Live data from Hacker News

The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

blog.andymasley.com

81–90 of 231 posts

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#81

> it’s very very easy to be negatively polarized by a ton of bad conversations with normal people about it, until you feel like the whole rest of the world is crazy Why wouldn't the world be crazy, though? What reason do we have to assume that the world is not crazy? Most reasons are tautological when you really unpack them.

It's correct to say something like "the world is dysfunctional as a system for surfacing truth", and that's kind of like saying the rest of the world is crazy. On the other, you shouldn't assume "the rest of the world is filled exclusively with incompetent people who lack basic truth-finding skills and that's why they don't agree with me" which is what people usually mean when they say the rest of the world is crazy.

[deleted]

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try this: take a position you hold that you are sure is rational but that a number of people disagree with, and pretend it is wrong and look at it from the opposite perspective. Steelman it and honestly take that perspective as true and argue it in your head. You might still not agree with it, but you can make it rational. So, how certain are should we be that our positions are the rational ones if we can do this?

I do this already with all of my beliefs. That's not to say my beliefs are exhaustively battle-tested and correct; maybe other people have information that I'm missing but in my role as a software engineer working across multiple industries and some politically sensitive projects, I've had access to information and first-hand experiences that most other people haven't. The thing is; if I told the average person what…

> Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best.

Perhaps everyone is irrational?

How we would know otherwise if we can make irrational things rational just by thinking about them hard enough?

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#83

Great points and nice write-up. At the risk of sounding AI pilled, I find LLM's are fairly good sparring partners if you instruct them well. At least they're more capable of giving you the best arguments against your position than the average bar patron. Almost all of my non-professional prompts are of that nature.

I don't know. AI are basically trained to tell you what you want to hear, including when they're disagreeing with you. If you come off of your conversation with AI with a stronger belief than when you went in, is that merited?

"AI Advice Suppresses People’s Willingness To Say “I Don’t Know”, Even When The Advice Is Wrong And Accuracy Is Incentivized" https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#86

> it’s very very easy to be negatively polarized by a ton of bad conversations with normal people about it, until you feel like the whole rest of the world is crazy Why wouldn't the world be crazy, though? What reason do we have to assume that the world is not crazy? Most reasons are tautological when you really unpack them.

It's correct to say something like "the world is dysfunctional as a system for surfacing truth", and that's kind of like saying the rest of the world is crazy. On the other, you shouldn't assume "the rest of the world is filled exclusively with incompetent people who lack basic truth-finding skills and that's why they don't agree with me" which is what people usually mean when they say the rest of the world is crazy.

Life has taught me that the vast majority of people out there are in fact average at best.

Competence (let alone extreme competence) is kind of rare actually, and accepting that that is “fine” is part.

That’s why you engineer a car to be driven by a dumb and abusive driver; airplanes are designed to be flown by pilots on their worst days; houses are built with large safety factors; code should be written to handle bugs gracefully. It’s not that anyone is being intentionally malicious, it’s that even competent people sometimes make mistakes so the rest of us should expect to screw up.

For awhile in my life, I was highly competent at what I did. It was awesome - but the altered reality this can engender - the idea that “since I am competent everyone else should be too, I’m just average” has it’s own dangers.

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do this already with all of my beliefs. That's not to say my beliefs are exhaustively battle-tested and correct; maybe other people have information that I'm missing but in my role as a software engineer working across multiple industries and some politically sensitive projects, I've had access to information and first-hand experiences that most other people haven't. The thing is; if I told the average person what…

> Rational people will pick the ideology which has the fewest contradictions. Irrational people will choose that which serves them best. Perhaps everyone is irrational? How we would know otherwise if we can make irrational things rational just by thinking about them hard enough?

Yes, it's a spectrum. The best test to figure out the extent of your own bias is to make a list of ways which in which a particular ideology benefits you.

For most of my contrarian ideologies, they are harmful to me in most ways except "Protects my ego by redefining personal failings as system failings." Most of my contrarian ideologies have this characteristic but this point has been getting weaker over time; I don't have much pride left. I'm literally working for a bank now.

