The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#371

Post by elil17 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

bitcurious wrote: post #237

elil17 wrote: post #203

In this article, PG creates a personality test of sorts that, I think, seems intuitively true. Then, absent any real evidence, he assigns political roles and moral value to each of the categories he invented. It’s so farcical to suggest that independent mindedness always manifests as “intellectual freedom” and conformism manifests as “political correctness.” (He doesn’t use that phrase but that’s clearly what he’s tr…

> We live in a world where people with power over others (even people with pretty small amounts of power like professors) have historically been allowed shielded from the consequences of espousing hate. It is not “conformist” to advocate that people should be held accountable for what they say. The conformity is in the process which defines what “hate” is.

I don’t understand - what is the process that decides what hate is? How is it conformist?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#372

Post by jimbokun » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

mononcqc wrote: post #277

wrren wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People expressing their opinions about one's ideas is not cancel culture: it's when critics go one step further and try to destroy the person they disagree with. Many people have lost their livelihoods and even more are afraid to express their opinion at all because of the disproportionate cost they might incur. People having been structurally shielded from mob justice in the past is a state worth returning to.

Mob justice hasn't been visible for a while often because regular justice was being used for direct oppression in its stead. Injustice is institutionalized, and so as long as the majority group does not see the mob, it does not see oppression even if it exists. Tell me that for every person getting yelled at on Twitter you couldn't find countless more groups of minorities who have been denied justice over the years,…

This is a complete non-sequitur.

Let's respond to injustice and oppression, by trying to extend a little bit of injustice and oppression to other people who haven't experienced it yet, just because we can.

How about less injustice and oppression all around?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#373

Post by peisistratos » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

stopachka wrote: post #31

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…

[flagged]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#374

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#375

Post by dj_gitmo » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

  "This seems, unfortunately, to have been an own goal by Silicon Valley.
  Though the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded,
  they've handed the aggressively conventional-minded a tool such as they could
  only have dreamed of."

This comes across as self-aggrandizing and a tad elitist.

  "On the other hand, perhaps the decline in the spirit of free inquiry within universities 
  is as much the symptom of the departure of the independent-minded as the cause. 
  People who would have become professors 50 years ago have other options now. Now
  they can become quants or start startups. You have to be independent-minded to
  succeed at either of those."

This is happening for economic reasons. Jobs outside academia pay more than they used to, the US no longer have a high income tax rate like we did in the 1950s, and there is more competition for academic jobs. Maybe at one point deciding to become a quant was independent-minded, but at this point it's a well worn path. Also, I'm sure there are some ideas that would be off-limits in quant circles

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#376

Post by luckylion » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:28 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #311

spectaclepiece wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak for the states but I feel strongly that the aggressive conformists are gaining ground on several levels of society. One can avoid the worst of it if as you say one stays away from certain threads online and I’ve personally taken steps to do so but the way it has started to permeate broader academia and work places is creating a real problem which needs to be addressed and the fact that sensible people a…

> I feel strongly that the aggressive conformists are gaining ground on several levels of society. ... the fact that sensible people are speaking out about it now is encouraging. It is, but I am afraid sensible people speaking out may be on the decline. Many employers now schedule obligatory "sessions" where employees are given a spiel on a topic heavily pushing "the right view" with a short 2-3 minuted at the end de…

> Many employers now schedule obligatory "sessions" where employees are given a spiel on a topic heavily pushing "the right view" with a short 2-3 minuted at the end dedicated to "discussion". With "just try to criticize this" as an unspoken seasoning.

That reminds me of what I've spoken about a few times with friends, that it's similar to what Hillary Clinton said about the need to have a public and a private opinion, only for different reasons. Most people know what is allowed and what is expected to be said in public, and they'll behave accordingly. But they have a different, real opinion in private.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#377

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #355

jessaustin wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're protesting the policing of minorities, and you stand at the ready to police their protesting... by asserting their minority status! In lots of protests this isn't a "small minority". Please think more carefully. The author of TFA would not appreciate your aggressive conformity.

