The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia • Hacker News Board

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#111

Post by icsllaf » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 10:03 PM UTC

autokad wrote: post #22

A company was holding a competition for 'a great new idea to solve heart disease' with a huge million $ prize. our research group of 30+ people consisting mostly of faculty wanted to win it, so we broke our group into 6 or so sub-groups to come up with ideas and submit it to the greater group. my group wanted to submit as an idea 'tax on soda'. I was adamantly against the idea. Ignoring the fact that I don't think it…

These innovation/idea competitions are almost always self-fulfilling prophecies. No one wants to submit an idea that's even slightly out of there because only viable and ideas grounded in reality will win but the only ideas submitted are viable and grounded in reality so there's no way to actually break the mold and most people are scared to.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#112

Post by glennpratt » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

> This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or not.

This seems rather self indulgent when you've set the criteria so vaguely.

Perhaps an example of an extemist view would be beneficial.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#113

Post by renox » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

>> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. >If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another.

Especially in the USA with its huge number of religious followers, in Europe (depends on which part) maybe not so much?

That said when talking about society, critical thinking is easy, coming up with credible proposals is hard.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#114

Post by tlear » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

13415 wrote: post #40

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

This is mostly wrong, because there is only one reality. As trivial as this may sound, if you're interested in reality, then you will invariably get to the same conclusion as many other people. Of course, there will always be some shifts in knowledge and at that time a fringe position can be the right one, but these are rare - very rare, indeed. Generally, the fact that there is one reality means that scientific opin…

Claim is not about the ideas but people. It is like a fudge who build a website completely from scratch vs one who did it in Wordpress.

Talking to first one is interesting, second one not so much. The second website is most likely much better then first though

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#115

Post by glennpratt » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #26

jeremyjh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People outside the mainstream on a topic who are not deeply experienced specialists in that field have almost certainly fallen prey to well-crafted arguments that advance a falsehood. These arguments are far more common than novel ideas that are both correct and dominated by an incorrect mainstream idea. So when you encounter any argument against a mainstream position you need to be deeply skeptical of it, and if you…

>People outside the mainstream on a topic who are not deeply experienced specialists in that field have almost certainly fallen prey to well-crafted arguments that advance a falsehood. First off, these are not mutually exclusive stances. Both you and GP can be right at the same time. Second, I'd leave it at "well-crafted" and omit the claim that they are falsehoods. Whether they are true or false is the source of end…

> it's even more true when you find someone who almost entirely espouses mainstream views

I've never met this straw man. Please present one so I can try to understand.

Also, I'd love for you to define mainstream which is such a fluid term as to be useless.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#116

Post by Nasrudith » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

dfgdghdf wrote: post #94

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

> If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This is a big claim. Evidence?

Here is an easy example through history - republicanism vs monarchy. Previously advocating for self governance was radical. Now advocating for a return to ruling monarchies is extremist.

John Brown was also an extremist but now not being an abolitionist is extremist.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#117

Post by barry-cotter » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 11:12 PM UTC

glennpratt wrote: post #112

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

> This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or not. This seems rather self indulgent when you've set the criteria so vaguely. Perhaps an example of an extemist view would be beneficial.

The tax system is incredibly poorly designed everywhere. Rather than the hodgepodge of different races, levied at different places and times for different reasons by different levels of government a single tax is best. I’m partial to either a Georgist Land value tax or a consumption tax but I’m sure there are other good options.

Large scale immigration is incompatible with a welfare state unless immigrants are highly selected, as in Canada or Australia. If the US continues its march to open borders the welfare state will be dismantled or citizenship law will change to have multiple categories of rights for different types of citizens and residents.

Civic nationalism is incoherent unless people can be expelled from the community. Ethnic nations make sense, because people are loyal to their kin or cultural group. A group where people had to sign on to an explicit statement of values makes sense because then there’d be a very clear signal of whether you were in or out. Liberalism only works with a huge majority in favour of its values and without that huge majority that agree on most things it will slide towards political violence and likely civil war without vicious political repression.

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#118

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 11:12 PM UTC

Zarath wrote: post #63

bitwize wrote: post #34

The "furious exchange of proper nouns" made me lul. "Derrida and Badiou at Tanagra!" It's like this because like the Tamarians, everyone in the discussion is assumed to be familiar with all of the background material -- and if you are not, then what the hell are you doing here? I saw this kind of elitism unfold here on Hackernews once. Someone once asked for an explanation of what deconstruction was and was told basi…

I wrote a long response to this and deleted it, so I'll just say this. Politics and philosophy are one of the few things where everyone feels qualified no matter how pedestrian or unqualified they are. So you'll have to forgive people for not bothering to listen to someone who hasn't read a book on politics or philosophy maybe in their entire life yet feel like their regurgitated Fox News talking points should be tak…

[deleted]

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#119

Post by Nasrudith » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

mrrrgn wrote: post #37

hirundo wrote: post #4

> As every freshman course in “critical thinking” reminds us, the dull, unhappy burden of the rational mind is to follow the evidence where it leads, not the bandwagon. If you do that you frequently end up with a position that is "extremist" to someone or another. This effect is so reliable that if you meet someone who isn't extremist about anything it's safe to say that they don't think for themselves, rationally or…

Certain personality types are more likely to ignore social pressure and pursue logical conclusions of ideals. It's probably no accident that such personality profiles only account for a small percentage of our population as logical conclusions based off of faulty models can lead to huge disasters. The great mass of people who don't do much deep thinking act as a dampener and probably prevent our society from shaking…

That sounds a bit naturalist fallacy - just because it is selected for doesn't mean it is ideal. Legacy is perfectly capable of leaving maladaption. The inertia can and has worked against them too.

For instance it could have been from the history of human group hunting, warfare that sort of cohesion served better than intellectual ability in the short term.

But under modern conditions the utility would invert - muscle power is basically worthless compared to machines for labor for one. Not falling for the stupid delusions of the day can give a lead of centuries.

Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies? The unthinking masses would continue along with disaster while critical thinkere would say "stop!".

Re: The Tyranny of Trendy Ideas in Academia

#120

Post by mrrrgn » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #119

mrrrgn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain personality types are more likely to ignore social pressure and pursue logical conclusions of ideals. It's probably no accident that such personality profiles only account for a small percentage of our population as logical conclusions based off of faulty models can lead to huge disasters. The great mass of people who don't do much deep thinking act as a dampener and probably prevent our society from shaking…

That sounds a bit naturalist fallacy - just because it is selected for doesn't mean it is ideal. Legacy is perfectly capable of leaving maladaption. The inertia can and has worked against them too. For instance it could have been from the history of human group hunting, warfare that sort of cohesion served better than intellectual ability in the short term. But under modern conditions the utility would invert - muscl…

> That sounds a bit naturalist fallacy

When we see things in nature, it's always possible that they serve a purpose. Adaptive traits are selected for. It's also possible they aren't.

It seems there are three possibilities:

  - Trait is useful.

  - Trait was useful (no longer is).

  - Trait is neutral.

> Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies?

Shouldn't a good programmer be able to look at a program and its input and determine with 100% certainty whether or not the program will halt?

It might seem so but of course we know from computer science that they [in the general case] cannot. Deep thinking and intelligence alone aren't enough to predict all of the possible routes through a complex problem space.

Some things just have to be tried in order to be understood. And because of that it's probably safe to stick with things that have been tried before over things that seem reasonable to some smart but not all knowing person but that haven't been tried before.

Aren't most mutations harmful afterall?