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

The Righteousness Fix

orionmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#161

Post by edmcnulty101 »

riskable wrote: post #83
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually both sides of arguments both have truth to them and the way to objective truth exists via trying to understand why both sides believe what they do. Athiesm seems like the objective rational truth. But why do billions of people believe in an invisible man in the sky? What is the objective truth that we can learn from that?

> Athiesm seems like the objective rational truth. > But why do billions of people believe in an invisible man in the sky? There's no equivalency or even logical basis of comparison between these two statements. You could've said, "Oranges exist... But why do we have apples?" or "Some areas of the ocean have boats. But why do other areas not have boats?" and it would make about as much sense. > What is the objective…

> There's no equivalency or even logical basis of comparison between these two statements

They're polar opposites. If one is true the other is false.

However there's truth to both of them.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#162

Post by imbnwa »

photochemsyn wrote: post #50

The tendency to link the 'addiction' tag to every undesirable human behavior is a common trend, but it's worth remembering what actual physical addiction to a substance is: a biochemical response to the introduction of a foreign substance into the body, that results in withdrawal symptoms when said foreign substance is removed. If there are no withdrawal symptoms, there is really no addiction involved. What the autho…

Medicalizing (or, providing the veneer of medical explanation in the realm of) ideological differences is weird.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#164

Post by fellowniusmonk »

zzzeek wrote: post #141
thinkingemote wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats sympathy. Empathy is different from sympathy. I can be sympathetic without really empathising with someone, and I can have empathy with someone without being sympathetic. Empathy uses more energy. Ingroups tend to avoid empathy with outgroups because that weakens the separateness between people, and ingroups try to strengthen ingroup sympathy. Pity is a form of sympathy. Sympathy: "I feel bad for you" Empathy:…

should have been more specific. I am not a stranger to cult indoctrination. Plus I grew up with these people in the same house. So I actually know where she is coming from and to some extent what it's like to be indoctrinated (I had a bried stint with scientology 30 years ago). It's fully possible to be empathetic for someone's worldview and still know that they are completely wrong. I'm not sure how that's not feasi…

I've lost several people to cults over the years and I sympathize.

People (not yourself obviously) confuse empathy and sympathy with agreement and that's simply not the case of course.

It's tough when you see yourself so strongly in someone else and share experience with them and they are destroying their lives by putting their trust in liars.

This is painful to see even in severe cases when someone is sucked in due to their own self serving biases.

It's frustrating though. Wrong people are still wrong. It's not that hard to "ground propositions" on the issues most people deal with in their practical lives (once you've conceded that physical reality exists.)

Good luck and hang in there.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#165

Post by chmod600 »

titanomachy wrote: post #99
photochemsyn wrote: post #50

The tendency to link the 'addiction' tag to every undesirable human behavior is a common trend, but it's worth remembering what actual physical addiction to a substance is: a biochemical response to the introduction of a foreign substance into the body, that results in withdrawal symptoms when said foreign substance is removed. If there are no withdrawal symptoms, there is really no addiction involved. What the autho…

I’ve been addicted to video games without being physically dependent on them. I’ve been physically dependent on amphetamines without being addicted to them. The relevant distinction isn’t what happens in your brain (which is not a useful diagnostic criterion), but whether you pursue the behavior to a harmful extent.

Is that distinction really useful though? Doesn't that rope in pretty much any behavior that deviates from your idealistic expectations of yourself?

Is a nail-biter an addict?

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#167

Post by chmod600 »

welshwelsh wrote: post #158
jiggyjace wrote: post #63

I wonder what the author's thoughts are on "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt. It mentions many clear refutes backed up by history to the idea of how bad it is for humans to be "addicted to righteousness". For example, individuals have not and do not live by themselves in a vacuum as only selfish. We are also very group-ish, and it is the righteousness or norm…

Religion is often passed down from parents to children, and people historically tend to believe whatever their parents do. But in modern secular societies, family is less influential, and people get their information from other sources. For example, most people go to public schools, which teach from a secular perspective. They consume secular media and participate in an increasingly secular, globalized internet cultu…

What you say is probably true, but there's a creepy quality to it: spreading your ideas to other people's children.

