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

How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

joanwestenberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 284 posts

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#81

Post by mikepurvis »

y0eswddl wrote: post #27
rsynnott wrote: post #3

> But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons. The idea that being articulate implies intelligence and/or sanity is very common, but really a bit weird. You can find plenty of articulate defences of, say, flat earth theory.

Ezra Klein's book why we're polarized cover this a bit and basically studies show that intelligence level has little to do with what people believe and more so just affects their ability to defend whichever position they already hold.

Indeed, and an articulate, confident defense can also be that much more insidious. I never found it hard to ignore obviously bad-faith talking heads on cable news, but when someone is on a podcast conversation with a host I like, it's much easier to nod along until that moment where they say something demonstrably false and I have to rewind my brain a minute or two to be like... wait a sec, what? How did you get to that position?

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#82

Post by alksdjf89243 »

The article is an indictment on hackernews itself. I'm sure that won't be well received here, because of what the article says, specifically: "Start by diversifying your information diet in ways that feel actively uncomfortable."

There is almost no diversity of thought here, simply due to the algorithm. The basis of acceptance is agreeing with the main ideology here.

When the algorithm of the platform is to banish those who disagree, tribal unity is the outcome.

The algorithm doesn't allow disagreement. The algorithm is wrong and part of the algorithm is to disallow commenting on the algorithm.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#83

Post by stronglikedan »

baxuz wrote: post #46
biophysboy wrote: post #36

The main issue for me is the size of our platforms. If the owner of a platform tries to enforce a set of virtues, it will always be seen as censorship by a fraction of its users. That fraction will increase as the user base increases, as the alternatives diminish, and as the owners govern with more impunity. I personally think these loud users are immature, disrespectful, anonymous cowards, but my opinions are irrele…

Nah, the solution is deanonymization. People with no shame, and with strong anti-social tendencies should not be given a safe space.

If anyone should be given a safe space, then everyone should be given a safe space.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#84

Post by parpfish »

oytis wrote: post #32

I don't quite get the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Sure, influencers get rewarded by social media algorithms for polarising content, but most people are not influencers.

i found it weird that this person has multiple friends that were able to "make bank" by having polarizing opinions. i know a ton of folks with polarizing opinions and none of them are monetizing it.

what kind of world is this author living in where their social circle includes so many influencers that are cashing in on social media?

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#85

Post by ToucanLoucan »

AlexandrB wrote: post #77
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this standard apply to all people or just trans people? All. > Why or why not? Because the self as a concept only exists within the mind of the individual and it's sole source for determination is what that individual says. It's non-falsifiable so taking people at their word is simply the only option. > Do you think this[1] individual is who they say they are? Sure. There are shitty transpeople too. > Why or w…

> All. Ok, so then transracial individuals[1] should be believed as well? What about those that identify as inanimate objects[2] or animals? If we accept self-identification as an inanimate object should others be allowed to treat that person as such? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/swjdjp/tree...

> Ok, so then transracial individuals[1] should be believed as well?

I mean, "race" is a social construct too. There's nothing biologically different about a black man from a white man. It's a collection of cultural, historical and visual cues society imbues with meaning. So... in a way, it's got a lot in common with gender.

> What about those that identify as inanimate objects[2] or animals?

Yep.

> If we accept self-identification as an inanimate object should others be allowed to treat that person as such?

If someone earnestly identifies as an object, that's their prerogative. But no, others don't get to treat them like furniture or property because consent and dignity still apply to them. Identity doesn't override someone's right to safety, and it doesn't give others license to dehumanize, even in a twisted manner of affirming them.

And, as someone with an occasional spirit for some BDSM play, I am familiar with treating people like objects in a way that is edifying without being harmful to them.

Edit: It feels like you're trying really hard to find an edge case in self identification where it could be used to cause harm, as though the actual, current mechanisms of identity as imposed by society aren't also doing that. Yes, someone could use self identification to do something shitty. That is not unique to this concept and in fact this, and a variety of others, already have plenty of holes wide enough to drive a truck through to accomplish the same goal.

If your standard here is a system which is objectively verifiable, you will not meet it at any point. All of this is subjective because it all ties into the subjective experiences of individuals and the subjective analysis of systems and other individuals. There are no clear cut answers and there never will be, it's subjective turtles all the way down.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#86

Post by jimt1234 »

biophysboy wrote: post #66
EdgeExplorer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has a real name policy and is a prime example of internet-fueled insanity. Why does deanonymization not help Facebook be a more positive place?

To tie it to my own view, I don’t think deanonymization has any effect if the name is meaningless to 99.9% of the community. For every person fired for posts, there are 10000 others who are not.

For every person fired for posts, there's a lucrative Fox News commentator gig.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#87

Post by hexator »

nradov wrote: post #80
hexator wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"enforce a set of virtues" is a weird way of saying "enforcing basic decency". Let's be clear here, people who are rightfully banned are always going to complain. Our opinions as the majority who DO want decent conversations online are not irrelevant. We should not give those people equal weight to those facing actual censorship. Fragmenting the internet will never get rid of the problem that moderation needs to happ…

What is basic decency? Is it indecent to advocate for atheism or if a women posts a picture of herself not wearing a burka? Many people in certain countries would say so. Personally I think those people are insane, and that maximal freedom of expression is the most important human right, but the fundamental problem is that there is no consensus on what constitutes basic decency.

I'm not talking about cultural differences. I'm talking about people simply being assholes online. You will always have a group of people complaining about the rules, that is inevitable.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#88

Post by sandinmyjoints »

pengaru wrote: post #26
HeinzStuckeIt wrote: post #2

The author writes, “You end up in a world where changing your mind becomes impossible because you've built your entire identity around being right”. Yet social-media personalities regularly do a 180° turn on some issue (e.g. pro-Ukraine to anti-Ukraine or vice versa) and still keep their following and ability to monetize it. Social media is full of parasocial relationships; followers are in love with an influencer’s…

People are also more isolated than ever, positioning them poorly for having robust real relationships. This makes them vulnerable to mistaking "influencers" as their friends.

Yeah, "You cannot be reasonable in isolation" from the article really struck me.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#89

Post by VintageRobot »

bwfan123 wrote: post #28
micromacrofoot wrote: post #9

A lot of this goes away when you stop spending so much time on social media, which is a very poor reflection of "reality." Part of the problem is that there are a number of people who can't really look away, because they've built their livelihoods on it. Traditional media in many ways has come to rely on it too. Unfortunate mistake. Prominent figures on social media change their minds all the time, but they'll re-scu…

from the article. > The returns on reasonableness have almost entirely collapsed If you measure returns by others' approval, then you are doomed as the world is fickle. Unfortunately, as a writer or journalist you are forced to depend on approval of others. The alternative is to sculpt a framework or scorecard largely independent of what others think - but this is hard, as we are social creatures.

There is a large number of people that appreciate being told the truth. That model actually works better over the long term.

Grifting (which is what is often seen on social media platforms by many of the personalities) can give you large rewards quickly however you are always at risk at being found out. Once they are exposed, it is often usually over for them.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#90

Post by [deleted] »

mock-possum wrote: post #29

> The writer who says "this issue has nuance and I can see valid concerns on multiple sides" gets a pat on the head and zero retweets. Because I think at this point ‘both sides ism’ Is easily recognizable as a dead end rhetorical strategy. At best it’s an ignorant position, at worst it’s low effort engagement bait / concern trolling that actively sabotages progress.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN