E Pur Si Muove • Hacker News Board

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#51

Post by encinotech » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #7

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?

The problem isn't the discourse, but to categorize the people themselves - "people working on this must be really unethical". It's only that last part he is against.

It should go like this: Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment Me: Ok lets talk about that...

But you can't do that if now you're already unethical, etc.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#52

Post by geofft » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

workthrowaway27 wrote: post #21

I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.

> I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced.

This does not seem to match the reality at university campuses - only the caricature by people who find it politically expedient to be seen as persecuted.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#53

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #20

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #7

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?

No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.

Maybe this is Altman's response to being savaged over his "everyone should get a share of GDP" idea? Who knows (besides Altman)?

To be sure, there is a lot of self-censorship -- the Overton window is real, and it's not advisable to say things fully outside the Overton window. Perhaps Altman is saying that the Overton window is closing on some opinions that he thinks we should be able to discuss openly, but because they're now outside the window he feels unsafe mentioning them. That would be a fair argument, though it'd be nice to make a list of things that can and cannot be said publicly, then we could argue whether we should widen the Overton window.

I happen think the Overton window is a good thing, even if I'm not always happy as to what falls inside and what falls outside of it. And, of course, the Overton window is a natural result of human nature, so it's hard to argue that there shouldn't be an Overton window. We can affect the Overton window, and sometimes we really should try to.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#54

Post by geofft » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #38

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Sam just has serious moral failings? If everywhere he goes people have a visceral reaction to what he's saying maybe there is some ethical shortcoming there. He's the common denominator in all the situations.

This isn't specific to Sam, you're doing exactly what he is complaining about. Stop criticising the person and try to criticise the post instead.

Why? Is the idea that Sam is morally corrupt too dangerous, too heretical to be voiced? Should we not debate ideas?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#55

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #38

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Sam just has serious moral failings? If everywhere he goes people have a visceral reaction to what he's saying maybe there is some ethical shortcoming there. He's the common denominator in all the situations.

This isn't specific to Sam, you're doing exactly what he is complaining about. Stop criticising the person and try to criticise the post instead.

He's the central character of the post. Literally the entire idea here is filtered through events as they happened to him and how he interprets those events.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#56

Post by staunch » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

This problem will resolve itself because there are brave people willing to weather the controversy caused by thinking in public.

Long unedited podcasts are turning out to be the best platform, with people like Sam Harris, Dan Carlin, and even Joe Rogan becoming the most important public intellectuals alive today. All three have financial and editorial independence. They reach millions of people on a weekly basis. Carlin is in Oregon, from Los Angeles, where Rogan and Harris are.

Sam Altman could obviously run a podcast where he discussed his controversial ideas. Many like minded people would rally around him. Some idiots would call him a monster. It would be great.

If you have FU money and you're complaining about PC culture, you're being unnecessarily cowardly. Start a podcast and help change things.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#57

Post by ak_yo » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

youdontknowtho wrote: post #35

jstanley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.

I keep hearing that from people saying things like... "I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these days. Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can afford it. Or, if…

I completely agree. The exchange seems to go like this:

A: "I think black people are genetically inferior." B: "I think that's a bigoted thing to say that has historically caused a lot of harm to a lot of people." A: "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?"

Person B is engaging with that idea, it's just that they think it's completely indefensible. I have a hard time understanding how Person A thinks this conversation is supposed to go -- like are we supposed to entertain everything as if it were serious? If I go up to a physics professor and say "I think physics is completely inferior and wrong" what is she supposed to say?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#58

Post by Cyberdog » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #13

InTheArena wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or conversely, maybe we should listen to people who are pointing out that we arn't as free as we think we are, and people who we think are more constrained may not be. It's a good thesis to try and prove.

It would be a funny assertion to say that you're less free to speak in SV where the worst you'll get is a tongue-lashing vs China where the worst you'll get is quite a lot worse. How would you even fix this freedom? Somehow constrain people to not speak their mind when they disagree with you? Constraining them through government would obviously make us less free so that's out. Constraining them through culture is no…

"The worst you'll get is a tongue-lashing?" Not even close. It is quite ordinary for SV employees to be fired or "resign" after being caught participating in wrongthink. Eich is the most famous example, but Apple's former chief of diversity is a more recent one.

No, this is not quite as severe as being arrested and imprisoned for thinking the wrong things. But career-wise, at least, it can be almost as disastrous.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#59

Post by bobwaycott » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

youdontknowtho wrote: post #35

jstanley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.

I keep hearing that from people saying things like... "I think black people are genetically inferior." ...followed by... "Why can't we have a free exchange of ideas?" What if the ideas are unethical? There is a lot of that going around these days. Life extension is one that comes up quite a bit, because the question doesn't seem to involve life extension for all, but life extension for a few who can afford it. Or, if…

> What if the ideas are unethical?

Then argue the case for that position and tease out the ethical ramifications with your interlocutor. Bring a lot of evidence to back up that argument. Argue against the strongest form of the opposing idea(s), don't just create straw men to knock down or attack simple weak spots for easy points.

Unless the person advancing an unethical idea is intentionally trolling, take them seriously and seek to engage & explain your point. But it also requires truly understanding the other side (hence why you should be able to both articulate and argue against the strongest form of their argument).

Humanity has had some pretty awful ideas over its brief history. We have a mixed record when it comes to eradicating them by dialogue vs fighting. Usually we try dialogue for as long as we can. Too often, we wind up fighting when dialogue fails. Changing hearts/minds isn't an easy task. But the more we vilify, insult, ostracize, and otherwise verbally (or physically) attack those whose ideas we deplore, the more they frequently dig in on their position because they've tied their own identities to their beliefs. It's a funny condition with people that they often hold their identity as a believer in thing X far more strongly than they actually hold thing X.

[edit: wording & a little extra explication]

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#60

Post by WiseWeasel » Thu, Dec 14, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

Could this not simply be a reflection of cultural differences in the expression of disagreement? I have no personal experience with life in China, but a common observation others have made is that, similar to other societies in the region, and in contrast to cultures in many European and American countries, avoidance of shame, respect for authority and maintenance of social harmony are of significantly higher importance to people.