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

Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

agileotter.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 282 posts

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#101

Post by yarg »

maxbond wrote: post #84
yarg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there's the need to a counterpoint to the world that says "you're beautiful, you're smart, you're perfect just the way you are.". A lot of the time the modern world tells us that feelings are more important than objective reality. It's bullshit.

I find this a bit perplexing. What value is there in telling people they aren't beautiful or smart? What objective sense of beauty and smartness are you trying to hold them to? I can understand being bothered by things that are overly saccharine, I just don't understand the value proposition in providing a "counterpoint" or trying to check this in some way.

Because leading people to believe untrue things about themselves leads to horrific and often untimely realisations and disappointment later in life?

Or maybe I'm just a cunt.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#102

Post by brhsagain »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #88
brhsagain wrote: post #43

I'd argue that telling someone the truth does absolve you of responsibility, because if the truth upsets someone, what they're actually upset about is the reality of the universe. Or if it's a truth about them, then the reality about themselves. The truth-teller is just the messenger. Each person is responsible for how they deal with reality, including the parts they don't like. I get what the article is saying. Give…

1. Often "you can't handle the truth" is used for something that is... less than the truth. The speaker wants it to just be the truth, with no argument, but they're ignoring some very relevant issues/context/details/data. When that's pointed out, they say "you can't handle the truth". No, you (the one claiming this is "the truth") can't handle the complexity of reality, and are using this cliche to try to stop conver…

I don't think I disagree with point #1. What you're describing is just not stating the truth. I'm sure "you can't handle the truth" is wheeled out in all kinds of situations where the person saying it is the one who's wrong.

I'm refuting the narrower argument that is sometimes made that just because something is true, it doesn't give you the right to say it.

In regards to point #2, I agree that if I deliver the truth and include a side payload of being-a-jerk, certainly, I'd be responsible for that payload. But many people in many cases think that just stating the truth simply, plainly, no extra malice or attacks, just stating a disagreeable truth bluntly, is being a jerk. In those cases I think the upset really is just about the underlying unpleasant truth itself.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#103

Post by lazyasciiart »

m463 wrote: post #77
yarg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there's the need to a counterpoint to the world that says "you're beautiful, you're smart, you're perfect just the way you are.". A lot of the time the modern world tells us that feelings are more important than objective reality. It's bullshit.

There are so many - SO MANY - ways that "objective reality" can be counter-productive. For example, I remember reading "For people to change, first they have to feel accepted as they are". This is some "objective reality" people should keep in mind when disclosing "objective reality". "But my spouse/friend/child/coworker is !"

Yes, there's a hell of a lot of objective reality that these just-the-facts hardbitten-realist people are usually either unaware of or deliberately denying. This frequently results in suggestions that would only be useful for a spherical cow.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#104

Post by photochemsyn »

It turns out the 'hyper-rationality' concept the author describes as having excessive faith in 'rational truth' has another meaning in game theory in the 'rational actor context', which oddly enough sort of inverts the meaning:

> "The assumption of rational behavior is based on the fact that each player seeks the maximum benefit, but in assumption of hyper-rational behavior, each player thinks about profit or loss of other actors in addition to his personal profit or loss and then will choose an action, which is desirable to him. One of the most important advantages of this concept emphasizes the importance of the outcomes of other actors in the game."

"The behavioral model and game theory" (2019) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0265-2

Note this can have different effects depending on circumstances - e.g. one person could damage another's outcome by not being truthful with them about their chances of success with a particular strategy, which is comparable to the malicious giver of bad advice (if not as actively harmful). For some people in some situations, the goal is not so much that they win as that some other person loses (e.g. the academic feud scenario).

Another scenario would be to withhold truthful opinions that might benefit another out of fear of alienating them, particularly if that person has a history of retaliating against anyone who disagrees with them. This kind of hyper-rational thinking is 'well, if I criticize this, it might help the overall project but it would hurt me personally' (e.g. the corporate team player).

