The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#281

Post by Funes- » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

ziddoap wrote: post #219

Funes- wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he plays fast and loose with the facts I don't expect essays to be scientific papers. The term comes from the French verb essayer 'to attempt, to try'. It's a genre widely known for being exactly that: a (mostly) brief rundown of ideas, without an exhaustive empirical demonstration being necessary nor expected. On top of that, it's a ~1500-word blog post on his own website . Get real.

I don't think scientific papers are the only place that should be expected to, when purporting something as fact, be well... factual. Funny enough, all throughout my many years in academia I had to provide sources for anything I stated as a fact in an essay (including opinion pieces). I should of just let my professors know that I wasn't providing them a scientific paper -- I was just attempting/trying to provide a b…

>Funny enough, all throughout my many years in academia I had to provide sources for anything I stated as a fact in an essay (including opinion pieces).

That requirement obeyed that academic institution's criteria, not the genre's traditional nature. You either were being tested by them or published something with their name attached to it, so it's only normal that they established the empirical validity of your writings. It makes sense that an academic institution, of all places, would want only rigorous content linked to it. Paul Graham, on the other hand, is just publishing a simple essay on his very own website; of course I don't expect an exhaustive empirical demonstration on his part, though any kind of factual data can be welcome.

>I should of

I hope your "many years in academia" weren't spent in anything even remotely related to linguistics. And that your editors there corrected your grammar, as well.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#282

Post by minikites » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #269

rclayton wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had a habit of always making the hero of his narrative the “brave startup founder”.

You have to justify getting all that money for doing something that's ultimately not that important for society somehow.

You mean "getting people to click on ads" isn't deeply meaningful to society? Perish the thought!

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#283

Post by rorykoehler » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #151

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is silly. The world isn't balanced like that. Many improvements have no disadvantage. More efficient photovoltaic cells, not needing hfcfs in pressurized spray cans, discovering that you can add a bit of carbon to iron, ...

Of course they have disadvantageS to something or someone. Some are just more abstract, removed or minor.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#284

Post by pgcj_poster » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

stopachka wrote: post #82

newacct583 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one. As far as your definition, I'd just go with this: - Do…

Re: political or identity point I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point? From the way our government is structured (checks and balances), to the constitution (free speech), I think they stand on the side of freedom pretty objectively

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." —Vladimir Lenin

In the case of the early United States, the "slave-owners" part is literal, but even ignoring that, you have to remember that when the constitution was written, only land-owning white men could vote, and the men forming the new government were largely the same ones who had a leading role in British colonial society. The "freedom" in question was pretty much exclusively the freedom of the ruling class here to oppress others without the interference of the ruling class there. For instance, one of the sources of tension leading up to the revolution was the Proclamation of 1763, by which the British government forbade further colonization westward into Indian territory. Consequently, most Indians supported the British during the revolution. Which side do you think was better protecting their freedom?

You can also see this in the design of the original constitution, which has many "checks and balances" to protect against parts of the federal government usurping power, but has effectively nothing protecting freedom or democracy from the existing state governments, except requiring that they have a Republican form of government. Again, the freedom of the rulers here from the power of the rulers there. I'll admit that the first amendment was a genuine step towards freedom, but one which was taken primarily for the protection of the class interests of the type of men who'd participated in the committees of correspondence, which were frequently denied to people with less power, starting with the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 and continuing in some form or another throughout all American history.

None of this is to say that there's no way that the founding of the US could be seen as representing freedom: just that there's another possible narrative depending on what parts of the story you do and don't tell. I started this comment by quoting Lenin, who in that context could be seen as a freedom-fighter, who indeed overthrew an absolute monarch in the name of freedom and equality. If you read the Soviet constitution, it also purported to guarantee free speech, press, and religion. However, Lenin ensured that the new government was a one-party state, which quickly eroded almost all freedoms that had been achieved in the revolution. Which part of the story you choose to tell and how it reflects on the present day is a matter of ideology and identity.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#285

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

oisdk wrote: post #220

tome wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US I genuinely don't have reliable information to determine whether they are peaceful protestors or violent rioters, nor whether the police are secret or not. Where would I go to find out?

Peaceful protestors being brutalised by police has been documented in almost countless cases by now. I find it hard to believe that you're asking this is good faith, but if you you are then you can: * Watch any one of the hundreds of videos documenting what I'm referring to. * Read pretty much any major news source in the US documenting these cases. I'm sorry that I don't have a specific source to point you to, but i…

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#286

Post by BurningFrog » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #117

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.

> For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.

If that was true, society as a whole would never improve.

But in reality, the last 300 years have seen an unimaginable improvement of human life in every dimension.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#287

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#288

Post by PaulHoule » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

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…

"Four quadrants" are frequently a bad smell. They often are structurally wrong, such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn%27s_taxonomy

which has three real entities in it (a triangle) and one non-entity. The Nolan chart gets into trouble in a different way:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

That demonstrates a libertarian position that some people like to talk about but does not get traction when you try to implement it in politics. Like the green party you get maybe 2% of the vote if that. There is a very strong force that comes from the axioms of social choice theory that pushes politics into one dimension and you cannot wish it away by drawing a square.

Then there is that Gartner Magic Quadrant where they are just getting high on their own supply.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#289

Post by rorykoehler » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #272

Misdicorl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. The world isn't balanced like that. Many improvements have no disadvantage. More efficient photovoltaic cells, not needing hfcfs in pressurized spray cans, discovering that you can add a bit of carbon to iron, ...

You could argue that automation is one of those improvements with no disadvantage. But it can also result in people losing their jobs and those people might be opposed to it. I would argue that the same is true with the gig economy. It benefits the people participating in it greatly but it also cost some people their jobs (e.g. taxi drivers).

Losing a job isn’t inherently bad. I’d only bad now because we’ve decided to arrange society around zero sum thinking.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#290

Post by ptero » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #193

marcus_holmes wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this how this is supposed to work, then? A lot of people get angry about something and demonstrate/riot, and in response the laws get changed to pacify them. There's a term for that: "mob rule". It's not a good thing. I'm not for one second saying that Police brutality isn't a problem. I don't live in the USA so I don't know. I am saying that if your system doesn't provide a method for fixing this problem without…

That's how things tend to work when people are so alienated or disenfranchised from the system that change within the system becomes impossible, yes. And while people like to dismiss any group whose concerns they disagree with as being merely an "angry mob," more often than not that "mob's" concerns are legitimate, and their anger is justifiable. Laws don't get passed to "pacify" them, they get passed because public…

The legitimate concerns and justified anger tend to be characterized by long-term (multiple years), consistent pressure. People exerting it can listen to opposing views (without angry screams) and justify their own.

What we see today are angry flashes that can change direction on a whim. Flash mobs of statue tear-downs, coronavirus mask/no-mask outrages, etc. are in my view more of a symptom of pent-up aggression fanned by pre-election opportunism, not of legitimate concerns. My 2c.