Live data from Hacker News

Persuasion through status rather than argument

robkhenderson.com

81–90 of 251 posts

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#81
post #2

Can the author provide example of dumb ideas? Or is it "dumb ideas" == "ideas I disagree with" More generally, it seems like the recipe of this breed of substack author is to take a basic object level opinion e.g. "I don’t like pronoun people" or "AI people are dumb" and turn it a whole pseudo intellectual rant without ever getting to the point.

If you can remember it, the American media and foreign policy establishment was fully in support of the war in Iraq. That actually is a really good example of what the author describes because I'm sure many knew it was a bad idea but went along with it to preserve their careers. I think we should be charitable with the author and not assume a "dumb idea" is something he disagrees with, but rather is something that wa…

> If you can remember it, the American media and foreign policy establishment was fully in support of the war in Iraq.

A decent corollary to that: how the pro-Israel media campaign is working out in the latest flare up with Palestine now that TikTok has been added into the mix, a fantastic illustration of the real reason they want to take it down.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#82
The author is trying to push a consistent narrative throughout the article, and unfortunately this results in the omission of alternative explanations for the phenomena discussed. For example:

> Likewise, in a fascinating study on the collapse of the Soviet Union, researchers have found that university-educated people were two to three times more likely than high school graduates to say they supported the Communist Party. White-collar professional workers were likewise two to three times more supportive of communist ideology, relative to farm laborers and semi-skilled workers.

Alternative explanation: university-educated people and white-collar professional workers personally benefitted more from the Communist Party, so of course they supported the party more.

> Educational divides within the US today are consistent with these historical patterns. The Democratic political analyst David Shor has observed that, “Highly educated people tend to have more ideologically coherent and extreme views than working-class ones. We see this in issue polling and ideological self-identification. College-educated voters are way less likely to identify as moderate.”

Alternative explanation: highly educated people spend more time and effort thinking about politics, indeed are forced to spend more time and effort thinking about politics by their teachers and peers, so of course they have more highly developed views and stronger opinions about politics.

> Research by Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischhoff at Carnegie Mellon University found that people with more education, science education, and science literacy are more polarized in their views about scientific issues depending on their political identity. For example, the people who are most concerned about climate change? College-educated Democrats. The people who are least concerned? College-educated Republicans. In contrast, less educated Democrats and Republicans are not so different from one another in their views about climate change.

Alternative explanation: again as above with regard to politics, highly educated people are forcibly confronted with the issue of climate change and are forced to think about it, discuss it, and form opinions about much more than less educated people.

Let's do a poll to see which group has more highly polarized opinions about sports, for example.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing physically impossible about the Hyperloop (basically a maglev in vacuum tube, nothing wrong with the tech, just not particularly economical). Maglevs have been deployed successfully in some parts of Asia, they are just dreadfully expensive and nimbys have fears about radiation but they are hardly new technology.

Note that the main point about the hyperloop was the vacuum tube, not the maglev part. And the vacuum tube doesn't actually work. It's not actually feasible to create a vacuum tube hundreds of km long. It's just about physically possible, but it's not really technologically feasible - not for a system that is supposed to be in constant operation all year long. It's also important to remember that vacuum tube trains a…

> It's not actually feasible to create a vacuum tube hundreds of km long

Why not? It's just a series of smaller sections that must each individually achieve near vacuum.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#84

[flagged]

Ever since COVID, I have been wearing masks, mostly when using public transport. Instead of five days a week, I now use public transport a lot less, a maximum of two days. Two advantages from this combination that I see are that I have not caught seasonal flu, as I used to every year pre-COVID, and extra conscious handwashing also probably helps. Additionally, I appreciate the fact that my whole face is not visible unless I want it to be, which helps me with social anxiety, and people tend to ignore me more.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#85
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an unregulated market, capital very naturally tends to accumulate more capital - while, if you have nothing, it's very hard to build up capital in the first place. Which means that, if this continues indefinitely, more and more things belong to fewer and fewer people - which is exactly what we've been seeing over the last couple of decades.

But you are wrong. Inequality has not grown over the last 20 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

Why are you only looking at income inequality, only in the United States and only in the last 20 years? Look at where that graph was in 1980, for example.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The replies don't make a ton of sense, did you change the contents of your comment?

Yes, the comment was changed considerably. Originally it gave Leonardo Da Vinci's attempts to create a perpetual motion machine as an example of a smart and successful person falling for a dumb idea.

Even in the source it says he was against such ideas.

> Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of devices he hoped would make free energy. Leonardo da Vinci was generally against such devices, but drew and examined numerous overbalanced wheels

Just drawing some stuff that looks like perpetual machine isn't the same as actually believing in it. In fact this is how science should work. Even if something has a small chance to be correct try that and think about it. Einstein didn't believed in black holes but thought about breakdown of his equations.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#87
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And besides that you don't have to have a really good vacuum, you just have to have a 'good enough' vacuum that you can attain high speed without losing the stabilizing effect of a bunch of air constrained by the walls of a tube. Bonus points of you can get the air to move at a speed a bit slower than your vehicle, more bonus points if you can use the air to propel your vehicle. But: it's probably still a dumb idea,…

The problem is that if any of that was a good idea, the question is why is the Hyperloop specifically a good idea, but regular old high speed rail is not? What factor are you changing that makes one good, and the other not good enough to get done right now? (the answer of course is nothing: the Hyperloop would be stupidly expensive, and however fast it is wouldn't solve the logistics problem of loading and unloading…

Yes, there isn't anything in particular about Hyperloop that makes it stand out, but it is different in high speed rail in that it is underground and so more complex in almost all ways but one: right of way (and possibly aesthetics, which depending on the landscape can matter a lot).

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#88
post #80
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. Regulation has gone up a lot over the last two decades which is why you're seeing what you're seeing. Historically in America or current day in developing countries, the rate of growth in living standards negatively correlates with the amount of regulation.

You haven't responded to my main point: do you believe that a completely unregulated market doesn't lead to wealth accumulation in the hands of few people? It is of course true that some (bad) regulation, like protectionism of various sorts, can also lead to the same outcome in a different way.

Yes, completely unregulated would lead to that. We need laws to protect against coercion and adjudicate in the case of disagreements between parties. Warring tribes where physical force wins is not a good place to be.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#89
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that most people that have a basic idea of materials science were simply intrigued (myself amongst them) because there wasn't anything that ruled it out and it seemed like a potentially promising path. And obviously: the truth would come out anyway given enough time. The HN threads of the time make for interesting reading: I think a lot of people approach technological progress from the point of somet…

I would contend that everyone discussing LK-99 took it very rationally. The idea that there were people "falling for it" is made up post-facto by a group who want to feel smugly superior about everything. Cynicism isn't wisdom though.

No, lots of people were falling for it and were twisting themselves into all kinds of knots that were not supported by evidence. And lots of people were similarly twisting themselves into all kinds of knots to claim it couldn't possibly true. And neither position was supported by evidence or physics.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the comment was changed considerably. Originally it gave Leonardo Da Vinci's attempts to create a perpetual motion machine as an example of a smart and successful person falling for a dumb idea.

Even in the source it says he was against such ideas. > Leonardo da Vinci made a number of drawings of devices he hoped would make free energy. Leonardo da Vinci was generally against such devices, but drew and examined numerous overbalanced wheels Just drawing some stuff that looks like perpetual machine isn't the same as actually believing in it. In fact this is how science should work. Even if something has a smal…

That source wasn't there in the first version.
Post reply on HN