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

Adversarial Collaboration

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 224 posts

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#11

Post by labster »

themitigating wrote: post #9
bigmatto wrote: post #3

One of the most disappointing things that I have learned is that most people hold opinions in order to be part of some group. If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. They are arguing in order to maintain their group membership, not to find the truth. It appears this is true of academic and scientific…

Why did you point out academics and scientific disciplines specifically even though you said it happens everywhere?

Read the article.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#12

Post by bhouston »

Fun fact, edge.org and the Edge Foundation was generously funded by Jeffrey Epstein -- without him, Edge probably wouldn't exist as it does. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep.... From 2001 to 2017, "foundations associated with Epstein provided $638,000 out of a total of almost $857,000 received by Edge over this period." So basically Epstein funded 80% of Edge's budget.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#13

Post by trafficante »

This whole article reads like a cope for the fallout caused by Thinking Fast and Slow.

I purposely keep my copy faced forward on the bookshelf as a reminder of the dangers of reading too much into anything published in the past 15 years.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#15

Post by anonporridge »

bigmatto wrote: post #3

One of the most disappointing things that I have learned is that most people hold opinions in order to be part of some group. If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. They are arguing in order to maintain their group membership, not to find the truth. It appears this is true of academic and scientific…

"People don't have ideas. Ideas have people."

https://wearehostsformemes.com/

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#16

Post by bearon »

xapata wrote: post #6
ARandomerDude wrote: post #2

> Let's start from the main domains where we know people don't change their minds—politics or religion. > In politics and in religion, the main driver is social. We believe what the people we love and trust believe. Except I've changed my mind on both, despite enormous pressure by people I love not to. Also this article seems to be self-defeating: if we don't change our minds, why attempt to convince us of that fact?…

I don't think it was meant as an absolutist assertion.

Then it shouldn't have been titled as so.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#17

Post by anonporridge »

bhouston wrote: post #12

Fun fact, edge.org and the Edge Foundation was generously funded by Jeffrey Epstein -- without him, Edge probably wouldn't exist as it does. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep... . From 2001 to 2017, "foundations associated with Epstein provided $638,000 out of a total of almost $857,000 received by Edge over this period." So basically Epstein funded 80% of Edge's budget.

Didn't he fund a ton of different scientific organizations?

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#18

Post by rfrey »

romeros wrote: post #7
bigmatto wrote: post #3

One of the most disappointing things that I have learned is that most people hold opinions in order to be part of some group. If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. They are arguing in order to maintain their group membership, not to find the truth. It appears this is true of academic and scientific…

I think it is the other way around. When people are part of a group the view of the group becomes their own. Most of the thoughts that you think aren't really your own. It is simply a script written by the society around you. For example: Someone born and brought up in the West would think that children don't owe anything to their parents because it was their parent's choice to have them. While someone born and broug…

That was kind of a ... weird example. I don't think I've asked many people in my circle if they think they "owe" anything to their parents, but by their actions I'd say 90% of them do think they owe a lot to them, and have a profound duty to care for them as they age.

I live in Canada, but I can't imagine it's that much different in the US.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#19

Post by ch4s3 »

romeros wrote: post #7
bigmatto wrote: post #3

One of the most disappointing things that I have learned is that most people hold opinions in order to be part of some group. If someone is a member of a group, it is almost not worth listening to their arguments, especially arguments in support of views held strongly by that group. They are arguing in order to maintain their group membership, not to find the truth. It appears this is true of academic and scientific…

I think it is the other way around. When people are part of a group the view of the group becomes their own. Most of the thoughts that you think aren't really your own. It is simply a script written by the society around you. For example: Someone born and brought up in the West would think that children don't owe anything to their parents because it was their parent's choice to have them. While someone born and broug…

> You can't convince someone in the West to think anything otherwise than that stated above.

That isn’t at all a uniform view in the West. I grew in a community where people expressed a great deal of what might be called filial piety. Not everyone held or maintained that belief though.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#20

Post by tomrod »

anonporridge wrote: post #17
bhouston wrote: post #12

Fun fact, edge.org and the Edge Foundation was generously funded by Jeffrey Epstein -- without him, Edge probably wouldn't exist as it does. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-ep... . From 2001 to 2017, "foundations associated with Epstein provided $638,000 out of a total of almost $857,000 received by Edge over this period." So basically Epstein funded 80% of Edge's budget.

Didn't he fund a ton of different scientific organizations?

I'm pretty sure that is how he built is network, right?
Post reply on HN