I'm not 100% convinced every influencer _feels_ trapped in a world of their own making - but it's correct that truth this day is suffering a bit of a "tragedy of the commons" problem.
> The world will keep offering you bad trades, will keep rewarding positions you know are too simple to be true.
Here's a story. I'd guess there's at least a few HN folk with a similar tale.
I'm not a real believer in cryptocurrency, in its current popular form at least. Actual value would be delivered by fast transaction rates at (very) high speed, high assurance, and some kind of oversight or ability to reverse transactions (you can choose your cutoff anywhere from "convicted criminal behavior" to "I disputed a transaction on my Visa/Mastercard just because I could" but ultimately society and the law needs to be an effective backstop of the system). Yet I was introduced to the bitcoin paper sometime near its release by a PhD officemate, and was a specialist in high performance and GPU computing at the time, and resolved to go home and spend a few hours mining a coin, but instead I just chilled out when I got home. I could literally have hundreds of coins right now (or equivalent cash). For years I could have chosen to join the bandwagen, but resolved not to. Currently my parents are profiting - go figure.
So yeah the world offers some interesting trades from time to time!
In any case I found the article meaningful. I'm glad I live outside the US and its current polarization, but I feel we have the same problem growing here. Hopefully we all learn to deal with it and sort out our differences.
Social media + recommendation algorithms = echo chambers.
If humanity's mind used to be like a wall covered in colors with long, soft gradients between them, today it looks like a wall painted in vertical color stripes with almost no gradient at all.
I agree with the author's diagnosis but I handle sanity differently. Instead of learning to live inside the noise, what works for me is:
1. Stop consuming feeds and short-form media. No ig, twitter, youtube, etc. When I want content, I choose long-form, meaningful things (or dumb, depending on the mood). Often the best option is to stay in silence, be bored, or take a walk around the neighbourhood.
2. Do not consume news. Do not check the market. Just follow the boring investment plan you already decided when you were calm.
3. Be kind to the people around you. Love your family: wife, children, parents.
Extra, stronger steps that are more personal:
4. Use the phone only to communicate with family. When you get home, keep it in a box.
5. Read the Bible. Even if you do not believe, Jesus is the most impressive human I've ever learned about. When I started reading it I was agnostic.
5. If you don't care about the Bible, I strongly recommend the Tao Te Ching. Probably the most succinct, KISS philosophy and spirituality book ever written in the history of mankind.
To misquote Alan Watts, all other religions are for people that need the Tao explained with too many words.
My favourite version to start with, and even more succinct than the original, is Ron Hogan's https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ron.html then you can move on to fancier translations.
So you're suggesting an Eastern philosophy and spirituality instead of a Western one. I've listened to both Jordan Peterson and Eckhart Tolle, the difference is quite big but both points of view are interesting.
Second this comment. The Tao Te Ching is about as close to a “right answer” in metaphysics as we’re likely to get.
Even after going around the houses for 2500 years, eventually philosophy reached Wittgenstein who had to hold his hands up and say “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” which is pretty well a summary of what Lao Tzu was pointing at.
I would replace your number 5 with "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" or "MacBeth" or "Calvin & Hobbes" or maybe even Natsume's "I am a Cat." Also fun fictional books with impressive protagonists.
Other than that, your first four points are wonderful.
Strongly agreed. Reading the actual bible is (mostly) boring as sin. There are a couple of gems in there that you can just take on their own though.
My personal favourite is Ecclesiastes which, apart from a couple of lines of slop added by a later author, has little to do with Abrahamic religion and is more just a little nugget of proto-existentialism.
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
The more the words,
the less the meaning,
and how does that profit anyone?
Ecclesiastes 6:11
---
“We, and I personally, believe very strongly that more information is better, even if it’s wrong. Let’s start from the premise that more information, more empowerment, is fundamentally the correct answer.”
Eric Schmidt
I read Ecclesiastes back in 2019. It's probably one of the more interesting books in the Bible. I wasn't particularly impressed with it, but it's a short read, so I still think it's a good suggestion, especially if you're atheist or agnostic.
I get why people say that. Most of us grew up hearing casual claims that he never existed, or that the whole thing is a myth. But the evidence for his historical existence is solid. You do not need to believe in the miracles to accept that a real person named Jesus lived, taught, and was executed.
And if the story were invented, the mind that created those teachings would be just as remarkable as the man himself. Reading the accounts directly is what convinced me. I started from a skeptical place and changed my mind only after going through it.
PS: If you think my first four points make sense, it's possible the fifth one does too, maybe it just hasn't clicked for you yet.
There is apparently evidence that there was a Jesus¹ who preached and was crucified for causing a pain for those in power. But the version of Jesus in the bible is likely no more real than the Abraham in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012).
--------
[1] or someone going by another name which became Jesus over time, many names in the new testament are suspiciously unlike those likely to be found in the middle east in the first century CE.
Not at all. The bible is famously allegorical which is known by everyone who practices catholicism, but the historical evidence and written records are quite clear - there was this incredibly charismatic guy who grew a following, helped the poor and got crucified.
It is great that Jesus works for you, but you have to separate real-Jesus versus storybook-Jesus. No doubt he lived, but written stories can be elaborated on.
For all I know, Jesus could have been the world's first great magician.
The world has seen quite a few people in it, some quite remarkable - for which stories have been written. No deity or supernatural abilities need to apply.
Don't fall into a fallacy: just because "no deity or supernatural abilities need to apply" doesn't mean that a deity or supernatural abilities haven't applied.
The only honest positions we can take are: I believe / I don't believe.
I'm happy if you find calm in your faith, but one of the biggest cause leading our insanity is the idea "both side can be the truth and it's all about what you believe" when in most cases one is much more likely than the other. This causes alternative facts and idiocracy. There are a lot of "facts" online so we can "choose" the most comfortable one, and "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge".
Strong claims require strong evidence. Some book written by many, some properly delusional or crazy folks, claiming various outlandish things not physically possible these days (staying away from word "lies" but not too far, basic physics laws worked the same 2000 years ago).
Or preaching behavior absolutely unacceptable these days (Old testament would force you to be murderer pretty quickly nowadays, and I haven't heard a single Christian rejecting all of it... they can't so just they ignore most of it like it doesn't exist). All this decades and centuries after claimed facts, that ain't a proof in any sense. You can believe it for sure, I can choose to believe in Great Spaghetti Monster and its holy teachings and its about the same.
There are no contemporary roman records from that time, earliest (with both eyes squinted and a lot of wishful thinking) is more than century afterwards. Quite an impressive record for claimed son of God, or God himself or whatever it should be.
I've been reading a bit about various sects recently, today it was Jim Jones and his escapades. With enough steps back, it all looks exactly the same, including behavior of believers. To the very last bolt. Tells you a lot about humans and how they internally try to handle tough times, but not much else.
So please, lets have a more rational discussion rather than level our grandparents may consider passable but many of us don't.
The USA brand of 'christianity' is very un-christian-like. In strong catholic countries like most of South America, the old testament is all but entirely rejected, and even the new one treated as mostly fables - they teach you some kind of lesson, not history.
