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

651–660 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#651

Post by joshuamorton »

nitrogen wrote: post #646
joshuamorton wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMO the more charitable reading of that is "everything [I've heard about the] protestors doing", in which case the blame lies on biased information sources, not directly on our fellow commenter. So, again IMO, a productive reply might be, "Data shows that most of the protestors are peaceful, but I do acknowledge there are some bad actors that are getting the bulk of the attention. Maybe we can brainstorm solutions to…

You've sidestepped the main point, which was that they first escalated and then you've made it the other person's responsibility to de-escalate. I'm asking why it is not the original persons' responsibility to pick their words carefully so as to not escalate in the first place.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#652

Post by __alexs »

neonate wrote: post #574
__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…

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…

These hypothetical people are getting fired because their words cause real harm to people. They encourage others to act in ways that result in (not at all hypothetical) physical, emotional and economic harm, usually to underrepresented groups who are least able to weather it.

You'd get fired if you punched a coworker, getting fired for speech that encourages others to do the punching seems like fair game. If you're in a position of influence you must measure your words carefully if you care at all about not harming people.

If you want to explore radical, potentially harmful ideas, find a safe space of like minded people to do it in rather than forcing it on random people on the internet unconsensually.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#653

Post by BurningFrog »

__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…

> Can anyone explain it?

One clue is that almost everyone here posts anonymously.

Under people's own names, many would be much more careful and conformist.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#654

Post by arrosenberg »

novok wrote: post #606
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139

> Since one's quadrant depends more on one's personality than the nature of the rules, most people would occupy the same quadrant even if they'd grown up in a quite different society This contains a strong assumption of nature over nurture. I push back on that. (A point of evidence being salivary cortisol correlations with high-stress childhoods and even prenatal environments.) Independent-minded cultures produce mor…

After seeing how different an adopted child acted compared to the non adopted ones in a close family member's family, I believe a lot more in nature causing big differences in behavior vs. nurture. Even when you have your own kids, children born 1 or 2 years apart in the same family can have very different personalities. People don't like it, because it's used to justify fatalistic write offs of people. I agree it's…

Adopted and second children still represent different environments. If the adopted child wasn't adopted at birth, their formative years would greatly impact what is perceived as nature. Its a meme that parents are generally more cavalier and relaxed with later children than they are with the first, and that is a significant environmental variable.

Nature definitely hardwires in some baseline chemistry, but those first couple of years have a huge impact on how a child will deal with that chemistry.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#655

Post by joshuamorton »

tome wrote: post #207
DavidVoid wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main reasons for his rise to fame was the opposition to bill C-16. A bill he claimed to oppose because of its free-speech implications, when all the bill actually did was extend existing legal protections of identifiable groups to also include gender identity and gender expression. Those exact same protections already existed on the basis of race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orien…

As I understand it (and maybe I'm wrong) his objection was that the law would compel his speech (in particular to call a transwoman a woman). Is that claim false? Is there any existing similar compelled speech under the existing legislation? If not then that seems to explain why he hadn't previously criticized the legislation.

It would compel that speech in the same way that you are compelled to call me "Joshua" and not "asshole" when we are engaging in a conversation at work.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#656

Post by monocasa »

Ygg2 wrote: post #634
monocasa wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you might be surprised. The sense of comradery between the younger gens is crazy.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#657

Post by pvg »

neonate wrote: post #639
pvg wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

There is a distinction but it's not the one you were originally making. Which seems important in a discussion about kinds of harms. Firing someone is not assault.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#658

Post by wisty »

snowwrestler wrote: post #417
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…

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…

A lot of these protesters seem to be willingly acting as shields for the brick-throwers.

How many times have we seen a black-clad (thus like the 'secret police' unidentifiable and unaccountable) brick thrower seek shelter in the crowd of "peaceful" protesters?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#659

Post by miguelmota »

> The first is that any process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid.

Especially the people who enforce the laws. Law enforcement police officers have to follow orders without question. People who don't question things are inherently stupid.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#660

Post by wisty »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #584
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…

These protests are possibly the single largest protests for civil rights in the country's history. It is estimated that between 15 and 26 million Americans protested. Roughly 6% to 10% of the US adult population. If after almost 1 in 10 Americans protesting for the same thing you're pushing, you think you're less capable of succeeding at your job, I think you may want to question your approach. And I don't mean that…

If the mayor of Portland joins them, and many of them just chant "fuck Ted Wheeler" at him, maybe they need to come to the table with solutions rather than just problem?
Post reply on HN