Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earnestness

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 478 posts

Re: Earnestness

#461

Post by bonoboTP »

anubidiocane wrote: post #210
oblio wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway and Denmark (as well as France) were treated with kiddie gloves compared to what occupation in Eastern Europe meant.

Well, Norway collaborated with the nazis and sympathised for some of their ideas at the time, for example Norway had been experimenting with eugenics programs since the 20s when they started to sterilise mentally hill patients and made it legal in 1934. But the king of Norway and members of the army escaped to London and directed the resistance from there. Ask the Jews that owned the houses and nursing homes that wer…

They had a head start after WW 2 for sure. Earlier they were not affected by Ottoman wars like the Balkans and other Eastern Europe (the extent of destruction and de population that brought was beyond imagination), nor a Moorish occupation like in Iberia. Scandinavia was not razed to the ground and drastically depopulated in recent centuries.

Finland is somewhat exceptional among the Nordics as they were quite poor and had some shit to deal with from Russia (and Sweden) but managed to become rich and high trust.

Re: Earnestness

#462

Post by merdadicapra »

bonoboTP wrote: post #461
anubidiocane wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Norway collaborated with the nazis and sympathised for some of their ideas at the time, for example Norway had been experimenting with eugenics programs since the 20s when they started to sterilise mentally hill patients and made it legal in 1934. But the king of Norway and members of the army escaped to London and directed the resistance from there. Ask the Jews that owned the houses and nursing homes that wer…

They had a head start after WW 2 for sure. Earlier they were not affected by Ottoman wars like the Balkans and other Eastern Europe (the extent of destruction and de population that brought was beyond imagination), nor a Moorish occupation like in Iberia. Scandinavia was not razed to the ground and drastically depopulated in recent centuries. Finland is somewhat exceptional among the Nordics as they were quite poor a…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Denmark...

They have been at war for 2 centuries like much of Europe.

Depending on who you ask, Ottomans were their allied or their enemies in Scandinavia, at times they have been both like Denmark allied of Ottomans against Russia that then switched side and sided with Russia that gave them land from Sweden.

https://i.redd.it/4r4yx17hf9a51.png

There were big differences between Scandinavian countries and they have been at war for a long time.

Denmark for example owned Ghana, like Belgium owned Congo.

They were richer than say Finland.

France has been involved in less wars during the same time span.

Another example: Spain and Portugal weren't bombed during WW2, they were not occupied, they stayed mostly neutral, but didn't develop an high trust society.

It must be something else.

Re: Earnestness

#463

Post by zepto »

alecbz wrote: post #381
zepto wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply can’t see how this can be right. What we know about PG’s experience is a huge prior that shapes how we interpret what he writes. I think this probably explains some of the polarization we see in the comments - people who don’t know who he is see this as just a dumb blog post that seems to be getting too much karma. People who do, see it as insight from someone who is in a position to actually know something.

I'm not saying PG asserting some insight is the same as some random person asserting it: certainly PG has some prior we should take into account. But I think good essays are ones where you don't need to really rely on that prior. A good essay is one that convinces you that what it's saying is true, instead of just asserting it and relying on the reputation of the author. If an essay doesn't convince you directly, the…

I think this is a very obvious no-true Scotsman fallacy around the notion of a ‘good’ essay, plus a straw man of what PG wrote: “just asserting something and relying on the reputation of the author”, and one of what I wrote: “that things should be take at face-value.”

It is fairly obvious that persuasive writing often convinces people of things which we are either not true, or meaningless.

It’s also fairly obvious that all authors perspectives are formed by experience, and that knowing about that experience is informative of how we interpret what they say. This is simply true of all human communications.

I can’t really see what you are trying to accomplish by insisting there is something called a ‘good’ essay, whose hallmark is it’s persuasiveness in the absence of knowledge about the author.

Certainly there are some sincere essays that do fulfill this criteria, but it’s what also exactly what a cult leader or marketing agency would be aiming to achieve with their writing.

I would make the case that being persuaded by an essay is an epistemically salient signal which can be thought of as a red flag that we may be being manipulated by someone we wouldn’t choose to be manipulated by.

When we experience it, the responsible thing to do is to inform ourselves more about the author and their experience rather than to lionize the piece of writing.

