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

631–640 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#631

Post by mcguire »

AlanYx wrote: post #204
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…

I feel the same way, but I think this era is much more directly similar to the "red guards" period during the Chinese cultural revolution than Soviet examples. Some of the parallels are just so direct -- students denouncing their professors, forcing them them to recant, the ideologies of the students growing more and more rigid and narrow through the conformity of the mob, until they often ended up even denouncing th…

Now, what happens to the "conventional" in Paul Graham's independent-minded world?

Can you be independent-minded in the wrong way? What if you're not independent-minded enough, according to someone?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#632

Post by happy-go-lucky »

You refuse to conform to conventions because you're independent-minded. As a business owner, to what extent would you allow your workers to be nonconformist?

By the way, I belong to the right upper quadrant, and I cannot answer my own question without being hypocritical.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#633

Post by NoodleIncident »

marvin wrote: post #573
oramit wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague. We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?

I'll hazard a guess: PG went out on a limb a few years ago, and actually published a long essay on one of the ideas that are very controversial in the sense implied in this essay. Namely, how tech tools as a primary driver for increasing wealth inequality will likely grow in importance, leading to increased wealth inequality, and that this is in itself not a problem. This was after years of pointing out that it's not…

Do you have examples of the backlash to this essay? Were there any actual consequences to expressing his opinion, or did people just express their own opinions about his?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#634

Post by Ygg2 »

monocasa wrote: post #563
missosoup wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is 100% correct and the fact that most people here misunderstand the Red Guards movement is the terrifying proof that they have no idea what we're dealing with in the US right now. This ideology is not something that strives for or can be steered into a productive outcome, it inherently wants to expand its reach and list of enemies until it takes over the entire world or someone shuts it down. It's the c…

I mean, Lord of the Flies is fiction. In real life, the boys stranded on a deserted island made a pact to never quarrel, and kept that pact for a half century. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...

I don't think children now would have the trust enough to cooperate.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#635

Post by brandmeyer »

jonhohle wrote: post #612
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?

The ones I can find quickly: * Nicholas Sandmann (for an image taken out of context) * Tenured UNC Professor Mike Adams * Goya Foods' CEO Bob Unanue (attempted) * Terese Nielsen (allegedly) * Grant Napear * Justin Kucera (allegedly) * Aleksander Katai * Kathleen Lowry * JK Rowling (attempted) * Cornell Professor Dave Collum * Stephen Hsu * Leslie Neal-Boylan * James Bennet * Melissa Rolfe * Emmanuel Cafferty

Brandon Eich

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#636

Post by joshuamorton »

nitrogen wrote: post #546
snowwrestler wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." There have been literally millions of American citizens marching peacefully for change, and a very small number of bad actors. There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history. And worse, takin…

There is no way you are informed... Who do you think you are helping by doing that? This kind of turning on people who agree with you in principle but might have some of the details wrong is exactly the kind of fractally magnifying divisiveness that some of these subthreads are talking about. We are all largely on the same side w.r.t. wanting positive outcomes for everyone. We will get there through deescalation and…

When you say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." it really doesn't sound like you agree with the protestors. So maybe if you do agree with them, don't say things that undermine them, or they'll respond in kind.

Saying "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." isn't deescalating or cooperating, and insisting that the protestors need to deescalate and cooperate after you say something uninformed and inflammatory is self-centered, it implies that whatever you were doing is better than what they were doing. That they need to cooperate with you, but you don't need to cooperate with them. That it's their responsibility to deescalate, not yours. And, well, that really doesn't sound like cooperation to me.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#637

Post by solmans »

happy-go-lucky wrote: post #632

You refuse to conform to conventions because you're independent-minded. As a business owner, to what extent would you allow your workers to be nonconformist? By the way, I belong to the right upper quadrant, and I cannot answer my own question without being hypocritical.

We'd all like to think we belong to Paul's upper right quadrant (which, mind you, isn't even very well defined) but in truth you, me, and even Paul himself are more conformist than we think and recognising that is an important step in being intelligent and not shielding yourself from criticism.

For example, I don't think wanting to go and pursue a business idea is independent minded. The overwhelming majority of people would like to do this, even your employees. Actually putting in the effort isn't very independent minded either since it's mostly a matter of how much capital, free time, and social safety nets you have, not how much of a free radical you are.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#638

Post by im3w1l »

oisdk wrote: post #385
vorpalhex wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're engaging in a straw man of both sides and it makes me want to disregard your argument entirely. > you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like... Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for…

> Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for someone despicable. So the only actual example I was able to google here was the last one: and I have to say, is that it? A guy wasn’t asked back as a dorm a…

> Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right?

It wasn't a murder. I suggest you read the transcript from Lane's body camera. Key points:

* Lane approaches George Floyd asks him to show his hands. Floyd is so high, he has difficulty complying.

* They take him out of his car and try to get him in the police car.

* Floyd claims he can't breathe and begs to be allowed to lie on the ground.

* They call the ambulance (unclear if this is before after he is put on the ground).

* He keeps talking for a few minutes, before losing consciousness.

https://www.fox9.com/news/transcript-of-officers-body-camera...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#639

Post by neonate »

pvg wrote: post #621
neonate wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because the pendulum has taken a noticeable swing in the reverse direction, with online mobs getting people fired because of opinions they've expressed. Extreme labels like "white supremacist" and "Nazi" are being put on people for views that deviate from approved ideology. This is creating a climate of fear in which each case of someone getting fired is enough to cow thousands if not millions of observers, who…

'Firing' is not a physical harm unless you mean it literally.

It directly impacts livelihood. It's physical in the sense that it's a real world, tangible harm. This is not at all the same thing as somebody merely saying something critical on Twitter. There's a clear distinction here.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#640

Post by oramit »

marvin wrote: post #573
oramit wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague. We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?

I'll hazard a guess: PG went out on a limb a few years ago, and actually published a long essay on one of the ideas that are very controversial in the sense implied in this essay. Namely, how tech tools as a primary driver for increasing wealth inequality will likely grow in importance, leading to increased wealth inequality, and that this is in itself not a problem. This was after years of pointing out that it's not…

I appreciate the response. I'm not certain which essay you are referring to so I can't comment on it or the backlash it received specifically.

In this "Quadrants" essay PG clearly aligns himself with the entrepreneurial free-thinkers, who bravely face down the mob. The problem with this though is he doesn't seem to be able to handle the criticism part. He acknowledges it is going to happen but when he gets dunked on for an essay, he takes his ball, goes home, and then complains that he can't have a real discussion.

But that's the entire point. He wrote something, people disagreed, that's the discussion. Did he take people's disagreements seriously? Did he change his mind? Was he unconvinced and pointed out why the people who disagreed were wrong? He seems to want to take on the mantle of beleaguered free-thinker while only willing to receive praise.

Post reply on HN