As far as I know the scholarly consensus is that there was a "Jesus" who founded the Christian cult. The only claim being made is that such a person likely existed, not that they were the son of God or actually performed miracles. Just that he wasn't entirely made up. He wouldn't have even been the only "messiah" for whom such claims were made, and the teachings ascribed to him weren't even unique.
Here is a video from the Esoterica Youtube channel which tries to present a historical view of Jesus grounded in contemporary Judaism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vxOBbYSzk
Note that "feeds" is a confusing word choice; I immediately thought of something RSS-like which often links to long-form content.
For news, my rule is to check major headlines at most once a day (often less in practice), so I am at least vaguely aware what people are talking about. Doing it this way makes it clear how ... banal? ... most clickbait is. Something local might be useful; if they mention something national it's probably actually semi-important. Though, if you can't change anything about it, is it really?
If reading the Bible, I strongly suggest starting with Matthew 5 and continuing from there, not too fast (maybe one chapter per week, so you can stop and think about it). This gets straight to the mindset, as opposed to the handful of protrusions that make it to the pop-culture version. [I have a lot more I could say about how to read the Bible, but it's no use posting it again unless someone is interested.]
Algorithms that are profit-motivated (trying hard to get you hooked) also reward "engaging" content which means clickbait, ragebait and content that often triggers some emotions and is easy to consume. So not the most balanced content.
> 5. Read the Bible. Even if you do not believe, Jesus is the most impressive human I've ever learned about. When I started reading it I was agnostic.
Yeah, read the whole Bible — the one people swear on in court, the one the preachers hold and up and tell you it is the word of god — and don't cherry-pick. So much misogeny and shit behavior. How about this one:
“David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented them as payment in full to become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave his daughter Michal to David in marriage.”
Yeah, let's kill those Philistines! Yeah, two hundred human beings! And let's cut off their foreskins because that's not remotely sick and dysfunctional at all and make a gift of them. Seems to be behavior that was rewarded.
Going well until (5) .. beyond the basic textual questions (old or new Testament? Which translation? Apocrypha or not?), you then have to confront the relationship of the actually existing churches to the text.
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 personality, not their views or factual content. So, the influencer can completely change his mind about stuff, as long as he still has the engaging presentation that people have come to like. Followers are also often in love with the brand relationships that the influencers flog, because people love being told what stuff they should buy.
It's more about being confident and extreme on their stance no matter what it is at that particular moment. People are attracted to personalities that are confident and says they are right all the time. Heck, personalities like that gets all the influence in the workplace too. Imagine John Doe in your office who has a solution for every problem and knows the code base like the back of their hand. You might find that they are not so right all the time (maybe 2 out of 3 times it's pure conjecture) but gosh you will go back to him for solutions the next time you run into a problem.
What I am saying is that we are attracted to the extreme, the flamboyant, the controversial. Maybe it's time we prioritize critical thinking for the future generation no?
I see it as the continued corporatisation of everything. I suspect that you'd be hard press to find anyone who has ever been anywhere above middle-management in a corporate organisation who doesnt see, and chuckles at, the similarities in the worst places they've worked and this:
"Where admitting uncertainty is social suicide. Where every conversation is a performance for your tribe rather than an actual exchange of ideas. You lose the ability to solve problems that don't fit neatly into your ideological framework, which turns out to be most important problems"
Politics is the obvious one to see this effect in action but it's bled into so many facet of society now because society is one giant grey areas but our mediums don't like greys. The medium continues to be the message.
That's not corporatisation, it's basic human tribalism. If anything one of the the best things about corporations is that they can sometimes escape that kind of culture.
I have been a small content creator for 10 years now. I've been hampered a lot by actively discouraging these types of parasocial relationships - every now and then I'll get a gaggle of followers that spend entirely too much time on my crappy content or my personality/posts and I get extremely weirded out to the point I want to stop doing it entirely. Everyone tells me I'm doing it wrong, but I swear, 10 years ago it wasn't as much of a thing to create a cult around yourself on social media or streaming platforms. Now it's the primary monetization path.
I've even gone so far to say to more than one person, "look, I like and appreciate you really like my content or my personality, but, you don't know me at all, I don't know you, and honestly, we're not friends, no matter how much you want that to be the case. That isn't to say I dislike you, but you need to be more realistic about the content you consume, and if this hurts your feelings a lot, I'm sorry, but this content probably isn't for you."
Then there's the type of content creator that gets a following by being a huge jerk to their fans - I don't like that either. I just tell them to treat it like a TV show. It's not real, the character in the show doesn't know you or like you. Unfortunately for today's youth and media landscape this is an utterly foreign concept.
There are / were a couple of right-wing shillers that were literally paid to promote Russian talking points and they just fit it right into their schtick without blinking.
Nothing on the internet is real. If it wants money or opinion or attention, consider it hostile and try to find the strings (although it's generally not worth the time to try and find the strings, just move on and do something productive instead).
the words we use matter a lot. the "pro" and "anti" anything is a pretty large reason why all discourse has become so stupid sounding and talking with people about any issue is enraging. nuance is dead. the cultural zeitgeist is being controlled by algorithmic feeds that create neuroticism (i am definitely affected), general anxiety, and anger.
My take on this is that persons are great, everyone should know a few. Groups of people on the other hand are, and always have been, genuinely pretty awful in almost every way. IMHO this is down to some really basic primate stuff that's just inevitable. Social media is a big problem because it makes it easier to create groups, and algorithms are a big problem because they essentially take all of the dynamics that would inevitably lead to conflict anyway, and accelerate them.
Groups, algorithms, and conflict itself are all things that lead to wicked problems. Each one tends to spiral, where the only solution is more of the same, and if you escape one funnel then you fall into an adjacent one. Problem: Some group is against me. Solution: Create a group to bolster my strength. Problem: People are fighting. Solution: Join the fight so the fight will stop sooner. Problem: My code is too complicated to understand. Solution: More code to add logging and telemetry. Problem: Attempting to add telemetry has broken the code. Solution: Time to start a fight
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.
> 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?
They were called Sophists in Ancient Greece and were despised by Socrates because their arguments were based, not on truth or facts, but whatever rhetoric would convince the audience.
The quality I value in myself (and others when I find it) is a bias to doubt evidence of things I already believe, and to accept proof of things I do not believe. The bias isn't strong (that way lies madness!), but it makes your mental model of the world stronger. It's also a much better filter than "intelligent", "polite" or "articulate", which are all orthogonal to the kind of rational, open skepticism I advocate. The big downside is that such qualities are subtle and hard to judge. Tribal affiliation is, for all its faults, easy to measure.
Another point of optimism: being a persecuted (or neglected) minority can have some positive effects, if you can find your people.
And in a classic stroke of Gell-Mann amnesia, if you're questioning what you just heard, how much should you trust what you were hearing five minutes ago?
Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.
The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author.
I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author.
The original claim was:
> 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.
In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue.
Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.
Even with the number of articulate examples like this are far out numbered by the number of inarticulate arguments that the rule still has merit. Exceptions do not make the rule bad.
Absolutely agree. Many, many abhorrent ideas and perspectives are accepted very often due to them being deliberately well thought-out and appearing more "academic" sounding to the layperson. There are entire organizations (colloquially, "think-tanks") dedicated to writing pamphlets, books, and memos filled with eloquent in-depth talking points that get distributed to their respective talking heads.
