How to Think for Yourself • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#851

Post by Consultant32452 » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #282

Consultant32452 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have these two backwards. By definition a populist is promoting the rights and power of the people against privileged elite. It's no surprise the privileged elite consider populist an insult. And it's the moderates, the privileged elite, that have to instruct the proles about what's best for them.

By definition a populist claims to be promoting the rights and power of the people against a privileged elite. In many cases this involves instructing proles not to listen to any other views and especially not any criticism of their movement since these are falsehoods promoted to serve the interests of the elite, and sometimes flat out telling them what the popular will is supposed to be...

A moderate wishes to maintain the status quo position of the elite. I don't think it's helpful to try to debate which type of politician is likely to lie more.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#852

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

ryeguy_24 wrote: post #615

Am I the only one is getting pretty bored of "formula for success" content? This essay and other's like it, without evidence or data, implies that some of us know the formula for success. I get it, the things that change convention are unconventional at first. This is the definition of unconventional. I agree with the general vector of his essay but this is just boring to me. Here is my formula for success (in case a…

[deleted]

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#853

Post by eloff » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #811

eloff wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience most people are sheep. I rarely encounter people who think independently about very much at all. And I'm sure they all would think the above didn't apply to them. Especially with politics I notice most people just pick a red or blue team or equivalent in their country, and inherit all their positions - which blows my mind. I also think it doesn't apply to me, but I worry about how really independent…

My advice is not to worry about it. Figure out what you want to think most about and seek truth. If other people find a different truth, try to learn from it. It's that simple.

If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong. If it's the majority with a different truth I'm honest enough with myself most of the time to realize it's probably me who's wrong. But sometimes I will stand my ground anyway, not usually out of stubbornness, but because I'm confident that my analysisis correct. I don't think my odds are actually great in these cases, but just occasionally I might have found the truth before the rest of the world, and that can be valuable.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#854

Post by darkerside » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #853

darkerside wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My advice is not to worry about it. Figure out what you want to think most about and seek truth. If other people find a different truth, try to learn from it. It's that simple.

If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong. If it's the majority with a different truth I'm honest enough with myself most of the time to realize it's probably me who's wrong. But sometimes I will stand my ground anyway, not usually out of stubbornness, but because I'm confident that my analysisis correct. I don't think my odds are actually great in these cases, but just occasionally I might have foun…

> If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong.

2+2=4. But it also equals 8/2, 4.00000, and 25% of 16. What I've found in my experience is that when people disagree, they can both be right, and most often, the heart of the disagreement is not what is true, but what is _important_.

Another thing I've found to be true is that if you don't understand what someone is saying, they probably know something that you don't. These two findings don't seem related at first, but they are.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#855

Post by darkerside » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

t_serpico wrote: post #699

darkerside wrote: post #669

I find it interesting that conventional thinkers are described as "sheep" in this article. In my experience, most people who I thought were shallow or "conventional" thinkers were not. Rather, they cared about different things than I did. They were independent thinkers, questioning assumptions, in the field where they were expert or passionate, and conventional thinkers everywhere else because they want to save their…

This is true. If I wanted to have independent thoughts for things I believe basically because most people believe them, I would not have the time to do anything else. Some people have this drive and capacity but most don't.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, these people would end up committed because they can't stop questioning the nature and fabric of reality. You'd basically end up catatonic.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#856

Post by eloff » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #854

eloff wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong. If it's the majority with a different truth I'm honest enough with myself most of the time to realize it's probably me who's wrong. But sometimes I will stand my ground anyway, not usually out of stubbornness, but because I'm confident that my analysisis correct. I don't think my odds are actually great in these cases, but just occasionally I might have foun…

> If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong. 2+2=4. But it also equals 8/2, 4.00000, and 25% of 16. What I've found in my experience is that when people disagree, they can both be right, and most often, the heart of the disagreement is not what is true, but what is _important_. Another thing I've found to be true is that if you don't understand what someone is saying, they probably know something tha…

On math, I would argue those are all equivalent and equally right.

On politics different positions are rarely equivalent, but you're right that there's almost always truth on both sides and it's really expressing differing views of priorities and values. However, if you rank them by "which is best for human well-being" there is a best answer even if we can't know it. So one can't use this as a easy out "all opinions are equally valuable" kind of thing, which is just nonsense. Though one could argue that prioritizing "human well-being" is a value judgment, which it is.

I also agree with your last point, it's usually me who's misunderstanding something in that case upon digging deeper.