Re: Earnestness

#464

Post by zepto »

pseudalopex wrote: post #337
zepto wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply can’t see how this can be right. What we know about PG’s experience is a huge prior that shapes how we interpret what he writes. I think this probably explains some of the polarization we see in the comments - people who don’t know who he is see this as just a dumb blog post that seems to be getting too much karma. People who do, see it as insight from someone who is in a position to actually know something.

Many of his critics mention his connection to HN, discuss his earlier essays, and so on.

Fair point.

Re: Earnestness

#465

Post by throwaway2245 »

zepto wrote: post #402
pseudalopex wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. My view is probably he didn't read any of those papers. He has to know most of his audience won't. He has to know the search results could change too. So he was just sneering at the words. Changing the search terms is just more evidence he wasn't pointing to any particular research.

It clear he wasn’t pointing at a particular paper. He was pointing at a general area. I think we agree on that. And ‘sneering’ doesn’t seem unrealistic, given that he used the word bogus. But the thread we are having this discussion on is about him ‘Denying the existence of white supremacy’. I don’t think anyone has said anything which justifies such a charge. I think one can easily accuse him of is intellectually im…

The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus (and the edit uses another general keyword across a general search, which still deliberately suggests that). This suggests to me either:

1. you deny white supremacy exists - in my opinion, that's the more generous reading, or,

2. you acknowledge that it exists but wish to publicly state the view that it is not worth any research hours. That is itself white supremacy, plus the intent to cause harm.

There is no credible third option. You suggest intellectual immaturity or narrow-mindedness (from someone with a PhD), but those would come in addition to either 1 or 2 applying, not instead of.

Using childishness as an excuse for racism is still racism, especially if you are a grown adult. Your excusing this as just childishness is embarrassing.

Re: Earnestness

#466

Post by alecbz »

zepto wrote: post #463
alecbz wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying PG asserting some insight is the same as some random person asserting it: certainly PG has some prior we should take into account. But I think good essays are ones where you don't need to really rely on that prior. A good essay is one that convinces you that what it's saying is true, instead of just asserting it and relying on the reputation of the author. If an essay doesn't convince you directly, the…

I think this is a very obvious no-true Scotsman fallacy around the notion of a ‘good’ essay, plus a straw man of what PG wrote: “just asserting something and relying on the reputation of the author”, and one of what I wrote: “that things should be take at face-value.” It is fairly obvious that persuasive writing often convinces people of things which we are either not true, or meaningless. It’s also fairly obvious th…

Re. strawman: maybe this is a good essay, but I was referencing Dumblydorr's assertion that if someone else had written this essay it would be considered mediocre/not make it to the top of HN, and your response that this is irrelevant, since the author _is_ in fact PG.

I'm not sure where the no-true Scottsman is?

> I can’t really see what you are trying to accomplish by insisting there is something called a ‘good’ essay, whose hallmark is it’s persuasiveness in the absence of knowledge about the author.

Really? This seems entirely non-controversial to me. It's more-or-less "don't judge a book by its cover". Maybe I was over-emphasizing _how_ important this is ("hallmark" is probably too strong), but all-else-equal, a text being able to rely on the arguments made within as opposed to who the author is seems positive. And I think there's _obviously_ metrics by which you can judge an essay's good-ness beyond its author.

[SSC][0] is a good example. I think he writes very interesting essays that captivate and convince people on their own. The only "reputation" he had when he started was that he was psychiatrist. Recently he's gotten a bit more popular, but still, his reputation is just "someone who writes good essays".

Are you suggesting it's dangerous that SSC writes good, convincing essays, despite the fact that he's not some well-known figure?

If you have no previous knowledge of a cult, getting convinced by their writing seems to be more about getting convinced by bad arguments than it is about attempting to consider arguments directly. And once you're already in a cult, I think it's a very common feature to have members rely only on the reputation of the cult leader without trying to think critically about the actual things they're saying.

Like, let's say someone gets indoctrinated into a cult. You could say "Yeah, see, if they had just discounted the cult leader due to their reputation instead of trying to actually read what they had to say, they wouldn't have gotten indoctrinated." I guess? But they could have also used more scrutiny in examining the arguments? And if the reader isn't using scrutiny to examine the arguments, why do we think they're going to make good decisions about whose reputation to trust?

