21–30 of 56 posts
Engaging with political debate on Twitter is a terrible idea no matter what your ideology, no matter how mainstream your opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the non sequiturish format of your post quite intriguing. Too plus too sums to an integer, but which one? Elon Musk is a good example of becoming more conservative due to great wealth, after all. His ability to read between the lines is what makes him human, after all. He really passed the The Voight-Kampff test from Blade Runner, and I respect his conservative opinions.
Well you did question if I was a cheap and lonely Russian bot. Only way I could think to respond to that is to communicate my motivation for posting. I'm glad you respect Musk's conservative opinions. He did fire quite a few workers and there are quite a few people out there who dislike him though. I don't know maybe I'm overthinking things. I feel like an overturned tortoise baking in the desert sun.
I think we should. Politics is everywhere - it is how we organize our command chains and direct our collective action towards a set of goals. While corporations are rarely democracies, there is still politics in the sense that all the commands are the result of negotiations between the parts, in which each one informs the other about what's required and what are the possible outcomes. There is, however, a tendency to…
And that is the problem here: politics is more about emotions than intellect. And participating in it means you have to be emotionally intelligent.
So don’t be involved until you’re emotionally intuned with your colleagues.
(I often take the opposite side of my colleagues because that is the only way I can emotionally understand them. Also because I think being emotional over technical issues is foolish.)
> I used to identify with the left but now I lean conservative
Elon Musk claims this too, but posts all kinds of nonsense. He can get away with it, you can't. Assuming that you are a sane user of the internet however, you should be alright.
Sharing opinions does reduce cognitive noise, but it also promotes and enforces cognitive bias. Which is a fair trade you might think, and in many practical domains it is. But under democratic system, we already have instruments to reduce noise. We have polls and elections. Democracy is well suited to mitigate cognitive noise.
But not bias. Imagine 100 people. 10 of them are experts in some particular field. The rest is completely clueless. Now let's hold a poll on some binary question from that field. Of 10 experts, let's say only 8 get the answer right because of the noise, let's call it a 20% noise. Of 90 non-experts, however since they all answer fully noisy anyway, roughly 45 will vote right statistically. The vote is the 53 vs 47 in favor of the right answer.
Now let's say, there is a bias that skews the result 10% towards the wrong call. In an expert community, this is not a big deal. 9 out of 10 experts will get the answer right. But among the general population, this would account for 9 votes in the wrong direction. The votes are now 45 vs 55, and the wrong decision is taken.
TL&DR Democracy is statistically more vulnerable to cognitive bias than to cognitive noise. And sharing opinions reduces noise but promotes bias.
Depends on who you (want to) work with. I think about it this way: co-operation depends on trust and shared values, the lack of which hinders or prevents this. Every one of us is a bag of values, and some of these will often intersect with some of those we work with. Since team work is an active act of co-operation, it makes more sense for me to actively share those values that are broadly in agreement with those tha…
You answered your own question.
It seems to work well, I get along with all sorts of people with wildly different, often cooky, views. In my opinion that's more important than signaling my political leanings.