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

781–790 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#781

Post by throwaway284529 »

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…

Freudian Psychoanalysis is the basis of nothing. Freud never formulated testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and his "theories" were nothing but speculation and pseudoscience, which is why by 1980, US psychiatrists wanting to make their specialization more respectable and evidence-based purged the DSM of all references to Freud.

If anything, it's criticism of Freud and his theories, outside of strictly science-based objections, that is "unsayable":

kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#782

Post by anonymoushn »

grandmczeb wrote: post #768
bendbro wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due t…

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#783

Post by nappy »

Graham framing his essay as such is disingenuous, at best:

  And the call of the aggressively independent-minded is "Eppur si muove."
In case you had to search for this (I did)[0] It's a reference to Galileo being correct about the Earth orbiting the Sun, and famously so. The presumption of this reference is that "independent" thinkers are right - they are more often wrong. PG seems to presume, or lead the reader to presume, that these thinkers are more right... oddly the rest of the essay avoids the question of conventional wisdom being right.

This is also bad writing. The use of set phrases / quotes in a foreign language without citation is confusing for the reader, and also pedantic.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#784

Post by anonymoushn »

bendbro wrote: post #774
grandmczeb wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.

Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition": 1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire-…

We've already ended single family zoning in California!

In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#785

Post by qPM9l3XJrF »

sinker wrote: post #730
robzhu wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example?

Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).

I've seen some people on the left, at least, who are pretty explicit about their denunciation of reason. These types will say things like:

* "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!)

* "don't argue with racists"

* "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth hasn't gotten us anywhere."

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#786

Post by bendbro »

anonymoushn wrote: post #782
grandmczeb wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.

I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#787

Post by throwaway284529 »

throwaway8582 wrote: post #601
PaulHoule wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The fact that you are posting this using your real name is strong evidence that it's not actually "unsayable".

Freudian psychoanalysis was a core component of orthodox leftwing thought up until fairly recently. His influence on the left was massive, perhaps second only to Marx. The idea that you could get cancelled for endorsing his theories today, even the parts that arguably normalize pedophilia by sexualizing infants (eg, their supposed sexual attraction to opposite-sex parents, or their psychological development being based on a progression of erogenous zones) is silly.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#788

Post by bendbro »

anonymoushn wrote: post #784
bendbro wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition": 1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire-…

We've already ended single family zoning in California! In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?

Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, this is a potentially unachievable ideal, but we should still strive for it when possible.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#789

Post by zzo38computer »

There may also be some in between conformism/aggressive and having in different cases and different times.

"I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition?" My own response to such question might be, "How should I know? Such a thing is counterfactual and I do not know the answer."

I believe the discussion of ideas should not be banned; we need full freedom of speech and discussion of ideas. (Especially to complain about the government is necessary.)

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#790

Post by refurb »

michaelmrose wrote: post #773
refurb wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone from an ex soviet state isn't better positioned to understand our current crisis... You'd think someone who is against fascism would be interested to hear from someone who actually lived in a oppressive, authoritarian state, whether it be communist or fascist (since they use the same methods).

I am interested in relevant perspective. I'm disinterested in listening wherein people disguise their lack of insight with the prop of their background and nationality. Some people use their insight, intelligence, and education to dress up their ignorance in better clothes. I'm also wondering why someone Who grew up in Russia and moved to Australia would have a deeper insight into the the country I've lived in all my…

I'm referring to this statement:

Someone from an ex soviet state isn't better positioned to understand our current crisis anymore than someone who was once almost killed as a child by dogs is best suited to understand the "dangers" of dog ownership.

Your mixing words here. I would definitely say a child bitten by a dog has a "better perspective", but agree that they aren't "best suited".

Post reply on HN