Live data from Hacker News

You can fool some of the people, all of the time

economist.com

131–140 of 229 posts

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#131

I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…

Hate to be political, but as one Trump supporter said, when asked on Trump and his lies:

"I think what most liberals are missing is that this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning and losing. I've attached my entire worldview to this man and I am going down with the ship. Not one of you is going to convince me otherwise."

Some people are simply willing to accept lies, if it resonates with their beliefs. A means to an end.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#132

I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…

Hate to be political, but as one Trump supporter said, when asked on Trump and his lies: "I think what most liberals are missing is that this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning and losing. I've attached my entire worldview to this man and I am going down with the ship. Not one of you is going to convince me otherwise." Some people are simply willing to accept lies, if it resonates with their beliefs. A m…

You can see that all the time in securities markets - completely ridiculous valuations and then bagholding all the way to the bottom. It's human nature. It's like people would rather be right than make money.

Also, I have no idea why people think this is new. If this is the age of dishonesty - when exactly was the age of honesty? I prefer Soros' approach of accepting human fallibility as an important part of the world, a part that's not going away just because I think it's "ugly".

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#133

I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…

Hate to be political, but as one Trump supporter said, when asked on Trump and his lies: "I think what most liberals are missing is that this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning and losing. I've attached my entire worldview to this man and I am going down with the ship. Not one of you is going to convince me otherwise." Some people are simply willing to accept lies, if it resonates with their beliefs. A m…

[deleted]

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#134
post #32

There is an excellent SMBC comic on politics: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-21 . Transcribing the headings (not the complete dialogs): " 1. If you have a self-consistent view, you're going to have problems. 2. In a self-consistent framework, you have infinite regression problems. 3. If you want your group to hold together, you need an ideology that doesn't make any sense. 4. Once you have a nonsensical pl…

That's a really top-notch comic. Thanks for sharing.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was born in a Democracy. Democracy was forced upon me. I never gave my consent. Note: I'm not talking about whether Democracy is good or bad, just about my "consent". edit: fixed typo

I'm not sure what the parent meant by consent, but you are in fact allowed to leave and resign your citizenship. So you aren't forced into the constitution.

This is an example of Hobson's choice[0]. It is not really a choice.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#136
I'm not sure people are really fooled by lies that much, rather they see them for what they are, a tool to persuade for something they emotionally connect to.

It's easy to despair at the apparent lack of rationality of my fellow human beings and their ability to be manipulated at the emotional level by people who don't have their interests at heart.

However aren't people who aren't emotionally controllable the definition of psychopaths?

So perhaps rather than focus on pointing of the lies and demanding a fact based debate, we should embrace the emotional and simple label people as liars and have the courage to talk about the real emotional issues.

Take - 'Build the wall' - clearly a not a great practical solution - but to treat it as such is to misunderstand that's it's a simplified slogan that covers a large raft of underlying issues - worries about immigrant, job security, crime, drugs, culture, racism etc.

In fact by criticizing the wall as a practical solution you are implicitly agreeing with the underlying agenda - that there is a solution needed. If you do indeed agree with the underlying agenda and only disagree on the solution then you need your own slogan 'Dig a trench' or 'Shoot on sight' , if you don't then you need something like 'Welcome in', 'Together we are stronger' etc.

In the UK - arguing 'Get Brexit Done' is silly as it's just the start of a long set of negotiations. However if you focus on that - you are effectively again implicitly agreeing that it needs to be done, just arguing on a technicality.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#138

I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a…

Are these mutually exclusive ideas? I feel there's overlap between them. Acting based on emotional pull can also reduce cognitive overhead compared to the expensive process of making decisions predicated on logic. On the other hand, lies don't necessary simplify worldviews either. We shouldn't forget that a significant part of the population is willing to engage in conspiracy theories that all too often draw lines be…

I think belief in conspiracies serves the same end as wishful thinking -- we can blame others for creating the evils of the world. Us-vs-them thinking also serve our need for being surrounded by 'friends', something you can do only if you have enemies. So inventing conspiracies and enemies are great ways to give yourself comfort amid a messy largely random world you can't control. If only we could get rid of our enemies, our world would be a much better place.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was born in a Democracy. Democracy was forced upon me. I never gave my consent. Note: I'm not talking about whether Democracy is good or bad, just about my "consent". edit: fixed typo

I'm not sure what the parent meant by consent, but you are in fact allowed to leave and resign your citizenship. So you aren't forced into the constitution.

The rich live pretty good lives in most places and only leave for greater opportunity.

The poor have few places to go and no resources to go anywhere.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in this case it's reasonable to interpret the past imposition as a statement of future intent and resist by proportional means. Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent. Use violence as necessary to resist being coerced into consumption in proportion to the degree being intoxicated and used for gratification inhibits your surviva…

> If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent. > Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent. So you agree there wasn't consent the first time. Sounds like refuting yourself to me.

I do not assert the dichotomy.

If the option to resist the imposition is not presented, the question of consent has not been called.

The act occurs without consent but also without dissent.

When likely future intent is made known by past actions, the question of consent has been called and may be answered.

You raise an interesting challenge and it is a scenario I haven't considered before. I am happy to discuss it and any other issues you find with my morality, but I would prefer if we could please agree that language is an approximation of meaning, attempt to seek clarity before semantic assertions, and that I be allowed to speak for myself.

Post reply on HN