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

Tradition is Smarter (2018)

scholars-stage.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#121

Post by sanderjd »

msla wrote: post #110
sanderjd wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recourse when nobody can be found who knows or remembers why the fence is there, is to figure it out based on first principles. It's fine to do "tear it down and see what happens" as a consciously chosen trade-off for expediency. But in my experience people often act like there's just no way of knowing if you can't find someone to ask, and that's very rarely the case.

In software, sure, reasoning from first principles is likely to work. With older traditions, it could just as easily lead you to just-so stories and other false explanations, such as the endless number of false etymologies which make all seasoned linguists deeply suspicious of any cute etymology, especially one which could be used to make a point.

Sure, I was talking about software. I think lots of other things are attackable from first principles. But sure, some aren't.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#122

Post by maxbond »

slyall wrote: post #119
8note wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A modern constitutional monarch holds no real power This is not the case. The monarchy is extremely wealthy, and a large landowner over what should be public land. Powerwise, the queen had plenty of involvement in a coup in Australia.

I assume you are talking about the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam? The Queen's involvement seems to have been little or none. They is some suggestion that her advisors might have know that the Govenor General was contemplating it, but not much beyond that. Certainly she wasn't pulling this strings behind it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

This is my understanding as well, and that this was likely the American & Australian intelligence (Kerr's communications with the CIA about the internal politics of his party, revealed by Chelsea Manning/Cablegate, provides circumstantial evidence which corroborates this, but of course we may never know for sure), but I do think it should be a sobering reminder that when people say, "don't worry about that power structure, it's merely ceremonial," we shouldn't take comfort in that. It is ceremonial until it isn't. Recall that recently in the United States, the Trump administration attempted to abuse the "ceremonial" role of Vice President to preside over the certification of the election in order to perpetrate a coup. If you leave power structures and veto rules hanging around, that no longer serve a functional purpose, it's a hazard; they're handles that a bad actor can grasp for.

Imagine leaving a backdoor lying around in a piece of software because it's been there for so long that it's nostalgic, and everyone pinky promises not to abuse it.

A more relevant example to the queen is Queen's Consent, which the royal family has used to influence legislation and further enrich themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent

Returning to the royal family, it seems to me that even if they were "ceremonial", royal families are a monarchy hazard; letting them hold onto their status as a "royal family" invites the possibility of a monarchist revolution to reinstate them. You say they're just ordinary citizens who happen to be billionaires with gorgeous hats? Fine, let's make it official.

You might say that's ridiculous, that there is no monarchist revolution on the horizon; I don't see any reason to believe there is either. But if we let them stay royalty for the next hundred years - what probability would you assign it? It's not zero, right? Personally I'd say between 1% and 5% (that's of course a number I made up based on my intuition), and I don't see that as a good risk/reward.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#123

Post by vimy »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #71
nehal3m wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not equivalent in most cases (not all female genital mutilation is performed the same way and I cannot fathom a medical reason for any sort). But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity. A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an alt…

Except, ironically enough, male circumcision is the perfect example of something that was done for "traditional" religious reasons, but for which now there is ample medical support for it. For example, circumcision is extremely common in the US, despite the fact that it is relatively very rare for it to be done for religious reasons (only about 2-3% of the US population is Muslim or Jewish). It is done because the me…

> It is done because the medical community broadly recommends it due to its health benefits: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circum...

Only recommended in the US. Which indicates that it’s still cultural.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#124

Post by maxbond »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #120
8note wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A modern constitutional monarch holds no real power This is not the case. The monarchy is extremely wealthy, and a large landowner over what should be public land. Powerwise, the queen had plenty of involvement in a coup in Australia.

> and a large landowner over what should be public land. That's really true in name only. I have about as much power over "Crown Lands" as the monarch does. Even when it comes to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, these are essentially perpetual trusts used to pay the monarch and his/her heir for their jobs and maintenance of their offices.

You wouldn't say the power to collect from that trust is a significant power which they have and you do not?

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#125

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

maxbond wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and a large landowner over what should be public land. That's really true in name only. I have about as much power over "Crown Lands" as the monarch does. Even when it comes to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, these are essentially perpetual trusts used to pay the monarch and his/her heir for their jobs and maintenance of their offices.

You wouldn't say the power to collect from that trust is a significant power which they have and you do not?

I mean, I know a bunch of rich people that have set up huge trusts for their children. They also have a significant power I don't have either, so what.

