Live data from Hacker News

A Sick Giant

waitbutwhy.com

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: A Sick Giant

#71

I have enjoyed WaitButWhy articles in the past but with this new series the author seems to have spent a huge amount of time, energy and words coming up with ideas that aren't that new. I keep skimming through them waiting to find the big point.

The lack of a "call to action" of some sort does seem suspiciously absent.

The best parts I could find that addresses this are in the conclusion...

> Maybe instead of focusing on how politically active the most extreme people are, we should be asking ourselves why those who hold “more complex views” have become so inactive.

This seems like a very good question. To me, the article pointed out plenty of reasons for serious concern about the way the winds are currently blowing, yet in my experience the typical response to this perspective is a collective yawn. Perhaps the author takes it too much for for granted that readers will intuitively recognize the risks that come along with this sort of climate, or maybe he's still just laying ground for something to come later.

> When I told people I was planning to write a post about society, and the way people are acting, and the way the media is acting, and the way the government is acting, and the way everyone else is acting, people kept saying the same thing to me: Don’t do it. Don’t touch it. Write about something else. Anything else. It’s just not worth it. It hit me that what I really needed to write about was that—about why it’s perilous to write about society.

This also seems interesting, and seems consistent with my observations. People of all political stripes seem to absolutely love anything that gives reasons to hate on their respective out-group, but any suggestion that there's plenty of guilt to go around seems to get a much chillier reception. Of course, "everyone knows this" - but how many of those who "know this" also have the ability to detect this behavior in themselves, in real-time, when the topic is not the abstract nature of this human behavior (as in this thread), but rather an object level discussion about a specific culture-war matter? Next time you encounter such a thread on HN, pay attention for the behaviors described by the author, and judge for yourself.

> It hit me that what I really needed to write about was that—about why it’s perilous to write about society. I ended up going with some combination of both of these things: society’s current situation and why it’s an especially bad idea for me to write about it—and how those two things are related. This chapter focused on the first item: society’s current situation. But the second item—about how incredibly ill-advised it currently is to write about that situation—is the item we need to look hardest at. That’s where we’ll go in the penultimate chapter of The Story of Us.

It sounds like he has more to say on the matter, hopefully future installments get more into ideas of what people can do at the individual level.

Re: A Sick Giant

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to gain anything from long form articles, you need to read and consider what's being written, rather than skimming, looking for the holy grail.

What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this -- yes, it's obvious our media is polarized, for obvious reasons. I'm going to guess his next chapter is about how money ruined the media and politics, which is "why you shouldn't write about these things" -- because the people with the loudest voice have the most to gain from the polar…

> What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this...

As far as I can tell, other writings on the topic haven't had any noteworthy effect in rectifying the problem.

Do have any insights on what we should do about the situation?

Re: A Sick Giant

#74
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(can I say more intelligent and ambitious?) Seriously? As someone in a rural area who is not particularly deficient in intelligence, who regularly keeps up with research and innovations in a variety of industries, who bootstrapped my own consulting business & hired two more employees this year, and who regularly deals with the mess created by a regulatory situation where policy makers and voters in CA forget there a…

> Seriously? As someone in a rural area who is [...] NO. You cannot say that. Sure but you're just one person out of millions. We're trying to compare populations. And obviously the prior poster didn't mean that every rural person who moves to a city is more intelligent/ambitious than every person who stays, but you knew that already (note how you didn't object to more liberal, presumably because it doesn't carry a v…

I think the definition of "intelligent" and "ambitious" will differ based on who you ask. A lot of folks in rural areas think taking out debt to go to school is not a very intelligent thing to do. Likewise a lot of urban dwellers would likely say that going to college is the intelligent and ambitious thing to do.

It really depends on your previously-held beliefs, which are only reinforced by the echo chambers we live in.

Re: A Sick Giant

#75
post #35
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to think most people would act more civilized initially in that situation. In fact the most civilized thing to do would have been to simply follow the rules in the first place, knowing that most passengers will believe they must be important.

Why? The rule is absolutely stupid, and pointless. It's about as meaningful to airplane security as TSA. In other words, none at all. I mean if rules say you need to report your fellow Uighurs, you should follow them because other will?