I can't blame many people today for seeing this problem as the foundation of all mainstream media, instead of taking the time to individually investigate each source of information. However it does lead to this "everything is the opposite of what we're told" hysteria the author talks about
That's true, but if you want one, you can find one. If you've conditioned yourself to think that articulate==credible, then sometimes it only takes one.
Yes, and this is not just due to the intelligence of the "believers" but due to the fact that describing 2=2=2 in a self-consistent way only takes understanding it while describing 2=2=3 in a way that appears self-consistent requires a true rhetorical genius.
>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.
The author has to say this because the consumers of the author's content would stop being right if the author was constantly dropping truth bombs like "being articulate doesn't make you right" they wouldn't get liked, retweeted, shared, and circle jerked about in the comment section on the front page of HN.
Literally every content creating person or company with an established fan base is in this quandary. If Alex Jones said "hey guys the government is right about this one" or Regular Car Reviews said "this Toyota product is not the second coming of christ" they'd hemorrhage viewers and money so they cant say those things no matter how much they personally want to. Someone peddling platitudes to people who fancy themselves intellectuals can't stop any more than a guy who's family business is concrete plants can't just decide one day to do roofing.
Alex Jones literally did this though starting around 2016.
This is a strong argument probably but strangely aimed here. Reading the article, it does seem like you and the author agree about everything in this regard? You are kind of just rearticulating one part of their argument as critique about them. Why?
Or where do we place the reflex here? What triggered: this author is BS, is pseudointellectual, is bad. We jump here from a small note about articulation and intelligence, to what seems like this massive opportunity to attack not only that argument, but the author, the readers, everyone. Why? Does the particular point here feel like a massive structural weakness?
What was the trigger here for you, for lack of better word? Why such a strong feeling?
There are YouTubers that have talked about their struggle to change content that they discuss in their channels. The general advice is, make a new channel for a new topic because of how fans and their attention work. One YouTuber I occasionally watch talked about how they at first got hate mail when changing their topic because people in their old topic perceived the YouTuber to be one of the only voices in that field.
My guess is Alex Jones is actually a big enough personality to be able to have a brand independent of his ideas. Not every creator has that luxury.
Not every internet comment is a disagreement with what it's replying to.
The entire "media intended for voluntary casual consumption" industry is rife with these sorts of "gotta keep doing what you're known for" traps. Pretty much every industry with minimal product differentiation is like this to varying extents. Sorry my examples weren't completely devoid of exceptions <eyeroll>.
Anyway, two can play this stupid game. Why is it such a problem that I'm alleging this content is basically scratching the same itch in the same way as tabloids but for different demographics? Why do you feel the need to make this out to be an attack on everyone rather than a narrowly targeted "the world do be the way it is" criticism?
I don't really think its a problem and didn't indicate as such. Its why I was asking questions, trying to reconcile arguments, and overall not trying to assume one way or the other. But I can see I somehow have wasted your time regardless, sorry about that!
For everything else, sorry, I really don't know what you are saying, but your kind of righteous anger at the author is something I can certainly respect even if I am not quite sure what context you are coming from here. "Media intended for voluntary casual consumption" seems to be a pretty wide net.. what are you trying distinguish with that phrase? Media whose consumption is compulsory and not casual.. Maybe like educational/job training videos I guess? Instructional manuals? Also, what is the author here known for, that they have to keep doing? Really trying to parse here, is it maybe just "being intellectual"?
Small aside, but it's easier to talk to my cat recently then to try and use any form of prose to communicate something successfully on HN. The breakdown of communication is almost surreal these days and I don't even know what to point to. Threads get like 3 levels deep and it just becomes a mess! While never perfect, this used to be such a great place for deep discussion, whats changing?
As a long time proponent of reasonable-ism I disagree with a lot of this. The assumption that a lot of our problems stem from 2 sides just seeing an issue differently is just nonsense in this day and age.
The big Problem, is that one side has slid heavily into authoritarianism, and the other side is completely ill-equipped to fight it.
On any particular issue, the right will say whatever gets them more Power, and the left will bring out some sort of philosophy professor to try and pick apart the nuances of the conversation.
I was thinking about this while reading the article. 15 years ago I prided myself on actively searching out opposing views and engaging with them. I still do that in the small scale, talking with coworkers or friends who have opposing views, but where the fuck can you find any reasonable conservative commentators these days. What are the most prominent voices? People like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder? They don't have an intellectually honest bone in their body.
How the hell can you even get a balanced view in terms of news/media you consume when one side is dominated by lunatics and bad actors.
For real. Honestly, the idea that all people are good and caring and just see things differently is the comforting lie.
I really really want to believe it. You get to feel happy about humanity, smarter than all the hysterical people, etc,
It took so so so much evil from the Republicans to convince me that they are Not a reasonable side, do Not warrant any consideration, and that people who follow them Are morally corrupt.
1) Always listen to your rational adversary, repeat their arguments back to them to their satisfaction rather than in caricature.
2) List facts; states of affairs that are not in dispute. Adduce no fact in isolation.
3) Form the strongest version of your rational counterparts' argument.
4) Apply reason faithfully to analyze.
5) Lather rinse repeat.
It seems the above is the best humans have every been able to do, it is child's play that we somehow forgot, maybe because we labelled it as something obscure like "the scientific method" or "legal process". I think this is as simple as "follow your nose".
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 irrelevant — the important thing is that large platforms are politically unstable.
The solution to this is to fragment the internet. Unfortunately, this is incompatible with the information economies of scale that underpin the US economy. In my opinion, our insanity is an externality of the information sector, much like obesity for staple goods or carbon dioxide for energy.
I don’t agree with these individualized how-to guides. I can turn my phone off and go outside, but I still have to live in a world informed by social-media sentiment.
"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 happen.
To be clear, if I were in charge, there would be significantly more banning and moderation on all platforms. I am arguing moderation is more politically feasible in small communities, not that is any more or less ethical.
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.
You're correct that decency is a nicer word for conformity. Preventing social discord avoids violence, but creates repression. I think the compromise is basically liberalism. Let people make their own communities. Let people switch communities, criticize other ones non-violently, enforce their own w/ democratically determined rules, etc.
A better solution to this would be to fragment within social media platforms. Allow users to post any content that's legal within their local jurisdiction. And give other users easy tools to create their own "filter bubbles" so that they don't see content which they personally consider insane or offensive. This would allow the social media platforms to sidestep political debates about censorship.
I have wondered if the long term trajectory of social media is as a locally governed utility, similar to energy or water. I would love a boring page landlocked to my neighborhood. Obviously there would the NextDoor "Karen" issue, that would need to be addressed somehow...
Then you get the other side of this problem, the echo chamber effect. If people self sort they'll eventually end up in social circles that are completely illegible from the realm of physical politics, which leads to a political instability of a different kind.
It's a hard problem. I think multi armed bandit based algorithms can help. Bluesky is a sort of "live" example of self filtering and it ends up creating a lot of fractional purity politics over which filter bubble is the just/moral filter bubble.
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.
If companies really wanted to fire people for posts, they would start with firing people for vaguely anti-capital sentiment. Not saying racist things or whatever.