Obviously with royalty and nobility it is difficult to separate the personal from the public, but honestly I think the UK royal family probably does that separation better than most. And to be honest, you have lots of rich families in the US who are of the "born on third base and think they hit a home run" type. At least with the monarchy in the UK, they know that 100% of their position is due to pure hereditary luck, so at least they throw in some concept of "duty" to make the bargain palatable.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#126

Post by notriddle »

II2II wrote: post #118
convolvatron wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well and good. the issue I have is that when no one can be found that knows anything about why it was put there in the first place. every day I have to climb over that damn fence to get groceries. at what point do we tear it down to see what happens? in software, I would rather tear it down and find out what it was there for. most developers I've worked with in the past couple decades operate in an atmosphere of cons…

> at what point do we tear it down to see what happens? Without knowing the purpose of something, we cannot know the cost of removing it. A few weeks someone commented to me on how they thought that some chain link fencing along a railing should be removed because it was unsightly, until they saw a toddler playing near the railing and realized that the toddler could easily squeeze through if the chain link fencing wa…

I hope they added a sign, “keep children away from train,” to the fence.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#127

Post by lvxferre »

Relevant detail about yucca/cassava/manioc: there are two varieties of the crop, "sweet" and "bitter". The bitter variety is mostly eaten in the Amazon, the Brazilian Northeast, and a chunk of the Gran Chaco; elsewhere - including the rest of South America - people stick mostly to the sweet variety.

Why? Because the sweet variety can be safely eaten after boiled, just like that hypothetical Tukanoan mother wanted. (You can even deep-fry it, cover with Parmesan cheese, bacon and chives. It's a great bar snack.)

Odds are that the sweet variety was bred this way, through artificial selection; I'm not sure who did it, if the Amerindians or the Iberians. Either way, it's only there because someone actively questioned the tradition, and was willing to break with it.

I'm saying this to highlight that tradition does not think on its own, because it's solely the replication of past knowledge. Tradition is not smart - what is smart, however, is to know when to follow it or when to ditch it.

I do think that tradition has a role, but the author's article is misled on how and why to present it. At the end of the day, tradition is what makes us part of a community; it gives us a sense of belonging, be it as random or as predictable as it might be.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#128

Post by Dalewyn »

jpitz wrote: post #15

Chesterson's fence is about understanding: tradition may be smarter than you, maybe not, but it would serve well to understand the reasons why it's a tradition before disposing with it.

One of the most important lessons and pieces of wisdom I've learned in life so far is to always thoroughly understand something before proposing any changes to it.

Why is something the way it is? There's always a reason, both justifiable and unjustifiable.

Change for the sake of change, that is changing something without understanding why it's like that in the first place, is the epitome of stupidity.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#129

Post by uoaei »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #83
LAC-Tech wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let's go back to worshipping the sun, then. Who knows, if we don't, it might not rise tomorrow... I think we'd be much better off being un-ironic sun-worshipers than hollowed-out atomised atheists. And I see that as someone who is sadly in the latter category.

> I think we'd be much better off being un-ironic sun-worshipers... Better off worshipping unintelligent and non-existent beings, and all the foolish memes that inevitably accrete with magical thinking? > hollowed-out atomised atheists. Hollowed of what? Mostly harmful traditions many of which were designed to entrench unearned power and influence?

Hollowed of mystical modes of reasoning that provide unreasonably useful answers to our most pressing questions in a quasi-random fashion. You don't have to dig deep to find examples where this path outperforms "rationalist" approaches.

Re: Tradition is Smarter (2018)

#130

Post by uoaei »

klyrs wrote: post #62
codemonkey-zeta wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should be worshipping the sun. Morning sunlight exposure is associated with all kinds of health benefits, not least of which producing Vitamin D, an essential vitamin that, among other things, provides vital protection against certain circulating diseases... Maybe you should also live everyday as though the possibility of the sun never rising again were real, then maybe you might get busy doing those import…

With that argument, you might hope to convince me to spend more time in the sun. Not worship it. But no, as somebody with usually-moderate, sometimes-acute photosensitivity, even your usually-correct conventional wisdom isn't what the doctor orders in my case.

Tradition operates on statistical averages, not special cases. You are ignored by tradition. If that is a personal offense to you, you may benefit from discerning exactly why that is, and whether that reaction is an expression of tradition subverting your animalistic impulses for greater aims.
Post reply on HN