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

You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 226 posts

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#211

Post by escapedmoose »

lisper wrote: post #162
raattgift wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the intent to advance a hypothesis for public scrutiny was declared explicitly, indicating the basis for forming the hypothesis (or where it was found, if not originated by the hypothesis-advancer), then I think there would be interactions with experts rather than an avalanche of non-experts repeating slogans (with no indication of how or where they found the adage). That sort of transparency may make the differen…

But the scientific method applies to all aspects of life, not just science-y things. When I wrote "Or... you [might] want to advance a hypothesis to see if it will stand up to public scrutiny" I was actually doing just that: advancing a hypothesis to see if it would stand up to scrutiny, specifically, the hypothesis that one reason one might engage in a discussion on the internet is to advance a hypothesis to see if…

n=1 I’ve certainly commented to see how well my arguments hold up.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#212

Post by escapedmoose »

troad wrote: post #184
bryan_w wrote: post #54

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.

This is the way. You don't even have to argue, it's usually enough to confidently note that you disagree with the points being made. In a group setting, that's all it takes to prevent a false impression of consensus from emerging. In private settings, it can plant that seed of doubt. Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly contex…

> They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you

Realizing this works wonders. Often it’s enough to politely point out one or two factual errors. “I’m not invested enough in the topic to argue on it, but I do know that X is factually incorrect.” It’s non-confrontational, so it doesn’t put people on the defense. Plus it gives them a thread to pick at to unravel the inconsistencies with their own reasoning.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#213

Post by escapedmoose »

spacemadness wrote: post #197
drstewart wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this goes far beyond politics (though it's the obvious one). People say they only can use reddit to find organic recommendations, but the representation is still very narrow. Take podcasts or books for example: if you use reddit to source recommendations, you'll get the same ones coming up over and over. Many of my favorite podcasts I've found have been stumbled across by chance and have rarely even been mentione…

Hobby subreddits in hobbies I’m more versed in are incredibly frustrating as it converges to people trying to fit the same rehashed suggestions onto whatever is being asked without any real thought about the context of the question. I get the feeling its just people trying to fit in by repeating authoritative recommendations while having next to no experience with what they’re suggesting.

I’ve experienced this same thing. Very frustrating when you get downvoted for pointing out the flaws of commonly held misconceptions which only novices would fall for. I hate to gatekeep hobbies, but the bar for entry to speaking with authority on Reddit is too low.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#214

Post by escapedmoose »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #190

I really like to debate issues. This leads to many problems on the modern internet. I won’t go into all of them, but the biggest by far is when the real world and online world collide, and you encounter stakeholders not willing to work on a good-faith basis. I live in a small town of around 6,000 people in NJ. Very rural, you have to drive 30+ minutes to get most anywhere. Yet our bucolic town is a hot bed of intrigu…

That’s insane! I’ve generally been of the opinion that one can escape the negative effects of social media by simply walking away, so I’m awed to hear that it’s had such a physical, real-world effect on your town.

Can I ask if you have any theories as to why it’s spiraled so far out of control? What are the particularly divisive issues? Does your town have an interesting demographic makeup that would exacerbate flamewars? This is really intriguing.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#215

Post by escapedmoose »

avgcorrection wrote: post #78

I hope I never feel intrinsic motivation to defend my employer.

Really? Don’t you think that motivation to defend one’s employer would correlate with taking pride in one’s work? If someone was spreading false shit about my employer, I would feel the need to set them straight, because I care about the impact my employer has on my community.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#216

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #155
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2016 elections were basically contests between “dont feed the trolls” and “only volume matters, feel free to be shitty and unhinged as long as you’re vocal.” Tragically but understandably, all sides have copied the winning strategy.

I don’t really agree that democrats have been shitty and unhinged. I mean, Jan 6, mass book banning, and the latest Republican inability to select a speaker of the house all come off as way more unhinged than anything democrats have done in a similar period of time. What’m I missing?

You’re talking about the actions of legislators and leaders, where there is a massive difference in decorum, imho because on the republican side the inmates are running the asylum. I was more talking about the posting strategy of your average redditor or god forbid twitter user

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#217

Post by lloydatkinson »

sec400 wrote: post #128

Follows the saying "Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it."

Never argue with a hacker news user because they will strut around the chess board and then declare they have won, after some ad hominem attack of course.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#218

Post by ruszki »

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: post #161
cm2187 wrote: post #84

When you are responding to a ridiculous take on something you are familiar with, you aren't necessarily engaging with the author. I think you are 1) providing readers with a more useful angle, and 2) not giving the wrong impression to a candid reader that this take is somehow a consensus. If it was in a 1:1 online conversation, I agree, it would be mostly pointless. But a forum is more like a public debate (provided…

Asch's Conformity Study proved the effect of having just one extra voice stand for the truth. This effect is stronger than most people think, which is why totalitarian governments, and those aspiring to get there, employ botnets and resort to shadowbanning etc. Keep standing up for the truth, you help others overcome peer pressure!

I think the main problem is currently, that this works also the other way around.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#219

Post by synu »

escapedmoose wrote: post #210
synu wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it just seems like everybody talking past each other, that this supposed silent majority of people passively observing and waiting to be convinced by the most reasonable argument simply doesn't exist, or barely does. Your mileage may vary, but this has been my experience.

How would you be able to tell whether the silent population is there or not? I can understand how this could be your “theory,” but not your “experience.”

My experience is nobody from the massive silent population has ever jumped in to introduce themselves and say they were convinced, and I've never met anyone in real life who says they use forums but don't post just to be convinced by arguments on the internet to choose one worldview or another. From that experience I developed the theory that they don't actually exist.

But anyway, debating the semantic difference between theory and experience seems to be missing the point.

Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet

#220

Post by avgcorrection »

escapedmoose wrote: post #215
avgcorrection wrote: post #78

I hope I never feel intrinsic motivation to defend my employer.

Really? Don’t you think that motivation to defend one’s employer would correlate with taking pride in one’s work? If someone was spreading false shit about my employer, I would feel the need to set them straight, because I care about the impact my employer has on my community.

> Don’t you think that motivation to defend one’s employer would correlate with taking pride in one’s work?

No.

Post reply on HN