We need to be careful what we ask for. Who is effectively doing the censorship matters. Powerful people are probably not going to be censoring based on 'good morals' - because they themselves do not have good morals.
Does that also apply to people living under oppressive governments? Anonymity can be a useful tool for sharing information that those in power don't want released, for example whistle blowing.
A woman wearing anything but a burqa in an extremist Islamic society would be popularly categorized as one of the "people with no shame, and with strong anti-social tendencies". So according to you liberal women in Iran, Pakistan, Sudan etc should not be given a safe space, is it?
When I go to the polling place to cast my vote for the candidate of my choice; I am often holding my nose and voting for the one who I think will do the least damage. I often wonder why sane, rational problem solvers are not on the ballot.
Then I realize that our system often rewards the attention seekers rather than pragmatic leaders. Those who quietly get the work done are not invited on talk shows or podcasts. The don't have rallies and make the evening news.
All the oxygen in the room is sucked in by the performance artists, who often say outlandish things but rarely get anything productive done.
This article is advice for individuals on how to resist the societal incentives to embrace insanity. But what I'm really interested in is advice for how to fix our society so it doesn't incentivize insanity.
How do you help others if you physically restrain yourself from doing so though? I can imagine some help but it severely limits the help you can provide and needed, depending on the situation.
We are at this point where we need to “Turn on, tune in, drop out” again. This mass media circus of social media and influencers doesn’t help anyone except their own self centred interests.
Fair to say this is easier in Europe where we don’t have the propaganda firehose but I think it’s time to switch off US friends
There's some truth to this because "Culture is not your friend, man." Ironically though it really needs update, maybe more like turn off, tune out, rise up?
Really should have mentioned algorithmic feeds too. They’re imo one of the biggest contributors to this.
Diversify your sources is a good start but without algos are a gravity well of sorts too - it pulls you into echo chambers - that are stronger than manual attempts to select diversity
The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary such that we can use the same words but talk right past eachother, allowing extremely moderate positions to be reframed as extreme and making what ought to be minor disagreements unresolvable. People making an "I can see both sides" argument are completely missing the point - the issue is that most people can't see both sides, and even when they go out of their way to look at the other side's argument, they come away even more convinced that the other side's argument is dumb because it is dumb, if it is assumed everyone is speaking the same language. People haven't all suddenly become insane, or dumb, or unreasonable; we've just taken for granted that people geographically close to us using the same vocabulary would mean the same things, and thus we never developed the skills to translate between people who are in fact living in wildly different worlds possibly in the same household. And much of this is by design - pointing out how dumb someone else is, and complaining about the burden of dealing with these dumb people, takes so much less effort than actually doing the work to build consensus and make changes.
Exactly correct on echo chambers. I say my opinion on something and I hear the exact same responses from pro people and the exact same responses from con people. Everyone hears it.
Repeating the same words someone else does to make yourn point makes me think the other person isn't capable of considering they might be wrong.
I disagree with saying "I can see both sides". That's another echo chamber. If I say I can reasonably see both sides of an issue, one side calls me an idiot and uneducated and suc
h and the other goes straw man and how I'm a communist and/or Hitler. No. I can see why side A thinks the way they do and side B thinks the way they do.
I'm not talking about hot topics either.
I'm really starting to just want to get away from all society and/or just never have more than surface level conversations with people.
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?
I assume it was the author ratting on themselves and their para social relationships. I'm guessing "friend" here is a person the author follows on Twitter and occasionally exchanges a DM with
And the influenced are rewarded by the influencer that is validating their polarized views.
You also might be putting too fine a point on "influencer". A relative of mine on Facebook might be a kind of "influencer"—at least with regard to his small cadre of family and friends that follow him.
You can look at it it this way, but why your small circle of family and friends would reward polarizing opinions? If anything, I have seen people losing real life relationships by not knowing when to stop in online arguments
Nobody can vouch for their own sanity. Attempting to do so only make you sound insane. Incentives to be insane? Sure, but.... it is timing the stock market of ideas. Some will get rich but most will not. And sanity either has to return or insanity will destroy many lives and the society in which it is allowed free reign. In any case if you promoted insanity when sanity returns and people regain their ability to have a memory you may reap what you seeded.
> Nobody can vouch for their own sanity. Attempting to do so only make you sound insane.
Exactly, and if people deem you to be insane, you cannot do anything about that. They will find reasons for why what you are saying is out of your insanity. There is a great movie about a woman being held against her own will at the locked up psychiatric ward and it explores this.
There is a critical problem with influencers: once they build a large audience, they often feel compelled to stick to the same message, even if they later realize it's wrong, because influence itself becomes a business and a source of power.
I am 31 years old. Same experiences. You have to find the right audience. For me, it was particular IRC channels where they were still quite reasonable.
> You get certainty in an uncertain world. You get a community that will defend you. You get a simple heuristic for navigating complex issues.
This is what faith used to provide.
I say this as a not religious person: Maybe societies really need something like religion to channel irrationality?
We've been trying religion for as long there have been humans. Tends to suffer from the same shortcomings: very easy to subvert and abuse by adversial agents (grifters, sociopaths, etc) and increases in-group/out-group thinking.
I think disengaging from social media is a big part of this. These advertiser and engagement fueled algorithms promote all of the insane takes as well. You find much more fulfillment engaging with people locally or people in your close circles.
I’m not on social media unless you consider HN social media (I don’t) and the world is still totally as insane as it was before the internet.
For your average city person:
The food you’re offered is sugar + preservatives, the water is either non-existent (Tehran) or poisoned with fracking gas (Flint), almost all local communities have collapsed into extreme versions of themselves, the rich and poor still don’t mingle, men fear women and women want nothing to do with men, there is no upside to having a family or children.
I just spoke at a HBS event in DC last night about robotics and on one side of the room were people starting AI companion services and in the other side people were saying AI was causing the rise of Tradwives. It was like looking at 50 “deer in headlights” when explaining how thoroughly they have already integrated third party algorithmic logic into their decision processes - and are totally unaware of it.
The real world is absurd and getting less coherent with more information available. Humans aren’t biologically equipped for the world we collectively built.
Your disconnect from Social Media and "the world still totally insane"—the latter is of course not dependent on the former. Perhaps we need to get the rest of the world also off Social Media? Off the internet?
Given that we can't do that, I choose then to continue my hobbies, take more walks, try to declutter my place, improve my health, lose weight, look for comfortable chats with my daughters, wife, friends…
I'm not sure where you see men and women not trusting one another. If I had to guess it would be that you perceive this from things you have seen on the internet?
I find the internet is kind of like that silly cave in "The Empire Strikes Back"—where you find only what you bring with you. Try looking for positive things and people and see if you are not rewarded. (And if you cannot, just drop the internet completely. I have a friend that I think checks online for about 30 minutes in the morning and then he's done for the day.)
I have teenagers headed to college. I’m seeing it first/second hand.
Across high schools in the US kids aren’t dating like they used to and are vocal about not just ambivalence but hostility toward having kids.
Oddly enough my kids want to get married and have kids and report on how it’s odd to them others positions, so if anything I’m biased the other direction from exposure.
I don’t care either way, not having kids is a valid approach, but it’s a fact that there’s going to be societal impacts.
