Live data from Hacker News

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

31–40 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#31

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Here's another one that will incite HN: Personal ambition is overrated, and we're actually just buying into the lies of Western culture that we have to become the Ubermensch to be happy. I struggle with this.

Personal ambition can be redirected into an ambition to improve the world around you, which is pretty healthy and utility-promoting on balance.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#32

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Re: gun control, depends where you live. I grew up in a rural area where you'd still be laughed out of the room for suggesting that gun control was a good idea.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Social media, at it's core, glorifies groupthink, rewarding you handsomely with stars and likes when you say the right thing. In time, you start thinking of what you should be saying, and then you start wondering what you should be posting so that you're perceived as a certain type of person. And when you start down that path, it feels like you become a bit more intellectually subs…

This happens here too. The downvote is a pretty big deal for such a tiny button. I'll admit to writing comments I never posted because I knew people would eviscerate me for going against the groupthink. It doesn't change my thoughts... I just don't say them "out loud".

I admit I enjoy inciting things on here sometimes, especially in the face of groupthink, perhaps so I can self-righteously claim that the groupthink exists without giving time to fully think through the opposing side.

It can come off as aggressive, for sure. I do think a healthy community needs skepticism and introspection to remain that way.

But I do think people unintentionally reinforce the notion of the status quo needs to be reinforced/destroyed, which can affect the types of thoughts you'd think about sharing with a group.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is no less true now. If anything the explosion of ubiquitous and instantaneous social media has only exacerbated the tendencies towards branding unorthodox thinking as Thoughtcrime as a twittermob of snark and hatred can be summoned in hours if not minutes.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Social media, at it's core, glorifies groupthink, rewarding you handsomely with stars and likes when you say the right thing. In time, you start thinking of what you should be saying, and then you start wondering what you should be posting so that you're perceived as a certain type of person. And when you start down that path, it feels like you become a bit more intellectually subs…

one would hope that granting an upvote/plus vs a downvote/minus would be objective. It is obviously not, and you're exactly right, it rewards group think.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#35

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Exactly. Even in Paul Graham's own essay, some things are always forgotten. He's smart enough to question why the Church/Italian state attacked Galileo for repeating Copernicus' ideas, who was a celebrated hero of the church.

And nobody ever realizes that Galileo was not at all interested in the scientific facts (well he was, up to the point he went insane and became a political agitator and generally a lunatic, read his letters, you'll see that I'm actually quite polite here). Rather he was organizing demonstrations and violence because the church owed him a different kind of state (needless to say, with him on top) because the earth rotated around the sun (amongst many other "reasons", most of them quite insane). This case was then dug up later to justify ripping the catholic church out of Germany. That failed, but the story about Galileo stuck.

Some of our historical heroes ... aren't heroes. Socrates is a similar situation. Celebrated philosopher. Speaker at nearly every forum (meaning the weekly meeting where their direct democracy happened). He was an advocate, a statesman, a philosopher.

And then they execute him. Wait. What ? Nobody ever seems to think that they've probably skipped over small part of the story here.

An inaccurate summary was that Socrates' students were involved TWICE with actions that led to the military sacking of Athens, with very strong suspicions of him having ordered them to do so. This "just happened" to occur right after one of the first times he didn't get his way in the forum. The first time he got off with a stern warning, execution of every one of his students involved that sided with the occupying force, and a promise not to have any students for 2 years, which he promptly ignored. Then it very nearly happened again, and again his students were helping the enemy army. Then he was executed together with his students.

There is at least a decent case to be made that Galileo was executed for organizing violent protests against the state (using, amongst many other things, the idea that the earth rotated around the sun as a rallying idea).

Likewise, Socrates was likely killed for organizing the military conquest of Athens when he couldn't democratically get his way in parliament twice (and for having a habit of sleeping with the wives of other Atheneans). Not because Atheneans were afraid of science.

Neither of them were very nice people. Not that horrible people can't be important forces of good in history, but you should at least note that this is so. E.g. Kemal Ataturk, an early 20th century figure that a lot more genocidal than Hitler. He also ended the 1.5 millenia long war of muslims against the west and the east, and frankly without him we would not have a modern time. He ended it because he thought it was a waste of money, effort and most of all, lives, not because he was against war. He just didn't believe the objective was worth the cost. Still, his importance in making our current mostly democratic world possible is at least on par with Churchill. But he is a monster, personally responsible for several ethnic extermination campaigns, no doubt about that.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#36

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Really? I find that philosophy and the God question, faith etc is really the opposite to a taboo - it's what we mostly seem to end up discussing in the pub after the tech talk has died down. But we are British techs, which may make a difference.

It's all logic at the end of the day - or at least that's the path we take in talking about it.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Social media, at it's core, glorifies groupthink, rewarding you handsomely with stars and likes when you say the right thing. In time, you start thinking of what you should be saying, and then you start wondering what you should be posting so that you're perceived as a certain type of person. And when you start down that path, it feels like you become a bit more intellectually subs…

This happens here too. The downvote is a pretty big deal for such a tiny button. I'll admit to writing comments I never posted because I knew people would eviscerate me for going against the groupthink. It doesn't change my thoughts... I just don't say them "out loud".

Same here. Someday when I have a HN Karma score in the bazillions I will feel free to say what I really think. Until then I feel compelled to largely hew to the HN party line.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#39
post #25

Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers? If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told. The other alternative would be that you independently consid…

It's possible, yeah, but you have to be particularly insensitive to both verbal and nonverbal rejection cues in order to be willing to do it more than once.

Ever pitched a controversial opinion to a group of peers? You'll find that a lot of people look down at their hands, or away from you, or at each other with a blank/expectant/fearful face.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens here too. The downvote is a pretty big deal for such a tiny button. I'll admit to writing comments I never posted because I knew people would eviscerate me for going against the groupthink. It doesn't change my thoughts... I just don't say them "out loud".

I admit I enjoy inciting things on here sometimes, especially in the face of groupthink, perhaps so I can self-righteously claim that the groupthink exists without giving time to fully think through the opposing side. It can come off as aggressive, for sure. I do think a healthy community needs skepticism and introspection to remain that way. But I do think people unintentionally reinforce the notion of the status qu…

> I admit I enjoy inciting things on here sometimes

Yes... there are times I do just say fuck it and post it anyway. HNKarma is pretty worthless after all. :)

Post reply on HN