I agree, if it actually mattered then flight attendants would check for cell connections as rigorously as they do seatbelts. Even if you've never flown basic logic will tell you on a flight of 100+ people not everyone remembered to switch off their device. Trying to rat on your fellow passenger is the real offense here. Maybe I'm the jerk here but do we have to regulate our behavior to make nosy neighbors comfortable?

Re: A Sick Giant

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this -- yes, it's obvious our media is polarized, for obvious reasons. I'm going to guess his next chapter is about how money ruined the media and politics, which is "why you shouldn't write about these things" -- because the people with the loudest voice have the most to gain from the polar…

> What the author says here is better said by a dozen others. I just had an overwhelming feeling of no shit sherlock when reading this... As far as I can tell, other writings on the topic haven't had any noteworthy effect in rectifying the problem. Do have any insights on what we should do about the situation?

That would require an assumption that there is something that can be done. I'm not saying we all throw up our hands and die; but any attempt to fix the situation just adds another voice to the echo chamber and doesn't really solve the problem.

As far as I can tell from reading history, it's always been like this. We just haven't had a massive mutually-destructive war in anyone's lifetime to remind us why we should work together. Old soldiers are the best anti-war advocates there are. Because I'm pretty sure that's where all this is headed.

Re: A Sick Giant

#77
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seriously? As someone in a rural area who is [...] NO. You cannot say that. Sure but you're just one person out of millions. We're trying to compare populations. And obviously the prior poster didn't mean that every rural person who moves to a city is more intelligent/ambitious than every person who stays, but you knew that already (note how you didn't object to more liberal, presumably because it doesn't carry a v…

I think the definition of "intelligent" and "ambitious" will differ based on who you ask. A lot of folks in rural areas think taking out debt to go to school is not a very intelligent thing to do. Likewise a lot of urban dwellers would likely say that going to college is the intelligent and ambitious thing to do. It really depends on your previously-held beliefs, which are only reinforced by the echo chambers we live…

My argument that leaving your home town is costly stands regardless of what your definitions are. For a similar example, tall people tend to both be more intelligent and to come from richer families because malnutrition as a child negatively effects both height and intelligence.

You may ask if I'm not using a pedantic, irrelevant definition of correlation that captures even tiny correlations we don't care about, but when we're talking about politics (where swings of a few percent can reliably flip elections), and polarisation (which is pretty much defined to be the amplifying of small differences), I think this is very relevant.

Re: A Sick Giant

#78

The liberal worldview thinks that everything is basically ok and that the problem is that "norms" are being violated and bad information leads to pointless conflict. Liberals are wrong. There are fundemental structural problems with this country and the current psychosis is the result of neither political party addressing them while going war and profit crazy on the backs of the working people that slave and die with…

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, for obvious reasons. The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the US…

> The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family

The truth is it absolutely wasn't. It's true that various forms of Christianity (with more virulent anti-Semitism than any “Judeo” component) were broadly popular with the general population at the time of founding, the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism.

The nuclear family also played little role in America’s foundation, only becoming dominant in the US sometime early in the latter half of the 20th Century, quite late in US history.

Though both the nuclear family and “Judeo-Christian” values being essential to the foundation of the American nation is one of the (fact-free) defining myths of American social conservatism of the late-20th Century to the modern day.

Re: A Sick Giant

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, for obvious reasons. The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the US…

> The reality of the situation is the US was founded, both socially and politically on Judeo-Christian principles of morality, and the nuclear family The truth is it absolutely wasn't. It's true that various forms of Christianity (with more virulent anti-Semitism than any “Judeo” component) were broadly popular with the general population at the time of founding, the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders sh…

If you really think this, then all I have to say to you is you must read the Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence and Constitution with quite the set of blinders on my friend. For example, consider this quotation from John Jay in Federalist No 2: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1329146-it-has-often-given-...

> the intellectual elite who were the thought leaders shaping our model of government were largely members of the Enlightenment faction that started the whole idea of anti-religious secular liberalism.

Really going to need a citation on this. Besides that point, the Enlightenment being anti-religious is a myth in of itself as well. Most standard taught US history on the events that took place basically from the split of the One Catholic Church, through the dark ages, and up to just before the founding of this country is woefully inaccurate. We are pretty good at documenting things that occurred on this continent roughly mid 1700s on.

Post reply on HN