Both are significantly different but still fail to provide the most basic service: access to clean water
I can trivially get access to plenty of clean drinking water in most “wild” places in the world, in fact that’s like the third core thing you learn in survival schools (of which I’ve attended many).
You're doing the thing that the article is talking about. Neither are average examples. I don't know about Tehran, but you have to really be cherry-picking to make a data set where Flint ends up as an average case of municipal water quality.
No it’s demonstrating that at the relative extreme ends you have the same problem thus creating the linear equation with the minimum set
The reader should deduce that any measure along the same linear map - which is effectively every city aka the “average city” - will eventually be subject to this condition (water insecurity)
You can trivially verify this by looking at issues of water insecurity and water quality issues across every size city. Notice that you will have non-trivial numbers of “boil water” events in the United States south. You may have significant periods of drought throughout your average city in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonoran desert or western China for example.
I think maybe your definition of “average” only includes modern metropolitan areas and not simply as cities where people are geographically clustering across the globe.
I lived in San Angelo Texas in 2009 and I did not have potable water in my home. I had to go to Walmart and fill 5 gallon jugs of Culligan water every few days. That’s not particularly abnormal
To be fair I offered a fairly complex/compressed way to approach this, so not easily interpreted, but nonetheless that’s the point
I felt the same thing when i was 22--kids aren't for me, this world sucks, etc etc. Eventually I "grew up," toned down short term hedonistic pleasures, read books that deepened my connection to humanity and realized family is extremely meaningful.
First off, there's nothing new about interviewing people who are in their early 20s and hearing moaning and groaning about how this world sucks and it's not worth bringing anyone into it. I'm not religious whatsoever, but there's something deeply spiritual about the human experience of family/kids. It's certainly not for everyone if you're mature enough to understand the downsides and decide not to--but the secondary point I want to make is that I think most people are naive/immature. They follow trends and take a lot of direction from social media. The endless short term dopamine hits from every corner of your life will definitely have anybody questioning -- "why would i make my life harder when i can live only for myself and continue tiktoking in the evenings for 3 hours" -- our society is fundamentally broken, and that's not just the USA. I've traveled to other places and have bumped into the social media zombies everywhere.
Exactly, so about that, there's good news and bad news. Epistemic and mean field game theory is eventually going to be well understood stuff and define better alternatives very, very specifically. After we understand our past completely AND can predict our future, we'll know exactly what to fix and how, but unfortunately nothing whatsoever will change anyway. Probably someone will weaponize it to actually make things worse! Cold comfort to be sure, but I personally will still sleep easier after I know exactly why we are doomed.
Being reasonable is basicaly the core requirement of civilization. If your culture is incapable of tolerance or variation it's also incapable of growth. It gets locked in a cyclical purity test and collapse.
>A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.
I'm a long time Jon Stewart fan and if I'm being honest, looked at the "other side" as if it was a bunch of retarded people isn't new and predate 2016. No doubt Trump and social media got conservative to embrace condescending and extreme rhetoric and pushed it to another level but let's not pretend they invented anything.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.
Uh.... The vast majority of new stories from major outlets ARE manufactured consent.
I have a hard time taking this kind of enlightened-centrist both-sides gruel very seriously. Calling every strong position "extreme" is a classic sleight-of-hand maneuver by people who want to mask their own wrong-side-of-history beliefs that they know they should feel ashamed of expressing.
Yes, yes, look for truth beyond labeled groups, but pretending that the "sides" are equal is some utterly moronic "Fair and Balanced" bullshit.
> it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.
Many issues really do have a bright dividing line. I mean, for fuck's sake, there are people who are currently fighting against releasing the Epstein files, documents that clearly incriminate pedophilic rape and sex trafficking.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent.
I think the author here doesn't actually understand what manufactured consent is, because believing otherwise demonstrates media illiteracy. Talking about our extreme filter bubbles (community/information homogeneity) in one breath and then denying the pervasiveness of manufactured consent in the next is otherwise a perfect demonstration of Gell-Mann amnesia.
"enlightened-centrist" and "both-sides(ism)" are phrases left-leaning people use to try and say "My team good, your team bad, to believe anything else is insanity/stupidity!" without coming off as a douchebag. (It doesn't work)
This is a common misconception about what it means to be against political extremes.
It does not mean "both sides have a point".
It does not mean "both sides" are equally bad.
It does not even mean that there are necessarily two sides.
The term "centrist" is used to imply and reinforce these misconceptions, encouraging people toward extremes. When you see things in black and white, of course everything is a straight line from good to evil (with you at the far end of good), so if someone only partially agrees with you, they're in the "center" and that much closer to Hitler than you. It's hard to step outside of this fantasy. But I'll try to help you.
Imagine the following dialogue.
A: "Are you Hindu or Muslim?"
B: "Neither. I'm an atheist."
A: "Oh, so you are torn between Vishnu and Muhammad."
And yes, one of the political parties is significantly more deranged than the other right now. You don't need to be extreme to see that and it is possible to vote for the more reasonable party without drinking their kool-aid.
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-sculpt their reality around the basis that they were always right anyway. Just take a look at how the story around the Epstein files changes with the way the wind blows. It feels very familiar to the "Narcissist's Prayer."
I haven't used social media in over a decade and I change my mind all the time.
Changing your mind is a good thing for a thinking being.
Social media figures aren't changing their mind in the same way, they are changing and optimizing their public performance.
Professional social media is a paid performance. We understand that Tom Cruise is not really a highly skilled jet fighter pilot but a well paid actor playing the role of one. No one cares what Tom Cruise thinks about Ukraine/Russia air defense tactics. This gets hidden in plain sight with social media though and why social media is hyper stupifying.
> A lot of this goes away when you stop spending so much time on social media, which is a very poor reflection of "reality."
It mainly "too much time of political social media". You can always tell.
What you find is that a lot of people will be repeating talking points and/or catch phrases without putting much thought into it. A lot of this is fed to them by people who are essentially evangelists and many of these people I am convinced are given they talking points, because they all say the same thing at roughly the same time.
> Prominent figures on social media change their minds all the time, but they'll re-sculpt their reality around the basis that they were always right anyway
They can do that if they are getting a decent turnover of new viewers. That doesn't work too well when their fanbase is declining.
If you look into the UFO land which is the worst for this and the most obvious because often the claims are ridiculous. What often happens is that someone will be outright exposed for being a fraud e.g. someone proves that a video was fake. They will then disappear for a few months or maybe a few years. During that time, many more new people would have filtered into the community and many won't look into that person's background.
> 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.
> as a writer or journalist you are forced to depend on approval of others
and sometimes the disapproval of others, as we've seen with the sort of rage-baiting headlines many blogs, social media accounts, and even traditional media outlets, are writing
and the thing is... this approval/disapproval reaction isn't elicited to necessarily build coalitions, make friends, or change minds, it's often built to sell eyes-on-ads which is a completely perverse incentive that has eaten the mainstream internet
The challenge is that short-term incentives can easily lead to long-term problems, as the short-term min/maxing can leave you stuck in a particular global minimum, with no clear way out.
I said global minimum, which can easily happen if you end up at local maximum, but you’ll never know unless you randomly search elsewhere (and potentially end up even lower).