Hey man, I agree completely that the police suck. But what I think is happening is there are two groups here: * Protestors of police brutality who are in the main completely peaceful and capable of self-policing. These people tend to do normal protest things like blocking the streets, yelling at cars, holding signs, and similar. That's totally fine and should be protected by law. Their leaders are often seen keeping…

Eventually there will be "ample evidence" that police are also members of this "second group". A Minneapolis cop vandalizing a business was identified on Facebook already. (Don't link to the police denials; rational observers take those as proof.) City governments have a lot easier access to pallets of bricks and the equipment to transport same than poor kids have. Authoritarians do the same thing over and over again because it works over and over again.

None of that matters. The point of the protests, to combat USA racism in general and also the specific racism of violent USA police, is more important than the form of the protests. If we truly do support these goals, we won't be sidetracked by potential insurance claims of large corporations. Instead we will interrogate myths we've accepted by dint of constant media gaslighting. MLK did not oppose destructive protest in general. Destructive protests are not counterproductive; in many instances they have had far more significant positive effect than any number of candlelit vigils. The police don't work for us (even if "us" means "us white folks"); they work for wealthy property owners. Many black Americans do support effective protests, even if the only black Americans allowed on cable news are very worried about "white anarchists". Much of the destruction you fear is the rational action of black citizens who've had to deal with this shit for a really long time.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#378

Post by free_rms » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

rclayton wrote: post #322

BurningFrog wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point, to spell it out, is about chilling effects. If some organization starts killing everyone wearing a blue hat,pretty soone nobody would wear a blue hat. And then people like you would think that since no blue hat wearers get murdered, this is fine. Even call it "non violent" perhaps.

Have we started killing cancelled people? Who has been “cancelled” anyways? What punishments have they endured? A lost job at a very public position? As someone wisely pointed out, the only person possibly going to be jailed in the #MeToo movement will be Harvey Weinstein. Many comedians and politicians have recovered. Look at Al Franken - polls show he’s electable in his state (by the group that ostracized him no le…

That's actually a great summary of the beef with cancel culture -- it only punches down.

They can't touch Trump, or Ben Shapiro, or any of the other people that they really hate. Those people's actual jobs are to say things progressives hate.

Who can the cancelers get? Moderate liberals, working in liberal enclaves, who said the wrong thing. Get'em! That'll make me feel better.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#379

Post by __alexs » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

etrautmann wrote: post #345

__alexs wrote: post #317

I honestly don't understand this perspective which seems central to a lot of pgs writing lately: "the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened" Can anyone explain it? We are, right now, posting on the most expansive and weakly moderated communications platform humanity has ever had. You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of…

I think the larger point is that it doesn't matter how easy it is to make works public if the consequences prevent you from doing so: if you can easily get fired, pushed out of a tenured position at a university, or otherwise lose your voice for making unpopular opinions public.

I don't buy this. There are millions of anonymous Twitter accounts and forum posters. Literal children have figured out opsec well enough to save themselves them embarrassment of having to share their love of anime with the wrong friends.

I'm sure a tenured professor is smart enough to use a different email address and profile picture when signing up to radical life extension forums if what they want to discuss is really that edgy.

We have more tools and venues to test out and refine new ideas today than we have ever before. Use them.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#380

Post by domador » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

wrren wrote: post #320

saberience wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many people have lost their livelihoods" Hmm, sounds intriguing. Do you have any sources for this or concrete examples which can be fact-checked?

Matt Taibbi's had a few good articles on this recently. Some excerpts: "Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that “anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other p…

[This is not a direct reply to your comment, but a comment on Hacker News itself.]

It's interesting that a couple of minutes ago, I was unable to even attempt to reply to wrren's comment. It was grayed out, and I guess you can't reply to grayed-out comments. I read the comment and saw an exploration of ideas, not something that would be destructive to the Hacker News community or experience. I reloaded the page, the comment is no longer gray, and I am now able to reply to it. I guess it's been upvoted into acceptability again, and eligible for further discussion.

Did I just imagine that there was no reply link after this comment? (It's an honest question, since this might be the first gray comment that I've tried to reply to.)

Ironically enough (given that Paul Graham founded it) Hacker News itself seems to provide tools for silencing unconventional ideas through downvoting (unconventional for HN.) Apparently, it's not a particularly new problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17612885

Seems like there's some aggressive conventionally-mindedness right here on Hacker News. It happens structurally, in the way downvoting unpopular ideas gets them silenced, and conventionally, in the way discussion about voting on Hacker News is discouraged.