However, there are also classes of things that are objectively true like whether climate change is happening as a result of human activity. Or whether a politician said X or not when there's a video of them saying X. It's never 100% certainty in life, but some things are known sufficiently well that there's almost no chance of them being wrong.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#857

Post by jfengel » Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

bosie wrote: post #706

jfengel wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it in the simplistic sense that we can sum up the revenue of the software industry. That's not really a complete calculation but it's clearer than trying to measure the value add of teachers.... even though it's arguably more.

well, the software industry is filled with non-software engineers. and if you go with the revenue angle, what do you do with companies that don't produce "value" (i.e. product doesn't sell)?

It wasn't my intention to claim that it could be calculated exactly. It was my intention to point out the distinction between software engineers, where there's a bottom line somewhere to be counted, and teachers, where the bottom line is effectively impossible to calculate.

This isn't about how much programmers are worth, but about why it is we get away with paying teachers so little while programmers are paid so much: their contribution to a corporate profit. The details are beyond the scope of the post.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#858

Post by darkerside » Mon, Nov 30, 2020, 12:52 AM UTC

eloff wrote: post #856

darkerside wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong. 2+2=4. But it also equals 8/2, 4.00000, and 25% of 16. What I've found in my experience is that when people disagree, they can both be right, and most often, the heart of the disagreement is not what is true, but what is _important_. Another thing I've found to be true is that if you don't understand what someone is saying, they probably know something tha…

On math, I would argue those are all equivalent and equally right. On politics different positions are rarely equivalent, but you're right that there's almost always truth on both sides and it's really expressing differing views of priorities and values. However, if you rank them by "which is best for human well-being" there is a best answer even if we can't know it. So one can't use this as a easy out "all opinions…

> However, if you rank them by "which is best for human well-being" there is a best answer even if we can't know it.

Years of philosophical thinking begs to differ.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Different-Types-of-Modern-U...

On those latter points, I'd go back to much of the disagreement being how much it matters. On balance, I agree with taking preventative actions because of the risk of global catastrophe. But I recognize that I don't know the future. There's a nonzero chance that global warming is less catastrophic than people expect, perhaps because we invent technological mitigations or because the Earth offsets the warming for cyclical reasons or in some kind of natural reaction to rising temperatures.

On balance, I believe we should work to reduce emissions and mitigate greenhouse gases, but I realize that it is just that, a belief, and I may be wrong.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#859

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 30, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

eloff wrote: post #856

darkerside wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If other people find a different truth, one of us is wrong. 2+2=4. But it also equals 8/2, 4.00000, and 25% of 16. What I've found in my experience is that when people disagree, they can both be right, and most often, the heart of the disagreement is not what is true, but what is _important_. Another thing I've found to be true is that if you don't understand what someone is saying, they probably know something tha…

On math, I would argue those are all equivalent and equally right. On politics different positions are rarely equivalent, but you're right that there's almost always truth on both sides and it's really expressing differing views of priorities and values. However, if you rank them by "which is best for human well-being" there is a best answer even if we can't know it. So one can't use this as a easy out "all opinions…

> However, if you rank them by "which is best for human well-being" there is a best answer even if we can't know it.

This assumes that “human well-being” has a single, objectively correct, ordinal measure, though maybe we don't know what that measure is.

That seems non-obvious, at best.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#860

Post by sfink » Mon, Nov 30, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

mariodiana wrote: post #355

lisper wrote: post #256

> There are some kinds of work that you can't do well without thinking differently from your peers. To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be correct. Your ideas have to be both correct and novel. As someone who once made their living as a scientist, I can tell you from firsthand experience that while this is technically correct, the conclusion PG wishes to draw from this: > One of the mos…

The difference between true genius and your regular old smart person is that it takes about all the brainpower the smart person has to understand something that's pretty complicated, and their thinking then becomes locked in. The effort not only cements their conceptual understanding; it cements their emotional attachment to their understanding. By contrast, the genius has the brainpower to understand a thing, unders…

I think this is true in less extreme cases too.

People have a tendency to do more of what works for them. People with more raw intelligence have lower cost (effort) in considering multiple possibilities and keeping them all alive in their heads at once. (I'll assume just for this paragraph that "raw intelligence" is a thing, and means what I want it to mean.) If other, less capable people attempted to do the same thing, they would get hopelessly confused and be unable to decide or act. So for them, it is smarter to stick to conventional wisdom; they'll be more likely to get a positive outcome.

Combine that with the fact that different people have different interests, inclinations, and abilities in different areas, and the result is that the whole dichotomy of "conventional vs unconventional" quickly falls apart.

Do what's right for you, not what's right for pg.