Not sure what the point of this is other than to complain about being out of touch with the world. Too many people think "diversifying your information" means subscribing to whatever drivel they find on substack instead of, you know, following a diverse set of _actual journalists_.
Over the last many years, newspapers have slashed actual journalists in a number of areas: investigative reporting, arts, local news. A lot of those actual journalists have moved to Substack in order to maintain some kind of career writing about the subject they love.
For me, the tragedy of Substack isn’t that it consists of purely unserious people. It’s that fine journalists go there because, with the death of open-web blogging, there’s a feeling that there is no where else to go. And then, once there, they start to pick up all kinds of bad behaviors that both Substack the for-profit corporate owner and its culture of writers and commenters encourage.
That's true, the point I was making was that it's about you decide to trust with sending you news not just the outlet. The problem is that many people who are rightfully distrustful of traditional media end up following cranks. And Substack seems to be the place where the cranks hang out.
> The friend who saw conspiracies everywhere built a following. Then an audience. Then a 7-figure income stream.
That person is almost certainly a grifter. If I was dishonest enough to do it, I would to.
It isn't that difficult if you are reasonably articulate, look reasonably tidy and can upload a 20 minute video once day to get an audience. A lot of these people are simply choosing a "side" and then repeating the talking points.
There are people that make 10-20k a month just reading the news and many of them aren't even good at doing that.
> 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.
In my opinion, the problem is that journalists in general used “both sides” rhetoric where it wasn’t warranted to avoid accusations of bias. It feels that nuance is used out of cowardice more often than not.
There’s also the fact that not all positions are equally valid or evidence based. Nuance doesn’t mean treating each position as equally valid, but evaluating each on the evidence. Journalists almost uniformly mistake “both sides” for nuance. There’s nuance in discussions about global warming, but treating “global warming is not man made” as a valid position is not an example of that.
Nuance is definitely something we need more of, but we also need to call a spade a spade more often.
The phrase/concept "both side ism" is a very clever bait and switch that, so far as I can tell, was designed to marginalize/discredit people who are trying to actually engage with the issues (instead of just toxically emoting), and it was avidly adopted and weaponized as such. By both sides.
No, moderatism or centrism is legitimately a fallacy. The idea or intuition that, given two endpoints, the most correct position is one in the middle, is a fallacy. It depends entirely on the endpoints.
For example: the three fifths compromise. Turns out, bad. The correct answer was emancipation all along, and the 'centrist' answer was just bad. Because, well, one of the endpoints was slavery. If you 'halfway' slavery, that's still bad. There's no merits or 'well what about's when it comes to slavery.
That doesn't mean centrists or moderates are wrong - they're often right. But it DOES mean that just taking a middle of the road approach isn't reasonable. You need to actually understand why you're doing that, and why the middle makes the most sense. In some parts of the world, right now, as in right now right now, the 'both sides' argument is pro-genocide. In the past it's been pro-slavery, pro-colonialism, pro-holocaust, whatever. Plenty of really bad stuff.
So, you can't hide behind 'both sides'. You need to justify WHY 'both sides' and why in the middle is best for this particular case.
If all your relationships fail in the same manner, it is likely that the problem is you.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.
Manufactured consent is a real thing, with mounting evidence that it's becoming increasingly prevalent. The ownership structures around major news outlets are worrisome and what many considered 'reliable' for years are now showing seriously problematic habits (like genocide erasure - lookin' at you, NYT.)
Liberalism has come under completely valid scrutiny as we've seen fiscal policies implemented by Clinton and Obama blow up in our faces. No, we don't think Reaganomics is anything but a grift, but many of us see the grift in NAFTA and the ACA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley and have begun to question the honesty of centrist liberal economic policies because we are seeing them fail catastrophically.
> The incentive gradient was clear: sanity was expensive, and extremism paid dividends.
Author is doing something subtle here - without making a defense or interrogation of the statement, they are saying "Not being liberal / centrist is extremism, and thus invalid". I call bullshit.
I have not profited or benefited from my "extreme" leftist views. If anything, I take a risk every time I talk about them out in the open. My comment history is going to be visible to all future employers. Should the government continue it's rightward slide I'll have a target painted on my back that I put there. I don't believe the things I believe because it's convenient, I believe them because in my estimation, we are operating on a set of failed systems and it's important that we fix them because they present a real and present danger.
We have Trump because Biden was utterly incapable of facing the actual problems people are having with the economic prosperity gap. If you don't address the actual hardship in people's lives, you leave the door open for a huckster to make those promises for you. Most will take the unreliable promise of a better tomorrow over being lied to about whether they even have a problem. You don't need a PhD in economics to know that whatever the GDP might be you're still broke and you can't afford to feed your kids.
Breaking people raises the GDP. It wasn't that Biden was incapable, I mean besides the dementia his party and the media hid from its viewers, he was capable of fixing the problem for the less than billionaires.
The problem is believing the other party has an alternative. The problem is belief in the other. Who we believe the other is.
The other isn't anyone who doesn't have power over you. The problem is believing people who say someone who doesn't have power over you is the other.
The author might want to admit that 'moderate reasonable' positions are also branded and incentivized, and can lead to lucrative jobs in the corporate media and think tank worlds and even in the social media influencer space.
What really smells bad here is the 'stupid and insane' theme - everyone who disagrees with my moderate position is living in stupid-world or lacks sanity is itself an extremist fundamentalist position held by many so-called centrists and institutional bureaucrats whose impartiality is questionable as they are economic beneficiaries of the status quo.
Relatedly, extremist positions arise from extreme conditions - a well-paid experienced factory employee who loses their job due to the corporation outsourcing manufacturing to India will likely adopt an extreme position of opposition to shareholder or venture capital control of corporate decisions, and start advocating for worker control of corporations. Does that make them stupid and insane? Or is that just the spin the shareholders and venture capitalists are trying to put on their reasonable moderate position about sharing wealth and power in a more democratic fashion?
This person doesn't seem aware of their contradictions in both complaining about people not following diverse viewpoints and also downright dismissing any amount of self-reflection that might be coming from people to their left.
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.
This is a very interesting article.
I'm not 100% convinced every influencer _feels_ trapped in a world of their own making - but it's correct that truth this day is suffering a bit of a "tragedy of the commons" problem.
> The world will keep offering you bad trades, will keep rewarding positions you know are too simple to be true.
Here's a story. I'd guess there's at least a few HN folk with a similar tale.
I'm not a real believer in cryptocurrency, in its current popular form at least. Actual value would be delivered by fast transaction rates at (very) high speed, high assurance, and some kind of oversight or ability to reverse transactions (you can choose your cutoff anywhere from "convicted criminal behavior" to "I disputed a transaction on my Visa/Mastercard just because I could" but ultimately society and the law needs to be an effective backstop of the system). Yet I was introduced to the bitcoin paper sometime near its release by a PhD officemate, and was a specialist in high performance and GPU computing at the time, and resolved to go home and spend a few hours mining a coin, but instead I just chilled out when I got home. I could literally have hundreds of coins right now (or equivalent cash). For years I could have chosen to join the bandwagen, but resolved not to. Currently my parents are profiting - go figure.
So yeah the world offers some interesting trades from time to time!