Or maybe I work for a bank just to prove to myself that I don't care about pride? Getting kind of elaborate.

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but also: Just because they're crazy, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

Depends, if we're being pedantic crazy implies you get some stuff wrong, due to not "being" fully there. This world is a messy complicated place and I tend to think in percentages about everything. Guarantees are rare, I usually think of events as probabilistic, and likewise what other people say. Now, these probabilities can change based on who's saying what. Theoretically someone who specialized in that topic has a…

> Theoretically someone who specialized in that topic has a higher chance of "getting it right", or sussing it better than people who aren't as versed in that subject.

Exactly so. The qualifications are a heuristic, not a rule. That said - There are billions of ill-informed halfwits on earth and all or most have opinions.

People need some way to filter all of those opinions, especially now that the media doesn't do it for us. A lossy heuristic that only works most of the time beats the heck out of drowning in an endless sea of babble.

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#89
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. I've never called anyone about anything political, and I also haven't lived at the same address (or even in the same state) for 20 years but I still know at least who my senators are and some of my representatives. State elections are every two years; you have to almost actively not…

> Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. [...] you have to almost actively not pay attention to not know anything about yours. Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think? If it isn't obvious: typically the first year after a move - likely more, at least…

> Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think?

Then quote the whole thing your responding to, otherwise your response seems disproportionately overreacting.

> For starters, something like almost ~half of students move away from their families to attend college. And then look at moves for jobs and retirement and everything else. And then when an incumbent leaves, all of their constituents end up in a similar boat as someone who just moved. And I'm not even beginning to touch the fact that a lot of people's unawareness of politics is (spoiler, I know) due to them not having the luxury to be able to devote as much bandwidth to it as HNers do.

I am very aware of that situation. I moved away from my home town and state for school, I moved cities post college three times, and I am now quite literally in the middle of a move to another state. While I won't pretend that I'll immediately get into the weeds of local city politics, I've still participated in local politics and I will participate in politics in my new city/state come this fall.

>All these people shouldn't have any political opinions whatsoever until they figure out their representatives because... some wise guy on HN thinks knowing your representative's name is a good litmus test for whether you can tell good from bad? Do you expect any other response than "screw you"?

Consider the context of the comment: "do you know who represents you in Congress [...]. If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never called your Congresspeople to complain about their votes, so you probably don't really care that much about whatever it is you say you care about, since you haven't done the easiest thing you can do to make a change."

If you don't know the names of your representatives you can't vote for them. Seems pretty straight forward to me. I think it's pretty fair to say if you're complaining about a political situation but haven't even voted about it you probably haven't tried that hard.

> Quite a confession given the side you're standing on. You'd think such a model citizen would've at least cared to contact their rep one damn time to suggest something about such a serious issue. Like maybe helping educate people about the government and politics better so they become as enlightened as the others.

To be clear, I've contacted my representatives plenty of times, I just haven't called them. I hate phone calls. But I have written emails, physical letters, and on several occasions spoke to them in person at events to express my issues.

> If you (and/or parent, whoever feels this way) genuinely want a good outcome for something so serious instead of standing on a high horse and looking down on the uneducated, maybe actually go campaign to put your lovely literacy tests in the constitution, or whatever else would advance your cause forward. If you have some integrity, perhaps also campaign to fund the education system better and make it easier for citizens to vote in the same amendment, so that you're actually helping the people you presumably care about.

1. I have campaigned for better education funding; I used to work in higher education.

2. No one mentioned literacy tests, so I have a suspicion there's a lot of background context in your head that you're imposing here. Either way, I have no interest in them.

Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)

#90
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I’m not against extremist ideas on principle. I have my own, the main one being that animal welfare is a much larger urgent catastrophe than most people believe."

This is clearly a cool take though and author knows it. This is not a polarizing view in the sense that anything about Epstein / Gaza / Trans athletes would be.

Maybe not as polarizing as those, but by "animal welfare" he doesn't mean volunteering at the local animal shelter, he's a vegan. That's pretty polarizing to a lot of people who see veganism as an attack on their whole existence because they like meat.
Post reply on HN