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

An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#31

Post by [deleted] »

ErrantX wrote: post #18
iamwil wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

Maybe not outright falshoods - but possibly a product of over zealous cynicism. For example: "Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy" Could just as easily be attributed (nowadays) to social pressure: e.g. it is a well known in pop culture that fathers are suspicious of their daughters boyfriends and so some of them are. :) (and yeh I realise it is somewh…

[deleted]

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#32

Post by gizmo »

iamwil wrote: post #11
CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

They must something that teenagers can spot as true. Indeed. Many of these are sophomoric "truths" that a teenager might believe, but someone with more understanding would spot as falsehoods.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

These are false:

- Schools are for teaching. If only for the simple reason that as we grow older we need the younger generation to support us. Therefore, the adults of today have a very strong incentive to educate the next generation.

- Humans are not completely selfish. I'm not buying the Ayn Rand philosophy that everything ultimately has a selfish foundation. In times of crisis people act irrationally against their own self interest to help others.

- We don't have masters. It's not that difficult to chose a route through life where you earn your money independently. If you put your life on auto-pilot you do end up working for a boss (not a bi-implication), and for most people that's a pretty good deal.

- We don't have a lot of control over our behavior, but we can train our self control. Routine is an extraordinarily powerful force. With routine you can overcome some of your natural flaws.

- Many parents care more about their children than their careers. Witness parents quitting their job and selling their house to pay for the kids medical expenses. Most parents simply want to have both a family and a career, but this doesn't mean the career is the #1 priority.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#33

Post by rauljara »

iamwil wrote: post #11
CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

They must something that teenagers can spot as true. Indeed. Many of these are sophomoric "truths" that a teenager might believe, but someone with more understanding would spot as falsehoods.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

"There is no such thing as altruism. Everyone is ultimately only interested in their own pleasure. Even those who appear altruistic are doing so because it makes them feel good. No one actually cares about anyone else."

Caring is an emotion. Desiring good for someone else is an emotion. How do you know if you are feeling altruistic feelings? You feel them. Anyone who tells me that I don't feel something that I do is mistaken.

There is an argument that the author probably meant to make, but didn't, that my altruism probably evolved as a way to increase my gene's likelihood of survival. That would have been a more interesting point. But even so, saying that evolution makes my actions non-altruistic is like telling me that I'm not really in love because love is just a way of passing on genes. Love may have evolved to help me pass on my genes, but that doesn't mean that what I'm feeling isn't love. Altruism may have the consequence of helping my tribe and my offspring survive, but that doesn't mean it isn't altruism.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#34

Post by CWuestefeld »

iamwil wrote: post #11
CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

They must something that teenagers can spot as true. Indeed. Many of these are sophomoric "truths" that a teenager might believe, but someone with more understanding would spot as falsehoods.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

Well, let's see...

#5 - there is definitely an evolved moral compass. See "Game Theory and the Social Contract".

Pretty much all of the economics-related ones show a lack of understanding of modern economics. There's more to the failure of communism than that the leaders were power-hungry. And many economists would object to the statement that "workers" are being taken advantage of. It's certainly not true that the "lower rungs of the ladder" are inescapable.

#11 might be true, but it's not clear. Because at least some of our evolution occurred in a social setting, it may be that imposed abstinence for those just out of puberty does have some use. Maybe not, but it's certainly not clear either way. Similarly, #15 could have some evolutionary basis: consider that the dad wants his potential grandchildren to have the best chance at survival.

#16 is false, and certainly shows an immature viewpoint. At the very least, the writer is doing a bad job of differentiating between types of love, but I think it goes much more wrong than that.

#19 (biological destiny) is mostly true, but not entirely.

#18, about women's talent for symbol manipulation, is false as stated: on average men and women are about the same. However, men have a greater standard deviation, meaning that more men are at the high (and low) ends of the spectrum.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#35

Post by gabrielroth »

ErrantX wrote: post #18
iamwil wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

Maybe not outright falshoods - but possibly a product of over zealous cynicism. For example: "Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy" Could just as easily be attributed (nowadays) to social pressure: e.g. it is a well known in pop culture that fathers are suspicious of their daughters boyfriends and so some of them are. :) (and yeh I realise it is somewh…

Both you and the Reddit poster are overlooking the obvious evolutionary explanation. To a father, a daughter's eggs are a precious reproductive resource. A daughter who squanders her reproductive potential on lower-status mates is diminishing her father's genetic legacy. (This doesn't hold for sons, because they have a virtually unlimited reproductive capacity.)

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#36

Post by mseebach »

iamwil wrote: post #11
CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

They must something that teenagers can spot as true. Indeed. Many of these are sophomoric "truths" that a teenager might believe, but someone with more understanding would spot as falsehoods.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

> There is no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a soul. We are machines made out of meat. All we are is snuffed out the instant the brain dies.

The soul is specifically metaphysical. Claiming it doesn't exists because there isn't physical evidence is missing the point in a very stupid way.

> There is no substantive difference between humans and other animals. We might possess more of certain things, like intelligence, but there is not one thing we have that they do not, not one thing we do that they do not.

For carefully selected definitions of what's substantive, sure. Also, PETA and WSPA would be a fraction of their size if it was actually true that you can't say that.

> People only behave prosocially out of fear. Remove threats of retribution, and they become as selfish as they can get away with.

Prosocially vs. selfish aren't opposites, so the statement is shaky. Also, that's a core tenet of big-government advocates, and last I checked, they're alive and kicking, so it's hardly a taboo.

> The public education system is a day-care center. It exists not to teach, but to free up both parents to work.

Not true. That may be the current state of the system, and according to free market advocates, it's the only state a public school system can have, but it's not its purpose.

