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

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#191

Post by jonnycomputer »

zackmorris wrote: post #190
jonnycomputer wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick. Dopamine doesn't signal a reward, and it isn't a reward in itself. In this context, the important function of dopamine is that it signals a reward prediction error .

Thanks for this, I never quite thought of it that way. I struggled with ADHD-like symptoms profoundly during the eras of my life when my beliefs didn't match the trajectory the world was on, mainly during the early 2000s and late 2010s. My beliefs have since changed, now that I'm able to set boundaries and not let the outside world influence my inner peace as much as it once did. But I really think there is something…

These are good questions.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#192

Post by ameminator »

BeetleB wrote: post #149
ameminator wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think we felt righteous when we invaded Iraq on a lie? Do you think that the Hutus felt righteous when they killed Tutsis in Rwanda in the 90s? Do you think that people felt righteous when they committed heinous torture on people, for petty crimes, in the medieval era? Do you think the vaccinated feel righteous when they condemn the unvaccinated?

This comment is just noise and doesn't really address anything the parent comment put forth. Anyone can ask questions.

The purpose wasn't to ask questions but to point out that our society, and societies around the world, have been prone to behavior that we consider wrong or a mistake due to righteousness. This was to directly support the original article and to refute the OP comment that righteousness can only be a good thing.

Maybe the style was a little rhetorical, but I do think the article has a point that we have to be wary of "righteous" behavior so that we can avoid doing something terrible. Of course, there probably are some (even many) useful points, as the original comment suggested. However, we do have to be conscious of the bad points to avoid going down a bad path.

Of course, the last question on the unvaccinated was draw immediacy to our own society which spawned things like r/HermanCainAward which celebrates the death of the unvaccinated, and other attitudes against them.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#193

Post by tanseydavid »

wrycoder wrote: post #155
tanseydavid wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> PG is referring to the long-recognized practice of political dog-whistles here. Serious question: what exactly do you mean by "political dog-whistle"? No similar term is contained in the Paul Graham piece that was linked and I am genuinely curious what it is you are implying by this. I have heard this term "political dog-whistle" thrown around over the past few years and for me it has somewhat poor metaphorical qu…

Only the dog can hear the dog whistle. The act of using coded words, phrases or even emoji to say specific things to a specific group while seeming innocuous to the general public. It can be used for members of a group to acknowledge who each other are, or to rename issues so that they seem different to the general public, or to bring up events to push an agenda. [0] [0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter…

I have a very difficult time finding this to be applicable to the PG piece.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#194

Post by BeetleB »

ameminator wrote: post #192
BeetleB wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is just noise and doesn't really address anything the parent comment put forth. Anyone can ask questions.

The purpose wasn't to ask questions but to point out that our society, and societies around the world, have been prone to behavior that we consider wrong or a mistake due to righteousness. This was to directly support the original article and to refute the OP comment that righteousness can only be a good thing. Maybe the style was a little rhetorical, but I do think the article has a point that we have to be wary of…

> The purpose wasn't to ask questions but to point out

That's exactly why I called out your comment. It was loaded with questions, when your goal was to make a point. It's a nice rhetorical device in theory, but blows up in practice. I've taken courses in communications and read several books, and virtually all of them say not to ask questions if your goal is to make a point - especially on contentious issues. Just go directly to making your point/argument.

> and to refute the OP comment that righteousness can only be a good thing.

The OP never made such a claim. His comment is decently nuanced. I'm also familiar with Haidt's work, and OP's comment is inline with his work. Haidt also doesn't claim that righteousness can only be a good thing. Indeed, the book points out problems with righteousness, and I would assume the OP is aware of them.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#195

Post by riskable »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #161
riskable wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Actually, no: If the atheists are right then the theists are 100% wrong. There's no middle ground there or "truth to both sides."

If the theists are right... Which theists? Are we talking about polytheists? Single god but multiple instances of it (aka Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism)? Monotheism?

If any one of those are right then all the others are wrong. There's not really any ground that exists between these beliefs.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#196

Post by edmcnulty101 »

riskable wrote: post #195
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Actually, no: If the atheists are right then the theists are 100% wrong. There's no middle ground there or "truth to both sides." If the theists are right... Which theists? Are we talking about polytheists? Single god but multiple instances of it (aka Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism)? Monotheism? If any one of those are right then all the others are wrong. There's not really any ground that exists between these beliefs…

Religion provides community, it provides a spiritual outlet, it provides ritual, it provides comfort in the face of death.

There's many benefits and truths about religion that don't require an invisible man in the sky to exist.

That was acutually my original point.

TRUTH can be found in both atheism and theism.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#197

Post by edmcnulty101 »

memling wrote: post #189
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery is one of those things that violates the fundamental principles of the declaration of Independence: all men are created equal, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So of course it should have been abolished and shame on the states that fought a war to preserve it. Even in the most limited federal government has fundamental requirements.

> Even in the most limited federal government has fundamental requirements. I guess my question is more related to how you can tell the difference between a "valuable value" like "slavery is bad" and a less-valuable value, like "going to church is a public good and should be compulsory."[0] While one can use the Declaration as a discriminator, that it's starting a civil war of its own might give us pause (and it has…

It's a huge grey area and legal scholars have been working on it for centuries if not millenia.