[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/

Re: Earnestness

#467

Post by nthj »

webmaven wrote: post #445
nthj wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me the subtle miscommunication between billionaires and the rest of us is the rest of us are asking “what ever will you do with a dynasty” and many billionaires, I think, have a mental model of “I have proven I can employ this wealth more effectively than bureaucrats, and I like to solve big problems, and wealth makes it easier to solve big problems.” This is a huge generalization we could easily find cou…

> It seems to me the subtle miscommunication between billionaires and the rest of us is the rest of us are asking “what ever will you do with a dynasty” and many billionaires, I think, have a mental model of “I have proven I can employ this wealth more effectively than bureaucrats, and I like to solve big problems, and wealth makes it easier to solve big problems.” > This is a huge generalization we could easily find…

I didn’t miss any facts. I was deliberately cagey because this line of debate your comment enters is irrelevant to my larger point: the arguments may be wrong, or right, or any number of other conclusions, but they aren’t incongruent with each other.

Re: Earnestness

#468

Post by zepto »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #465
zepto wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It clear he wasn’t pointing at a particular paper. He was pointing at a general area. I think we agree on that. And ‘sneering’ doesn’t seem unrealistic, given that he used the word bogus. But the thread we are having this discussion on is about him ‘Denying the existence of white supremacy’. I don’t think anyone has said anything which justifies such a charge. I think one can easily accuse him of is intellectually im…

The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus (and the edit uses another general keyword across a general search, which still deliberately suggests that). This suggests to me either: 1. you deny white supremacy exists - in my opinion, that's the more generous reading, or, 2. you acknowledge that it exists but wish to publicly state the view that it is not worth any research hours. That is its…

“The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus“

If this statement were true, then would be merit to your conclusions.

However it’s obviously not true.

The link clearly does suggest that the kinds of academic paper that search yields are bogus.

The original search was for “hermeneutic” “dialectics” “hegemonic” “intersectionality” “whiteness” (as best I can reconstruct).

This is quite obviously not a search for ‘any research on race’.

Indeed it is clearly a search for a very narrow kind of academic writing on ‘whiteness’, which itself is a term only used in a subset of academic theorizing about race.

Most kinds of research on race do not include these search terms.

Obviously PG does think this narrow subfield is bogus.

It’s puzzling that you have concluded that this means he thinks that ‘any’ research on race is bogus.

The best way I can made sense of this is to figure that you think that any criticism of academic writing about race is equivalent to denying white supremacy.

Re: Earnestness

#469

Post by KukiAirani »

Earnestness aligns well with the powerful idea of "Strong opinions, loosely held".

Being very convinced of ones ideas, but readily willing to change them in the face of new evidence, is a trait of a person who cares a lot but also has no hidden agenda.

Re: Earnestness

#470

Post by throwaway2245 »

zepto wrote: post #468
throwaway2245 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus (and the edit uses another general keyword across a general search, which still deliberately suggests that). This suggests to me either: 1. you deny white supremacy exists - in my opinion, that's the more generous reading, or, 2. you acknowledge that it exists but wish to publicly state the view that it is not worth any research hours. That is its…

“The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus “ If this statement were true, then would be merit to your conclusions. However it’s obviously not true . The link clearly does suggest that the kinds of academic paper that search yields are bogus. The original search was for “hermeneutic” “dialectics” “hegemonic” “intersectionality” “whiteness” (as best I can reconstruct). This is quite obvious…

> It’s puzzling that you have concluded that this means he thinks that ‘any’ research on race is bogus.

So: any research on race is fine, but using the words 'whiteness', 'racialized' or now 'intersectionality' (this word appears newly to me) makes it bogus...

Half of the results on Google Scholar which mention 'white supremacy' contain at least one of those three words, broadly consistently since 1990.

How do you talk in any useful way about race relations without ever using those words? Awkwardly, in modern academia.

- You can't now easily define what "white" means in your context (since this definition is not fixed or absolute), for example, so how can we understand the foundation of your work?

- You don't now have a word for talking about how the experience of being a woman or disabled or gay etc is different (or not) for black people than it is for white people.

- You don't now have a word for the experience of ethnic or cultural groups becoming discriminated against with political involvement.

It's akin to saying research in computer science is fine, but the words 'algorithm', 'lisp', or 'big data' show it to be bogus.

Post reply on HN