Spreading your ideas to other adults seems fine. Or spreading your ideas to your own children seems fine, because you are heavily invested and reap the results of the outcome.

And educating on fundamentals like reading, writing, and math seems fine.

But just pushing whatever pet ideas or political philosophies on other people's children seems downright bad.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#168

Post by giraffe_lady »

jimbokun wrote: post #145
csours wrote: post #67

Social Media rewards polarized, highly motivated points of view. This isn't a "both sides" thing, it's a human nature thing. These highly polarized posts never change anyone's minds. They only make people more motivated. It can be good to be more motivated, but the cost is driving a wedge between people who are differently motivated. So how can tech solve this? I have no idea, but people can help by having conversati…

I think it has to be a change to the culture. Many of us have been shocked at the sudden rejection of Classical Liberalism. Preference for free exchange of ideas, objectivity, debate, judging arguments without regard to who is making the argument. I think those of us who were engaged in that intellectual world, never realized that most people are not invested in these values. So now that everyone has the capability t…

It's not that I reject those values per se in their intended, theoretical sense. I don't find them a sufficiently nuanced tool when applied to the world, and so reject any framework that depends wholly on them.

For example:

* None of us are making objective judgements about an argument without considering how the speaker affects us. If you believe you're above this, your evaluations are similarly tainted, just as someone who is openly prejudiced against the speaker would be.

* What does "free exchange of ideas" look like in an unequal society? Where are these ideas being exchanged? They got free buses to the venue, childcare, guaranteed time off work to attend? If not then to what extent is this exchange of ideas open to all?

* Debate isn't a value in its own right. The usefulness or correctness of an idea is fairly unrelated to the rhetorical skills of the person presenting it.

I don't really want to debate any of these specifically so won't engage further on them. I raise them just to point out that rejections of classical liberalism aren't necessarily based on rejecting its values specifically, but more its views about the right role of those values in the world.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#169

Post by CobrastanJorji »

chmod600 wrote: post #165
titanomachy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been addicted to video games without being physically dependent on them. I’ve been physically dependent on amphetamines without being addicted to them. The relevant distinction isn’t what happens in your brain (which is not a useful diagnostic criterion), but whether you pursue the behavior to a harmful extent.

Is that distinction really useful though? Doesn't that rope in pretty much any behavior that deviates from your idealistic expectations of yourself? Is a nail-biter an addict?

"Not your ideal expectation of yourself" is probably not enough, but if it's causing the nail-biter significant harm, then potentially, yes. If you've got someone who's tried unsuccessfully to stop biting their nails, they do it as a stress relief mechanism, it's causing significant bleeding/infection, they're hiding their hands out of embarrassment, they're having problems at work because it's grossing people out, etc, that could probably qualify as a behavioral addiction.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#170

Post by edmcnulty101 »

notacoward wrote: post #152
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ALL people value fairness and harm avoidance. They just define 'what' or 'to what level' is fair or harmful, differently than you. It shows the bubble one lives in to think otherwise. It's very telling that you apply more favorable labels to one group and labels associated with negative outcomes to another.

Perhaps it's not explicit in the context provided, but Haidt was talking about priorities . Most people believe in all things on the list. The question is which way they'll decide when they encounter a conflict between two (or more) of these values. Which one do they preserve, and which do they suspend? It's the literal definition of a moral dilemma, and people have been pondering these questions for thousands of yea…

What's the science behind claiming that conservatives prefer authority over fairness or caring for others?

Sounds like unscientific terms used to demonize an large group by choosing favorable characteristics for one group and unfavorable characteristics for another.

Conservatives do it also by characterizing liberals as emotional and irrational and bleeding heart and impractical and incompetent furry avocado toast eaters.

I don't know how accurate these labels are for large groups of tens of millions of people.

Sounds like the kind of thing people want to hear to feel a moral superiority over a group that they differ from, exactly what the article describes.

It's like saying all Arabs have terroristic tendencies.

I would love to see Book sales of that specific book broken down by political region.

Post reply on HN