Hardcore libertarians think the only reason the government should exist is to protect property rights.

At the other extreme are collectivists who think the government should exist to manage most everything to create the maximum equality.

Where the line is drawn the job of government.

The Declaration of Ind. And bill of rights are a good litmus test for the fundamental things people view govt to be responsible for.

Both conservatives and liberals are needed to keep the balance from going too far one other direction.

Which is why I hate this demonization of the other political party.

Both groups are needed to keep things in balance.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#198

Post by riskable »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #196
riskable wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, no: If the atheists are right then the theists are 100% wrong. There's no middle ground there or "truth to both sides." If the theists are right... Which theists? Are we talking about polytheists? Single god but multiple instances of it (aka Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism)? Monotheism? If any one of those are right then all the others are wrong. There's not really any ground that exists between these beliefs…

Religion provides community, it provides a spiritual outlet, it provides ritual, it provides comfort in the face of death. There's many benefits and truths about religion that don't require an invisible man in the sky to exist. That was acutually my original point. TRUTH can be found in both atheism and theism.

I think you're confused. The truth you're talking about exists outside of both of those contexts (theism VS atheism).

Religion is just a collection of beliefs that may or may not involve "an invisible man in the sky". Theism VS atheism are mostly orthogonal to the point you're trying to make.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#199

Post by patcon »

watwut wrote: post #184
patcon wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Middle between truth and lie is a lie. It sounds like you're perhaps assuming the "middle" is a point in rational space. But maybe "middle" is best conceived as a point in possibility space -- it's the position over which someone must travel to ever get beside you in the future. So allowing the middle to exist as valid (even if it isn't "truth") is perhaps important if the goal is for two groups to align more. Deny…

> 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. This is literally about two people arguing. It is actually very possible that one of them is right and other is wrong. Arguments are not just about abstract things. > Denying the middle position as "non-truth" is only helpful if one's goals have less to do with…

Thanks for replying :)

> Plus, the "truth is in the middle" thing motivates actors on all sides to make up extreme lies.

No, this is not what the research points to. Rather, having people confidently (and NOT weakly) holding middle positions strengthens groups' abilities to reach consensus. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(...

And yes, I understand that this research is intentionally on topics of ambiguous morality, but that is because that served the protocol design: they didn't want to complicate the protocol with there being a "right" answer someone could look up. And increasingly in our public discourse, factual and moral disagreements are starting to share the same human qualities/challenges anyhow. Conversation about facts are increasingly like conversations about morality, and will be increasingly so as we become more networked.

> Arguments are not just about abstract things.

Believe me, I get that. I'm not overlooking that. But it doesn't matter to the divide that exists, and the steps required to repair it. And for me, the main value in even noticing a difference in perception is to repair it. Noting it for any of reason is just for posterity, and is pretty pointless imho.

Example: Someone you care to engage with believes their experience of the Mandela Effect[1] means they're hopping between dimensions. For the sake of stakes, pretend this is breaking apart this person's marriage. Pretend that giving up on them isn't something you want to do. There is a very clear factual truth here: the Mandela Effect makes no sense as anything more than human forgetfulness. But it's entirely possible that no amount of "bringing the truth" will change their mind, especially when they can easily hop on the internet and be validated by others who (for their own reasons) believe the same thing.

The more likely way to bring them to your reality is to be in closer relationship to their view. To ask questions about it. To make them feel like you're trying to understand and see what they do. Even if you believe 100% that they are wrong, you need to enter a mindset and perspective where they might be right.

That's all I mean. It's basically practicing humility about things you think you already know, because knowing something factual misses the whole process and serves no one. And honestly, my experience of building reflexes for acting this way, is that you actually do learn some things you thought you already knew. Maybe not about hopping dimensions, but about the underlying drives and motivations that animate the curious conclusions at the surface.

[1]: https://www.alternatememories.com/news/tv/mandela-effect-fea...

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#200

Post by dragonwriter »

patcon wrote: post #77
watwut wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that this is fundamentally untrue. Middle between truth and lie is a lie. When you are trying to find truth purely by searching middle of what people say, you are enabling bad actors and punishing honest people.

> Middle between truth and lie is a lie. It sounds like you're perhaps assuming the "middle" is a point in rational space. But maybe "middle" is best conceived as a point in possibility space -- it's the position over which someone must travel to ever get beside you in the future. So allowing the middle to exist as valid (even if it isn't "truth") is perhaps important if the goal is for two groups to align more. Deny…

> maybe "middle" is best conceived as a point in possibility space -- it's the position over which someone must travel to ever get beside you in the future.

Physical motion is continuous, but change of ideas is not physical movement. The ex-Trotskyites that became the original neoconservatives did not move through a continuous path of intermediary ideologies on their left->right journey.

> Denying the middle position as "non-truth" is only helpful if one's goals have less to do with depolarization.

Why would depolarization be a goal independent of the specific consensus position achieved?

Post reply on HN