Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Four Quadrants of Conformism

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#111

Post by stopachka »

wdwecewc wrote: post #103
missosoup wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on…

[flagged]

How confident are you that this is true? What kind of information would you have to see to feel alarm?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#112

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #95
notsureaboutpg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom Freedom as long as you aren't threateningly critical of America. The journalist of the Syrian War who took an anti-American stance and was targetted by American drone strikes would prove otherwise: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...

And while you are aghast at that, I’d have ask if you’d be aghast at the people who bully and gaslight and threaten individuals who are critical of some aspects of progressivism. I ask because if we ever had an “antifa” government I can be almost certain the abuses would escalate to heights we dare not imagine.

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#113

Post by Dumblydorr »

This is one of PG's weaker essays. He attempts to glide between psychology, history, politics, and philosophy without proper evidence or background in those areas. His construct is somewhat interesting on the surface but is only supported by his own feelings and his own anecdata, he doesn't point to anything relevant or similar written by actual experts.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#114

Post by austincheney »

hrktb wrote: post #29

As for most attempts to classify people, it should be strongly stated that any single human would fits several quadrants depending on the subject, the phase in their life they are in, or even the mood of the day. I read this two dimensional presentation only as device to discuss a theoretical point, and not something that could have any practicality. In particular, I think a lot of people switch from the "sheep" quad…

> As for most attempts to classify people, it should be strongly stated that any single human would fits several quadrants depending on the subject

Its not related to such subjectivity as the subjectivity is itself a likely form of conformity.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#115

Post by wcarey »

stopachka wrote: post #87
coldcode wrote: post #21

If you want to learn about the various types of people and how they relate to the world around them, study the French Revolution (in depth, not just a snippet). You will find every kind of person (in much more complex combinations than presented here), and how they participate/change/destroy/terrorize/etc. People today are no different we just have more technology.

Any books you’d recommend?

Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is a great read. I wonder which quadrant Graham would put Burke in?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#116

Post by jmeister »

wdwecewc wrote: post #103
missosoup wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on…

[flagged]

It’s too far in the game to still make this claim.

Go through this list and tell us there is no “real” speech suppression:

https://twitter.com/SoOppressed/status/1282404647160942598?s...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#117

Post by oldsklgdfth »

bambax wrote: post #109

I have come to intensely dislike most of PG's essays, for many reasons, but the two main ones are that 1/ he plays fast and loose with the facts, reduces the whole history of (the various peoples of) humanity to a single arrow, and confuses demonstration with affirmation and, more importantly 2/ he has an unhealthy obsession with "classifying" people, by which he actually means ranking them, from top to bottom. The p…

> But innovation isn't good per se.

Innovation isn't anything in moral terms.

All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.

The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#119

Post by motorcycleman9 »

DavidVoid wrote: post #94
f0ff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take Peterson for example.

People are intolerant of Peterson because of Peterson's intolerance though.

Many people intentionally mischaracterize Peterson as intolerant. His position is generally extremely open-minded and comes from the position of a psychologist that has seen the failure modes of many different clients' lifestyles. When he tells moral tales that tilt toward a conservative lifestyle, they are told in the sense that straying from a conservative path is morally fine, but subjects you to personal risk of worse outcomes.
Post reply on HN