In any case I found the article meaningful. I'm glad I live outside the US and its current polarization, but I feel we have the same problem growing here. Hopefully we all learn to deal with it and sort out our differences.
Social media + recommendation algorithms = echo chambers.
If humanity's mind used to be like a wall covered in colors with long, soft gradients between them, today it looks like a wall painted in vertical color stripes with almost no gradient at all.
I agree with the author's diagnosis but I handle sanity differently. Instead of learning to live inside the noise, what works for me is:
1. Stop consuming feeds and short-form media. No ig, twitter, youtube, etc. When I want content, I choose long-form, meaningful things (or dumb, depending on the mood). Often the best option is to stay in silence, be bored, or take a walk around the neighbourhood.
2. Do not consume news. Do not check the market. Just follow the boring investment plan you already decided when you were calm.
3. Be kind to the people around you. Love your family: wife, children, parents.
Extra, stronger steps that are more personal:
4. Use the phone only to communicate with family. When you get home, keep it in a box.
5. Read the Bible. Even if you do not believe, Jesus is the most impressive human I've ever learned about. When I started reading it I was agnostic.
5. If you don't care about the Bible, I strongly recommend the Tao Te Ching. Probably the most succinct, KISS philosophy and spirituality book ever written in the history of mankind.
To misquote Alan Watts, all other religions are for people that need the Tao explained with too many words.
My favourite version to start with, and even more succinct than the original, is Ron Hogan's https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ron.html then you can move on to fancier translations.
So you're suggesting an Eastern philosophy and spirituality instead of a Western one. I've listened to both Jordan Peterson and Eckhart Tolle, the difference is quite big but both points of view are interesting.
Second this comment. The Tao Te Ching is about as close to a “right answer” in metaphysics as we’re likely to get.
Even after going around the houses for 2500 years, eventually philosophy reached Wittgenstein who had to hold his hands up and say “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” which is pretty well a summary of what Lao Tzu was pointing at.
I would replace your number 5 with "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" or "MacBeth" or "Calvin & Hobbes" or maybe even Natsume's "I am a Cat." Also fun fictional books with impressive protagonists.
Other than that, your first four points are wonderful.
Strongly agreed. Reading the actual bible is (mostly) boring as sin. There are a couple of gems in there that you can just take on their own though.
My personal favourite is Ecclesiastes which, apart from a couple of lines of slop added by a later author, has little to do with Abrahamic religion and is more just a little nugget of proto-existentialism.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes%20...I read Ecclesiastes back in 2019. It's probably one of the more interesting books in the Bible. I wasn't particularly impressed with it, but it's a short read, so I still think it's a good suggestion, especially if you're atheist or agnostic.
Jesus is not fictional.
I get why people say that. Most of us grew up hearing casual claims that he never existed, or that the whole thing is a myth. But the evidence for his historical existence is solid. You do not need to believe in the miracles to accept that a real person named Jesus lived, taught, and was executed.
And if the story were invented, the mind that created those teachings would be just as remarkable as the man himself. Reading the accounts directly is what convinced me. I started from a skeptical place and changed my mind only after going through it.
PS: If you think my first four points make sense, it's possible the fifth one does too, maybe it just hasn't clicked for you yet.
> Jesus is not fictional.
There is apparently evidence that there was a Jesus¹ who preached and was crucified for causing a pain for those in power. But the version of Jesus in the bible is likely no more real than the Abraham in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012).
--------
[1] or someone going by another name which became Jesus over time, many names in the new testament are suspiciously unlike those likely to be found in the middle east in the first century CE.
Not at all. The bible is famously allegorical which is known by everyone who practices catholicism, but the historical evidence and written records are quite clear - there was this incredibly charismatic guy who grew a following, helped the poor and got crucified.
> there was this incredibly charismatic guy who grew a following, helped the poor and got crucified.
What historical evidence supports that Jesus helped the poor?
It is great that Jesus works for you, but you have to separate real-Jesus versus storybook-Jesus. No doubt he lived, but written stories can be elaborated on.
For all I know, Jesus could have been the world's first great magician. The world has seen quite a few people in it, some quite remarkable - for which stories have been written. No deity or supernatural abilities need to apply.
Words in a book/internet aren't always the truth.
You are right, faith is always needed.
Don't fall into a fallacy: just because "no deity or supernatural abilities need to apply" doesn't mean that a deity or supernatural abilities haven't applied.
The only honest positions we can take are: I believe / I don't believe.
I'm happy if you find calm in your faith, but one of the biggest cause leading our insanity is the idea "both side can be the truth and it's all about what you believe" when in most cases one is much more likely than the other. This causes alternative facts and idiocracy. There are a lot of "facts" online so we can "choose" the most comfortable one, and "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge".
> Jesus is not fictional.
Strong claims require strong evidence. Some book written by many, some properly delusional or crazy folks, claiming various outlandish things not physically possible these days (staying away from word "lies" but not too far, basic physics laws worked the same 2000 years ago).
Or preaching behavior absolutely unacceptable these days (Old testament would force you to be murderer pretty quickly nowadays, and I haven't heard a single Christian rejecting all of it... they can't so just they ignore most of it like it doesn't exist). All this decades and centuries after claimed facts, that ain't a proof in any sense. You can believe it for sure, I can choose to believe in Great Spaghetti Monster and its holy teachings and its about the same.
There are no contemporary roman records from that time, earliest (with both eyes squinted and a lot of wishful thinking) is more than century afterwards. Quite an impressive record for claimed son of God, or God himself or whatever it should be.
I've been reading a bit about various sects recently, today it was Jim Jones and his escapades. With enough steps back, it all looks exactly the same, including behavior of believers. To the very last bolt. Tells you a lot about humans and how they internally try to handle tough times, but not much else.
So please, lets have a more rational discussion rather than level our grandparents may consider passable but many of us don't.
> Strong claims require strong evidence.
Believing a Jewish man formed his own religious sect and was crucified isn't exactly a strong claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Existence...
Christopher Hitchens gives the best argument for a historical Jesus in this clip
https://youtu.be/vMo5R5pLPBE?t=168
The USA brand of 'christianity' is very un-christian-like. In strong catholic countries like most of South America, the old testament is all but entirely rejected, and even the new one treated as mostly fables - they teach you some kind of lesson, not history.
As far as I know the scholarly consensus is that there was a "Jesus" who founded the Christian cult. The only claim being made is that such a person likely existed, not that they were the son of God or actually performed miracles. Just that he wasn't entirely made up. He wouldn't have even been the only "messiah" for whom such claims were made, and the teachings ascribed to him weren't even unique.
Here is a video from the Esoterica Youtube channel which tries to present a historical view of Jesus grounded in contemporary Judaism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vxOBbYSzk
how can you comment on hacker news that you don't consume news?
I'd argue it's mostly trade news here, I'd assume the OP means commercial broadcasting, newspaper websites and the likes.
Very different for your psyche in my experience.
lots of links to newspaper websites on hn in my experience.
Depends on your trade I guess.
Note that "feeds" is a confusing word choice; I immediately thought of something RSS-like which often links to long-form content.
