Opt Out of Cynicism • Hacker News Board

Re: Opt Out of Cynicism

#331

Post by moksly » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 10:13 AM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #147

moksly wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a really sad outlook to me. After decades in Enterprise IT, many in the public sector of Scandinavia you’d probably expect me to be a cynic, and if you go through my post history you’ll see very recent examples of what looks like it, but I’m actually always rather optimistic. The healthy survival strategy in a world of shit isn’t to give up, it’s to fight on and hope for the best. It’s to come to the conclusi…

> In all my decades of working close to the political leadership and the top level decision makers, I can’t remember once meeting someone who wasn’t working for what they believed to be a better tomorrow. The cynic in me thinks that people who tend to rub shoulders with The Powerful tend to (for the most part) see them as well-intentioned (although perhaps flawed) people rather than to be critical of them. Because it…

I think it comes from the magic being dispelled. They are just ordinary people and they’re almost never well equipped to fill their functions in any meaningful way because of the complexity of the decisions they make.

There is a part of it about friendship, but it’s more because the world stops being black and white at those levels. Two politicians who come from the opposite sides will have more in common with each other than they will with any of the people who vote for them so it’s only natural that they remain faintly friendly with each other. They have to work together after all, as most things come down to compromises.

Re: Opt Out of Cynicism

#332

Post by necovek » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 10:37 AM UTC

helloworld11 wrote: post #329

necovek wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having had a premature baby, please don't: progress is rarely "linear". I agree that does not make the example inapplicable, it just makes it insensitive. There are so many better examples to choose from that don't strike a personal nerve (at least, personal to this extent) with any of the audience. Or if your audience hasn't had this experience, it's a moot example that they can't really relate to.

Being personally triggered by some random example doesn't entitle you to expect the world to avoid any references to it in other contexts. Simple as that. People use all sorts of examples for all sorts of discussions, any one of them could offend any random person for any number of personal reasons. The onus is on the offended party to understand that strangers don't owe them a damn thing when they're not even talkin…

I ain't expecting anything. I think I've explained quite clearly that it strikes me as an insensitive example (from the way it affected me personally) where one could easily find others which are not. I would hope that people appreciate that, even if they won't honour it (I could even say "even if they disagree with it", but you can't really disagree with feelings).

Whether someone cares for that or not is, just the same, in their court.

This entire discussion seems to have turned into whether I should be even expressing what someone saying made me feel. If that's truly useless, I am totally socially inept (I am probably not far off), so that's a useful learning too.

Re: Opt Out of Cynicism

#333

Post by janto » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 3:43 PM UTC

DarylZero wrote: post #328

janto wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either too much chaos or too much order are indeed failure conditions that appear in our history/stories/myths. So I'd not go to either extreme of that spectrum. Merely persisting is not sufficient for something to be moral, but it is a necessary requirement. We need principles on how to behave in repeated interactions and situations over long periods, or bad things will eventually happen. That's part of the purpose…

The pure game theory idea doesn't work because it won't be internally consistent -- we understand morality isn't supposed to vary from person to person depending on how powerful their social position is.

When you say we "understand" what it's supposed to be, what do you mean? That morality is an attempt to generalize required behaviour over different situations was the point. The utility of the morality project is that has the goal of preventing any situation from going to hell. That's what makes the game compelling to participants. From a selfish game theory perspective, the repeated interactions is the argument for it.

Re: Opt Out of Cynicism

#334

Post by kashyapc » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 11:36 AM UTC

necovek wrote: post #315

kashyapc wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, With all due respect, and not taking anything away from your painful experience, I don't think a "better example" needs to be found. Why? The incubator analogy works precisely because it is so relatable—even to those who do not have kids. We should not rob people of such powerful analogies. People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies, all in the fear of offending some…

What I am saying is that it is not relatable. It's obvious from some other comments in the thread (there is someone saying things like "we'll lose some " — I am not saying they are not right, just that they are not relating to it). Sure, some people will empathize, but most won't. I know I wouldn't before going through the experience. To be honest, I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here? Is it no…

I don't want belabor the point here. But yes, we have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with you sharing your difficult experience, of course. What I'm saying is that how the analogy will be "perceived" is irrelevant; that's the eggshells part I was referring to. What counts here is the effectiveness of it. You're essentially saying "regardless of how useful it is, we should ban this analogy because it might offend someone". If you go down that route, you would've been robbed of many of the greatest books and insights.

The incubator analogy is perfectly "relatable" (i.e. understandable) to many of us. Though, of course, not in the finest resolution that someone who has experienced the unfortunate situation. But all the same, it can be appreciated without losing the critical insights. Evolution has "programmed" us to understand these kind of analogies.

Rosling was a doctor, and an extremely sensible man. There's a reason he picked that analogy; he knew what he was doing.

> [...] I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here?

Yes, an analogy is required—that's how our minds make sense of many things in life. I strongly suggest to read the book "Metaphors We Live By"[1]. A classic from 40 years ago that shows how deep analogies and metaphors run in our bones. And no, a student debt or a leaky nose doesn't cut it; a powerful analogy like what Rosling used strikes a better chord with the topic at hand ("the state of the world").

[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo363799...

Re: Opt Out of Cynicism

#335

Post by DarylZero » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 7:52 AM UTC

janto wrote: post #333

DarylZero wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pure game theory idea doesn't work because it won't be internally consistent -- we understand morality isn't supposed to vary from person to person depending on how powerful their social position is.

When you say we "understand" what it's supposed to be, what do you mean? That morality is an attempt to generalize required behaviour over different situations was the point. The utility of the morality project is that has the goal of preventing any situation from going to hell. That's what makes the game compelling to participants. From a selfish game theory perspective, the repeated interactions is the argument for…

Our common understanding of the concept of morality is something that is universal. We don't accept that there should be a different morality for the king vs. the peasant.

Re: Opt Out of Cynicism

#336

Post by jacknews » Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

tekromancr wrote: post #276

jacknews wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the rich can be stripped. But they'll be replaced by another elite. I think human nature will tend towards some kind of hierarchy. The opportunity is to make the currency of that hierarchy something far above basic needs, IMHO. Perhaps this could be a genuine use-case for cryptocurrencies, so that the ultra wealthy can 'keep score' in maths, rather than mega-yachts, private jets, dark satanic mills, etc.

> I think human nature will tend towards some kind of hierarchy Only if you ignore every society that that ever existed without a strict economic hierarchy, sure.

Please show me a human society with no hierarchy, I do not believe it has ever existed.

I consider myself an anarchist, as in, against unnecessary hierarchy, yet I still believe some hierarchy is inevitable, even necessary and desirable.