions, just point out the situation, how you got here, and where you think things should go. I've never, ever been fired for this. I have been fired for not having those conversations, however.

Additionally, there's a sexist truth here, which is men are made to make women into their purpose for being, and women are made to follow them, this is how nature works. The kinds of corporate environments where strong opinions are eschewed or actively discouraged are usually those with lots of grown women and boys parading as men. Those environments exist usually as cargo cults for established enterprises such as utilities or governments. The work performed does not further society or the enterprise in any meaningful way and in order to compensate for that, management builds an ego farm of gullible, easily manipulated people that will do as they are told unquestioningly. It's like having a harem. Those environments tend towards managerial abuse, and end up going down like the Hindenburg. If you find yourself in that kind of environment, decide on your exit strategy early.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#118
post #104
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people I look for are those that take strong stands but are willing and able to adjust and even quickly reverse those stances. Sometimes called "strong opinions, weakly held". I find this principle to be incoherent - if you understand something well enough to have a strong opinion, you understand it well enough to hold that opinion strongly. Holding strong opinions on things you don't understand that well seems…

You don't need to understand something well to be justified in having a strong opinion about it. Your belief should be based on the evidence you have, even if that means a small amount that leads you to an extreme conclusion. Otherwise you will have a bias toward the median belief, and there's no reason to expect, in general, that a median belief is any better than an extreme one. The strength of your evidence should…

> Your belief should be based on the evidence you have, even if that means a small amount that leads you to an extreme conclusion.

That's one way of thinking, but I reject it. You'll easily be manipulated by political and corporate agendas if you think this way.

Often my own intuition is at odds with the "evidence I have" and I turn out to be right later. If I had jumped to the (extreme) conclusion that smoking was healthy back in the 70s and 80s because of the evidence big tobacco was pushing from the shadows (doctors recommending brands, etc) I might not be here today.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#119

I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundame…

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." - Yeats

What an apropos quote! Never seen that one before, good to know it now.

Re: Be careful about what you dislike

#120

I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundame…

what matters in the end is being right. When opnions have to turn into action, knowing what is the right thing to do (knowing what technology to use, for example), and a careful balance of tradeoffs is always the sign of good leadership. This may include taking very strong stands on various things.

I've found people have tendencies to delude themselves in certain ways, however. Either being too positive or negative. The former is less harmful than the latter, but both are miscalibrations of judgement.

Post reply on HN