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

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#141

Post by acjohnson55 »

ci5er wrote: post #125
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that do…

> Why? You just said it almost never helps.

Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part.

What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea.

More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over time.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating people makes me a better thinker and persuader.

But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to move. And that's a big reason why it's crucial to be civil, sincere, and avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone being an asshole, even if it's righteous.

Re: Calling bullshit

#142

Post by frozenport »

samirillian wrote: post #140
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

So we need a course called: bullshitting people who want to be bullshitted? I'd worry a lot about the personal/existential implications. Gramsci says that the demagogue is the first one bitten by the snake of his own demagoguery.

Yeah but being a demagogue is a lot of fun. It feels like you're telling me the wealthy are suffering, or the role reversal in Hegel's master slave relationship.

Re: Calling bullshit

#143

Post by BeetleB »

blazespin wrote: post #95
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean,…

>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes?

This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world.

No facts, just statements like:

"You really think...?"

If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say:

"I mean, Come On!"

While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how most persuasion works.

It's been mentioned multiple times on HN, but Influence, by Cialdini, is a great read. Especially the chapter on Social Proof.

I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics.

Hence, his social proof was stronger than my mathematical proof.

I used to get upset about how I was working amongst the top engineers in one of the top companies in the world, and how illogical they seemed. But then I read the book and realized that's the "natural" order of things, and most people will not escape it.

Academia was a nice place where this was less of a problem.

Re: Calling bullshit

#144

Post by fizwhiz »

> Advertisers wink conspiratorially and invite us to join them in seeing through all the bullshit, then take advantage of our lowered guard to bombard us with second-order bullshit

This made me chortle

Re: Calling bullshit

#145

Post by ci5er »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #141
ci5er wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement are already agreed to! :-O What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational debate (or even discussion that do…

> Why? You just said it almost never helps. Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part. What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea. More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even just a little bit. I can gain some credibility…

That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience -- and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be less in their chosen position. Thanks!

[ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on (say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]

Re: Calling bullshit

#146

Post by Paul-ish »

swanson wrote: post #103
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

From Scott Adams (Dilbert): > Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.) > Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world. > Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves…

Something about this categorization seems ironic to me. Does this mean that Scott Adams sees himself as a "word-thinker", because he is certainly labeling people in coming up with this list.

Re: Calling bullshit

#147

Post by Paul-ish »

The criticism of this course in principle is ironic to me. A lot of people are saying "This course is pointless, the people who would take this course don't need it." Which seems to imply... that they wouldn't take the course. Which would, by their own logic, imply they probably need it.

We all have blind spots, we just have different blind spots.

Re: Calling bullshit

#148

Post by acjohnson55 »

blazespin wrote: post #95
acjohnson55 wrote: post #67

Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…

I think you're close, but still misguided. The issue isn't so much critical thinking (though that is a part of it) but a mismatch in baseline assumptions. Right makes might versus Might makes right, belief in the golden rule (duoaywhtduy or he who has the gold, makes the rules), the glass is half empty versus half full, etc. Unless you share the answers to these assumptions, you can't have a common dialogue. I mean,…

For sure, there are hard-nosed people out there. I agree with you that arguing with these folks is a waste of time. But they are vastly outnumbered. A functional society requires those hardliners to be marginalized and the oppression they advocate to be rejected. For that to happen, there needs to be some baseline solidarity amongst diverse people who mostly simply want safety, opportunity, and justice. It's not a stable equilibrium. It takes constant work to shore up that consensus and good faith, and avoid the collapse into centralized or distributed authoritarianism.

Re: Calling bullshit

#149

Post by OJFord »

> For better or for worse, the term bullshit has no exact synonym in the English language

Perhaps only in British use (?) - but 'rubbish' and 'nonsense' can both be used to replace 'bullshit', other than qua faeces.

Re: Calling bullshit

#150

Post by alexandercrohde »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #91

My wife took a Critical Thinking course at college. Changed her life, and as a result, my life and our kids'. Blows me away that only 90 people per year at that institution took that course. Meanwhile, back in the public school system, we have examiners mistaking their own opinions as fact. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672

Really? My college experience was very different. All the professors talked about how essential "critical thinking" was.

And to this I asked:

- Is there even a definition of "critical thinking"?

- (As a psychology major) Is there evidence that this is a sound objective concept (rather than something everyone thinks only they have)?

- Is there any objective measure of critical thinking? If not, how can you have any objective reason to believe your courses increases critical thinking?

And to this they said various forms of "I don't know." I guess they had never really thought about it critically.

Post reply on HN