> Our economic system is set up to reward those who invest at the expense of those who work. This is because it is controlled by the former. Our entire culture is designed around ways of making people work all their lives to create as much value as possible, then give that value to someone else without protest.

It was maybe partly true when Marx wrote it 150 years ago, but certainly isn't any more. People choose regular jobs over entrepreneurship because jobs are much easier and safer, not because the investing classes are holding them down.

> Yes, we have masters. They own the houses we live in, the companies that make everything we use, the jobs that employ us and provide us with the means to live, every single source we get information to make decisions from. They are a small class of people at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. No, it's not a conspiracy. They didn't need to agree on it. They just all acted in their own best interest, and it happened. No, you will never join this class of people. The odds are astronomical against it.

Related to the above. No, you might not join the class of masters, but you can certainly become your own master. But it's hard and it doesn't come with a 9-5 and a monthly paycheck.

---

Also, none of the points are particularly disturbing. They might ruin the mood at carefully selected dinner parties, but that's hardly difficult.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#37

Post by ErrantX »

gabrielroth wrote: post #35
ErrantX wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not outright falshoods - but possibly a product of over zealous cynicism. For example: "Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy" Could just as easily be attributed (nowadays) to social pressure: e.g. it is a well known in pop culture that fathers are suspicious of their daughters boyfriends and so some of them are. :) (and yeh I realise it is somewh…

Both you and the Reddit poster are overlooking the obvious evolutionary explanation. To a father, a daughter's eggs are a precious reproductive resource. A daughter who squanders her reproductive potential on lower-status mates is diminishing her father's genetic legacy. (This doesn't hold for sons, because they have a virtually unlimited reproductive capacity.)

I was just using a random example to highlight the idea he is probably wrong in portraying that as an accurate assessment.

Now we have 3 ideas - I'm inclined to agree yours has a lot of bearing.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#38

Post by mquander »

mfukar wrote: post #26
mquander wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most of the content is insultingly inane. I don't need some single guy with no kids telling me about how Love is not eternal. It is a simple state of endorphin chemistry. It serves a single evolutionary purpose. It lasts about three years. Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy. Parents care less about their children than they do about their care…

I think the list's only purpose is to attack that way of dismissive, unconstructive thinking.

The only reason I phrased my comment as a dismissive ad hominem was because this guy is a troll. A couple dozen intentionally offensive opinions presented as fact do not make incisive social commentary, and presenting them with no further citation or defense is not a sincere presentation. I have no interest in sitting here and making some point-by-point rebuttal to the first 27 insulting things that came off the top of some guy's head.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#39

Post by stonemetal »

iamwil wrote: post #11
CWuestefeld wrote: post #6

They must something that teenagers can spot as true. Indeed. Many of these are sophomoric "truths" that a teenager might believe, but someone with more understanding would spot as falsehoods.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

Pretty much all of the ones that start with everyone behaves a certain way for a certain reason.

>>There is no such thing as altruism. Just because the author has no sympathy doesn't mean everyone has no sympathy.

>>Humans are adults at puberty. Humans are not physically adults at puberty. Brain development isn't complete until around 20.

>>People, being adults at puberty, are ready to have sex at puberty. Depending on your definition of "ready" this one is not true. Capable yes. Ready for all of the consequences resulting from no.

>>Most of someone's personality is formed during their first four years of life. If they are abused or neglected during this time, they are fucked up permanently, and there is nothing anyone can do to help them.

The psychology papers I have read that state this belief say six, but that is neither here nor there. Traumatic events at any age leave permanent marks on people, see PTSD. Abuse at seven is just as bad psychologically as abuse at four.

>>Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy. Again author lacks human emotions, just sad really.

>>Love is not eternal. Attend an 80 year old person's funeral and talk to the surviving spouse. Infatuation may not last beyond 3 years, but that isn't what I define as Love.

>>Parents care less about their children than they do about their careers Maybe his parents but not everyone's.

Re: An actual attempt at a list of "What You Can't Say."

#40

Post by ErrantX »

gizmo wrote: post #32
iamwil wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones are false? The only one I vaguely reacted to was about how women are less adept at symbol manipulation. I think there might be other sides of the coins and exceptions in exceptional situations to some of these, but overall, I didn't think they were falsehoods. Perhaps I'm too easily agreeable. But defn, I didn't find them surprising.

These are false: - Schools are for teaching. If only for the simple reason that as we grow older we need the younger generation to support us. Therefore, the adults of today have a very strong incentive to educate the next generation. - Humans are not completely selfish. I'm not buying the Ayn Rand philosophy that everything ultimately has a selfish foundation. In times of crisis people act irrationally against their…

Schools are for teaching. If only for the simple reason that as we grow older we need the younger generation to support us. Therefore, the adults of today have a very strong incentive to educate the next generation.

The majority of jobs required to provide the support (aka mostly manual labor) does not require a particularly high level of learning.

I don't necessarily agree with the original statement but I think that is just as flawed.

Perhaps a better idea is that the current school system is designed to pen in kids during the day so parents can get stuff done (yep, that's paraphrased from a pg essay btw before anyone calls me on it :)) with the idea they will learn something in the process?

In terms of your last point I dont think that's as good a rebuttal either because they are edge cases - where other factors (such as percieved moral requirements) force the issue. Consider it on a more day to day basis and it is quite possible (were you shipped off to a child minder due to parents jobs/careers etc? I know I was).

I disagree with the original point (again) but I think the real reason it is wrong is because putting a career before your children's immediate interest is not necessarily a case of caring less about them - because there could be longer term reasoning.

Post reply on HN