The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#681

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

missosoup wrote: post #91

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…

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…

The problem that I see is: what's the alternative?

Average people don't really have any political power in America so what alternative do they have?

I agree with you that some of the more extreme parts of the social justice movement (for lack of a better term) worry me, but the alternative seems to be to do nothing.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#682

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #308

oisdk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter, when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US. Like there is an authoritarian government right there for you to criticise, but you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like "can white people make rice, or is it cultural appro…

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 seems to me that we don't actually have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change since its been co-opted by corporations and the ultra-rich. I just don't see any good alternatives.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#683

Post by graeme » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

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-...

Lovely story! That said, lord of the flies had at least 20-30 boys involved, whereas this group was six boys who were already friends. More is different.

(Not arguing reality would go the way of lord of the flies, merely that the example above is not definitive. But boy would I like to see the movie they made!)

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#684

Post by kristianc » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #678

kristianc wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These claims don't conflict. It's entirely possible for independent thinkers to be mostly wrong, much wronger than the mainstream, and to be essential for progress. Most changes may not be improvements, but every improvement is still a change. Which is precisely why this framework is too reductive to be of any real explanatory value. At some point, someone has to make the decision about whether someone’s motivation…

> ‘aggressively conventional’ (PG introduces a new term here - presumably ‘woke’ is too inflammatory) "Woke" is too limited . It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now. Also, "woke" was once aggressively independent (probably before the term "woke" was used). Now it's aggressively conventional - tho…

> "Woke" is too limited. It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now.

But then where you place ‘woke’ in PG’s quadrant in itself is open to debate. Are trans rights activists ‘aggressively conventional’ for supporting the right to self-identify (in the UK at least a broadly popular position), or are they bold and independent minded for taking on more contentious positions, such as using the bathrooms of their identified gender without having undergone reassignment or take place in the sports of their chosen gender?

And if you can say someone can be both ‘aggressively conventional’ and ‘bold and independent’ where does that leave the tidy classification of the quadrant?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#685

Post by paigeschwartz » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:46 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #211

mattbee wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. pg might be interesting again if he said what "unsayable" and "aggressively independent-minded" things he actually wants to say, and I wish he bloody would - we've got no choice but to read it. "independent-minded" is such a cliche now - it's often a euphemism for something else. Surely more truly "aggressively independent-minded" people are homeless addicts, not rockstar founders. What's the right balance…

It would be interesting if he developed a theory of "unsayable" things based on examples. One really good one is Freud's theory of infantile sexuality: https://www.bartleby.com/278/2.html It's completely true that four year old boys get erections and play with themselves (I did), don't think about it all when they are ten, and then tend to think about it a lot when they hit puberty. It is the basis for understanding…

Interesting. Here's what he wrote about that in 2004:

"When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles...The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want. And if you feel you have to say everything you think, it may inhibit you from thinking improper thoughts. I think it's better to follow the opposite policy. Draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech. Inside your head, anything is allowed. Within my head I make a point of encouraging the most outrageous thoughts I can imagine. But, as in a secret society, nothing that happens within the building should be told to outsiders."

http://paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#686

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #365

jacobush wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the reform way hasn't worked very well, if at all, either. Not saying that means one should revolt or anything, just that America seems like it's stuck between a rock and hard place, currently.

>But the reform way hasn't worked very well, if at all, either. You don't see a difference between USA, 1960 and USA, 2020?

My understanding is that inequality is much worse now than in the 60s. It also seems like back then it was much easier to have a good quality of life with a non-skilled job than it is today. However, I haven't looked into it too much so I could be mistaken.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#687

Post by eezurr » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

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…

I think it's important to step back see the bigger picture. Your comment IMO is exactly what PG is talking about when he defines "aggressively conventional" (down to using the actions of the masses to support your POV). A perfect system cannot exist, and getting there is limited by economics -> diminishing returns.

It seems like you are pushing for a social structure that will consume American freedom to lower rate of failure (which is a drop in the ocean considering our population size) from our social system.

The system is not fundamentally broken, it's just human; comprised and run by humans.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#688

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #684

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ‘aggressively conventional’ (PG introduces a new term here - presumably ‘woke’ is too inflammatory) "Woke" is too limited . It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now. Also, "woke" was once aggressively independent (probably before the term "woke" was used). Now it's aggressively conventional - tho…

> "Woke" is too limited. It may be the current form of "aggressively conventional", but there were others before it, there will be others after it, and there are others than it right now. But then where you place ‘woke’ in PG’s quadrant in itself is open to debate. Are trans rights activists ‘aggressively conventional’ for supporting the right to self-identify (in the UK at least a broadly popular position), or are t…

I didn't say that someone can be "aggressively conventional" and "bold and independent". I said that the same position can be both at different times and places.

You seem to be trying to make PG's scheme a classification of positions, and it's not. It's a classification of peoples' behavior. The result is that most of your criticism is directed at something that is not actually PG's position.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#689

Post by pdonis » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #552

pdonis wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we truly do support these goals, we won't be sidetracked by potential insurance claims of large corporations. The victims of violence aren't large corporations; they're individual people whose homes and neighborhoods and businesses are not safe. The very people that the protesters claim to be protesting on behalf of. The valid claim of the protesters that the rule of law is not applied equally to everyone, as it…

Many effective protests do destroy property, and that's mostly the property of large corporations. Violence against individual humans is a separate issue. There are some indications that such violence has increased by a finite amount since the start of the COVID-19 shutdown. You're free to assume that this has nothing to do with the public health and economic situation (and self-interested voluntary decisions of poli…

> Many effective protests do destroy property, and that's mostly the property of large corporations.

The property being destroyed by rioters and looters in the current wave largely belongs to individuals and small businesses, although there have been some large corporations affected (e.g., Macy's in NYC was looted).

> Violence against individual humans is a separate issue.

I agree that it is worse to harm or kill a human directly than to harm or destroy their property. However, since many people's property is essential to their livelihood, harming or destroying property is still a very serious matter and should not be condoned.

> You're free to assume that this has nothing to do with the public health and economic situation (and self-interested voluntary decisions of police) and may be blamed entirely on protests

Rioting and looting is not a valid response to the COVID-19 situation any more than it is a valid response to inequality before the law and corruption on the part of the police (and the local governments that are responsible for police corruption).

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#690

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

missosoup wrote: post #159

wdwecewc wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who claims to be educated on history, it is important then to remind yourself of why this actually occurs. You can't make essays dismissing some angry mob as if they are a homogenous hivemind. They won't listen to you because they literally can't listen to you, they act independently and uncoordinated. You have to tackle issues which cause them to be aggressive towards racists to begin with. Police brutali…

You probably don't know this word, but you're literally advocating for ochlocracy, which is the very thing I was talking about in the upstream comments. The mob has an infinite well of issues, the mob will never be satisfied. That's exactly how it transitions into totalitarianism. Pandering to the mob just adds more fuel to the fire. Police brutality etc. are issues that should certainly be addressed, and there's cou…

You may be correct that it is not possible to satisfy the "mob". However, I don't think the mob exists in a vacuum. It seems to me that, at least to a degree, the mob and social unrest are a symptom of a society and democracy that as broken down and that is not working for people. In order to stop it, I think you need to restore people's confidence that the system is working for them.