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

181–190 of 224 posts

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#181

Post by suoduandao2 »

agumonkey wrote: post #4
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…

Yes. And if someone knows books or discussions about this topic I want the names. Its such a strong force in social structures. Stating your truth is rarely possible, you better sing along and talk down in smaller sub groups later.

Everything handwaving freakoutery (it's a blog) publishes on egregores I found highly relevant and entertaining.

Actually, everything contemporary mentioning egregores is probably relevant - they're also called 'AI autocults', but the concept existed long before group communication became enmeshed with computer infrastructure - though the dynamics are different now than in enlightenment-era Europe, and the pre-Newtonian assumptions of the older publications throws most modern readers off.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#182

Post by deadpannini »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #179
deadpannini wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This turns into "no true Scotsman" pretty quickly. I was a (relative) loudmouth about my position for over a year, since we didn't have access to home tests in the US until 2022. It was a very heated topic, since I often proposed testing as a preferred alternative to ineffective mask mandates that were popular where I live, and when my wish finally came true, I had to admit I had been wrong. If changing one's mind ab…

Yet another case of someone being overly confident in an opinion that had no basis in fact. Imagine if you had looked up to realize the flu hasn't gone to near zero with testing, so why in the world would you think something as unknown as covid would? Of course that didn't stop many like you from attacking those who tried to call for caution. So while it's "nice" that you eventually changed your mind, consider being…

This is all beside the point at hand, but I suppose it's still about epistemology, so I'd like to stand up for my old position, even though I understand it looks foolish in retrospect.

The fact that so much was unknown was part of the reason I thought testing might have a different effect than the flu. Well into the pandemic, the vast majority of people feared COVID much more than the flu, so it seemed they would be much more likely to take precautions to avoid getting it or spreading it. But that fear attenuated over time, especially as people lost trust in the alarmist if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage.

Finally, your hostility is unwarranted: I am and have been a strong proponent of vaccines and I was fully on board to "flatten the curve", even for a short period of lockdowns. But I am not and never have been in favor of permanent midnight.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#183

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

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?…

What everyone is missing is that changing of the mind is a spectrum process, not a single binary process.

It happens over days, weeks, months, or years, depending on the subject. People who expect that if they refute a single then should then refute the entire opinion are the problematic ones (with binary thinking).

There are always edge cases, if all it took was a single counter-example, I would be a nihilist with no actual opinions. People change their minds when the bigger picture demands not, not because some young jackass decides binary logic should fully and completely apply to life.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#184

Post by dredmorbius »

dang wrote: post #177
dredmorbius wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad call, dang. In this case, I was unaware of the Edge Foundation's Epstein links. The information is salient and useful. Edge itself certainly doesn't make the information evident. C.f., a site search for "Epstein" which ... conspicuously omits any prominent results for a disclosure or apology: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=site%3Aedge.org+epstein&ia=... >

I interpreted the GP comment as asking why we allow posts from edge.org on HN. My comment is limited to answering that question. I've edited it to make this clearer.

Fair point.

Has robot_head's comment been downweighted at all independent of member votes? If so, that would also be inappropriate.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#185

Post by kmill »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #180
vanderZwan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a good-faith discussion, I tend to ask people "can you tell me why it is important to you that X is true?" (or false, or whatever) these days. Of course I should also be open about why a particular view is important to me in those situations. It seems to be the most effective way maintaining a productive conversation when disagreeing on things, regardless of whether we'll agree in the end.

I would immediately end a discussion if I were asked that question. If you want to dismiss me by trying to imply my opinion is driven by a want of something other than accuracy with reality, I can find other people to spend my time with.

Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Smart and well-informed people can come to different interpretations of reality that are accurate in their own ways. It's interesting to know what sorts of consequences to such interpretations a person finds to be important for their worldview.

Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in the situation you're responding to.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#186

Post by ivalm »

kmill wrote: post #185
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would immediately end a discussion if I were asked that question. If you want to dismiss me by trying to imply my opinion is driven by a want of something other than accuracy with reality, I can find other people to spend my time with.

Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Smart and well-informed people can come to different interpretations of reality that are accurate in their own ways. It's interesting to know what sorts of consequences to such interpretations a person finds to be important for their worldview. Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in…

“why it is important to you that X is true?” implies subjectivism in the belief system. While I think belief systems are largely subjective some people think of them as objective and take offense on suggestions that their beliefs are “just” subjective.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#187

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

deadpannini wrote: post #182
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another case of someone being overly confident in an opinion that had no basis in fact. Imagine if you had looked up to realize the flu hasn't gone to near zero with testing, so why in the world would you think something as unknown as covid would? Of course that didn't stop many like you from attacking those who tried to call for caution. So while it's "nice" that you eventually changed your mind, consider being…

This is all beside the point at hand, but I suppose it's still about epistemology, so I'd like to stand up for my old position, even though I understand it looks foolish in retrospect. The fact that so much was unknown was part of the reason I thought testing might have a different effect than the flu. Well into the pandemic, the vast majority of people feared COVID much more than the flu, so it seemed they would be…

Your position looked foolish then. Consider that maybe you don't do well in situations without perfect information and take that into account in the future.

The two most authoritarian countries on this earth (china and North Korea) were not able to get covid "to near zero". China literally had tanks rolling up and down their streets to enforce said curfew.

The idea that somehow the US (or similar western countries) were ever going to get there was always outlandish, as was the idea that it was worth giving up what makes us different from China and NK to do so (Australia is struggling with this question now).

---

Assumptions you made.

1. That human behavior was anywhere near the major deciding factor in covid transmission approaching zero

2. That covid transmission approaching zero was the most important factor

#2 is akin to always turning right in a vehicle because safety is the only concern. It was NEVER a good thought process.

---

And finally, the point here isn't that there were a lot of unknowns, it's that many people were RIGHT, and they got shouted down by people like you whose thinking was entirely flawed. There's a canyon of difference between being wrong because you just didn't know and being wrong because the entire platform you were basing it on turned out to be wrong.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#188

Post by vanderZwan »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #180
vanderZwan wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming a good-faith discussion, I tend to ask people "can you tell me why it is important to you that X is true?" (or false, or whatever) these days. Of course I should also be open about why a particular view is important to me in those situations. It seems to be the most effective way maintaining a productive conversation when disagreeing on things, regardless of whether we'll agree in the end.

I would immediately end a discussion if I were asked that question. If you want to dismiss me by trying to imply my opinion is driven by a want of something other than accuracy with reality, I can find other people to spend my time with.

That's... an interesting interpretation of what I said, because my motivation is the opposite. I had not considered it could come across as dismissive, thank you for pointing that out.

However, when I ask this it is not to dismiss someone, it's because if I understand why something is important to them I am better at arguing in good faith without accidentally being dismissive of what matters to them. Which helps with reaching a consensus, or a respectful point of agreeing to disagree.

Also, it's an important question people should be asking themselves but rarely do.

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#189

Post by dang »

dredmorbius wrote: post #184
dang wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpreted the GP comment as asking why we allow posts from edge.org on HN. My comment is limited to answering that question. I've edited it to make this clearer.

Fair point. Has robot_head's comment been downweighted at all independent of member votes? If so, that would also be inappropriate.

It hasn't, but it easily could be and that would be standard HN moderation. We downweight unsubstantive, generic, and/or offtopic comments all the time.

Btw, you rewrote your GP comment after I'd already replied to it. I don't know what you mean by "bad call".

Re: Adversarial Collaboration

#190

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

ivalm wrote: post #186
kmill wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting that they'd want to "dismiss you?" Smart and well-informed people can come to different interpretations of reality that are accurate in their own ways. It's interesting to know what sorts of consequences to such interpretations a person finds to be important for their worldview. Once we're talking about dismissing someone, we've long left the realm of good-faith discussion, which was assumed in…

“why it is important to you that X is true?” implies subjectivism in the belief system. While I think belief systems are largely subjective some people think of them as objective and take offense on suggestions that their beliefs are “just” subjective.

I have a close group of friends that consists of an athiest, an agnostic, a hindu, and 2 christians, and outside of 1 of those christians, we've all been friends for at least 13 years (1 of those relationships since 1994).

No one had to ask the hindu why they got upset when the athiest came by and stood next to the statue of buddha chomping on a mcdonalds beef biscuit.

The athiest didn't think about it, those two had a conversation afterwards, and they still get along just fine to this day (some 10 years later).

This is NOT about beliefs being objective or not. That group of friends has lasted over the years due to a fundamental respect of each other as PEOPLE.

Someone who asks that particular question lacks such respect and as such are not going to be given any headspace by me.

Post reply on HN