In the ideal situation, this kind of hyper-rationality leads to win-win outcomes, if one can find a way to play a game that benefits both oneself and others. Playing with that goal in mind is of course something of an ethical choice.

Maybe the behavior the author is describing could better be called 'rational fundamentalism'? It's not very healthy, being so sure that you've got the right answer, and also shuts down the playful spirit of inquiry that scientific progress has always relied upon.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#105

Post by remkop22 »

brhsagain wrote: post #43

I'd argue that telling someone the truth does absolve you of responsibility, because if the truth upsets someone, what they're actually upset about is the reality of the universe. Or if it's a truth about them, then the reality about themselves. The truth-teller is just the messenger. Each person is responsible for how they deal with reality, including the parts they don't like. I get what the article is saying. Give…

It's not just about upsetting the other person, it's more about the end goal. If the end goal is to express superior knowledge, do strike down your hammer of truth.

But if the end goal is to enlighten the people around you, and let them enlighten you, then it matters how you package your truth. Sadly it's seems to be human nature that if you tell someone that their perspective of the universe is wrong and don't give them any leeway, there's a high chance of them just dismissing it because it would hurt them.

Now if you are more diplomatic with your self devised absolute thruths, you might find that the people on the receiving end are more willing to accept them.

This concept seems to be fully absent from politics these days.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#106

Post by robocat »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #6

Two things - 1. science is the search for being right. It has brought us untold riches and wealth (and weapons). But getting humans to accept the provable facts is really really hard and usually progress is made a funeral at a time. 2. Most people who think they are right are not using scientific rigour but their own instincts and are usually full of hot air - see any middle manager for examples So yes, you are right…

> science is the search for being right

I thought science is actually the search for wrong - the null hypothesis. And science seems to mostly progress by showing your predecessors and colleagues are incorrect. The laws of science are nothing like laws.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#107

Post by epgui »

geraneum wrote: post #4

This reminds me of: “People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty.” Richard J. Needham

Ohhh that's a good one. Ironically, it terrifies me that I find that relatable, because I don't want that to be true.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#108

Post by lazyasciiart »

brhsagain wrote: post #102
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Often "you can't handle the truth" is used for something that is... less than the truth. The speaker wants it to just be the truth, with no argument, but they're ignoring some very relevant issues/context/details/data. When that's pointed out, they say "you can't handle the truth". No, you (the one claiming this is "the truth") can't handle the complexity of reality, and are using this cliche to try to stop conver…

I don't think I disagree with point #1. What you're describing is just not stating the truth. I'm sure "you can't handle the truth" is wheeled out in all kinds of situations where the person saying it is the one who's wrong. I'm refuting the narrower argument that is sometimes made that just because something is true, it doesn't give you the right to say it. In regards to point #2, I agree that if I deliver the truth…

No. They can also be upset because you are bringing up negative things that make them sad/annoyed to think about, to which there is absolutely no benefit in thinking about.

Like spending a wedding reception saying to everyone "there are people starving to death right now". Is that true? Yes. Are people upset by that knowledge? Yes. Are they, completely separately, pissed off at you for being an asshole that decided everyone should think about starving people during the wedding reception? Yes, quite reasonably.

Re: Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

#109

Post by epgui »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #24
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #6

Two things - 1. science is the search for being right. It has brought us untold riches and wealth (and weapons). But getting humans to accept the provable facts is really really hard and usually progress is made a funeral at a time. 2. Most people who think they are right are not using scientific rigour but their own instincts and are usually full of hot air - see any middle manager for examples So yes, you are right…

Science is the search for consensus about predictions. It says nothing of truth.

Science (to be more precise: "the natural sciences") is much more about developing useful models, discarding flawed models, and characterizing and quantifying uncertainty.

It's the closest thing you can possibly get to a "formal truth" about the real world.

Post reply on HN