For news, my rule is to check major headlines at most once a day (often less in practice), so I am at least vaguely aware what people are talking about. Doing it this way makes it clear how ... banal? ... most clickbait is. Something local might be useful; if they mention something national it's probably actually semi-important. Though, if you can't change anything about it, is it really?
If reading the Bible, I strongly suggest starting with Matthew 5 and continuing from there, not too fast (maybe one chapter per week, so you can stop and think about it). This gets straight to the mindset, as opposed to the handful of protrusions that make it to the pop-culture version. [I have a lot more I could say about how to read the Bible, but it's no use posting it again unless someone is interested.]
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&ver...
Personally, I really like Luke because of how clearly it is structured.
Consider me interested
What is it with HackerNews constantly recommending religion to people as some cure-all?
Algorithms that are profit-motivated (trying hard to get you hooked) also reward "engaging" content which means clickbait, ragebait and content that often triggers some emotions and is easy to consume. So not the most balanced content.
> 5. Read the Bible. Even if you do not believe, Jesus is the most impressive human I've ever learned about. When I started reading it I was agnostic.
Yeah, read the whole Bible — the one people swear on in court, the one the preachers hold and up and tell you it is the word of god — and don't cherry-pick. So much misogeny and shit behavior. How about this one:
“David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented them as payment in full to become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave his daughter Michal to David in marriage.”
Yeah, let's kill those Philistines! Yeah, two hundred human beings! And let's cut off their foreskins because that's not remotely sick and dysfunctional at all and make a gift of them. Seems to be behavior that was rewarded.
Word of the Lord is basically sick fucking shit.
There’s plenty of wisdom in the Bible. The book of Proverbs resonates with me the most.
Going well until (5) .. beyond the basic textual questions (old or new Testament? Which translation? Apocrypha or not?), you then have to confront the relationship of the actually existing churches to the text.
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 personality, not their views or factual content. So, the influencer can completely change his mind about stuff, as long as he still has the engaging presentation that people have come to like. Followers are also often in love with the brand relationships that the influencers flog, because people love being told what stuff they should buy.
It's more about being confident and extreme on their stance no matter what it is at that particular moment. People are attracted to personalities that are confident and says they are right all the time. Heck, personalities like that gets all the influence in the workplace too. Imagine John Doe in your office who has a solution for every problem and knows the code base like the back of their hand. You might find that they are not so right all the time (maybe 2 out of 3 times it's pure conjecture) but gosh you will go back to him for solutions the next time you run into a problem. What I am saying is that we are attracted to the extreme, the flamboyant, the controversial. Maybe it's time we prioritize critical thinking for the future generation no?
I see it as the continued corporatisation of everything. I suspect that you'd be hard press to find anyone who has ever been anywhere above middle-management in a corporate organisation who doesnt see, and chuckles at, the similarities in the worst places they've worked and this:
"Where admitting uncertainty is social suicide. Where every conversation is a performance for your tribe rather than an actual exchange of ideas. You lose the ability to solve problems that don't fit neatly into your ideological framework, which turns out to be most important problems"
Politics is the obvious one to see this effect in action but it's bled into so many facet of society now because society is one giant grey areas but our mediums don't like greys. The medium continues to be the message.
That's not corporatisation, it's basic human tribalism. If anything one of the the best things about corporations is that they can sometimes escape that kind of culture.
I have been a small content creator for 10 years now. I've been hampered a lot by actively discouraging these types of parasocial relationships - every now and then I'll get a gaggle of followers that spend entirely too much time on my crappy content or my personality/posts and I get extremely weirded out to the point I want to stop doing it entirely. Everyone tells me I'm doing it wrong, but I swear, 10 years ago it wasn't as much of a thing to create a cult around yourself on social media or streaming platforms. Now it's the primary monetization path.
I've even gone so far to say to more than one person, "look, I like and appreciate you really like my content or my personality, but, you don't know me at all, I don't know you, and honestly, we're not friends, no matter how much you want that to be the case. That isn't to say I dislike you, but you need to be more realistic about the content you consume, and if this hurts your feelings a lot, I'm sorry, but this content probably isn't for you."
Then there's the type of content creator that gets a following by being a huge jerk to their fans - I don't like that either. I just tell them to treat it like a TV show. It's not real, the character in the show doesn't know you or like you. Unfortunately for today's youth and media landscape this is an utterly foreign concept.
Can we like and subscribe to you? Post the link
> Yet social-media personalities regularly do a 180° turn on some issue ... and still keep their following and ability to monetize it.
And they asserted that they were totally right the entire time. That's how. And the sheep kept on following them.
There are / were a couple of right-wing shillers that were literally paid to promote Russian talking points and they just fit it right into their schtick without blinking.
Nothing on the internet is real. If it wants money or opinion or attention, consider it hostile and try to find the strings (although it's generally not worth the time to try and find the strings, just move on and do something productive instead).
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election...
the words we use matter a lot. the "pro" and "anti" anything is a pretty large reason why all discourse has become so stupid sounding and talking with people about any issue is enraging. nuance is dead. the cultural zeitgeist is being controlled by algorithmic feeds that create neuroticism (i am definitely affected), general anxiety, and anger.
My take on this is that persons are great, everyone should know a few. Groups of people on the other hand are, and always have been, genuinely pretty awful in almost every way. IMHO this is down to some really basic primate stuff that's just inevitable. Social media is a big problem because it makes it easier to create groups, and algorithms are a big problem because they essentially take all of the dynamics that would inevitably lead to conflict anyway, and accelerate them.
Groups, algorithms, and conflict itself are all things that lead to wicked problems. Each one tends to spiral, where the only solution is more of the same, and if you escape one funnel then you fall into an adjacent one. Problem: Some group is against me. Solution: Create a group to bolster my strength. Problem: People are fighting. Solution: Join the fight so the fight will stop sooner. Problem: My code is too complicated to understand. Solution: More code to add logging and telemetry. Problem: Attempting to add telemetry has broken the code. Solution: Time to start a fight
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.
> 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?
They were called Sophists in Ancient Greece and were despised by Socrates because their arguments were based, not on truth or facts, but whatever rhetoric would convince the audience.
Yes, and the antithesis of rhetoric is reason.
The quality I value in myself (and others when I find it) is a bias to doubt evidence of things I already believe, and to accept proof of things I do not believe. The bias isn't strong (that way lies madness!), but it makes your mental model of the world stronger. It's also a much better filter than "intelligent", "polite" or "articulate", which are all orthogonal to the kind of rational, open skepticism I advocate. The big downside is that such qualities are subtle and hard to judge. Tribal affiliation is, for all its faults, easy to measure.
Another point of optimism: being a persecuted (or neglected) minority can have some positive effects, if you can find your people.
And in a classic stroke of Gell-Mann amnesia, if you're questioning what you just heard, how much should you trust what you were hearing five minutes ago?
Speaking of people who are very articulate and also very wrong.
in general, maybe - In not a fan of how sycophantic he's gotten... but this was just the citing of outside studies, not his personal opinion.
Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.
The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author.
I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author.
The original claim was:
> 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.
In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue.
Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.
For example, the author is articulate and wrong about needing to give consideration to republicans :p
Not all the flat earthers are true believers. Some are there just for the attention or other motives.
Even with the number of articulate examples like this are far out numbered by the number of inarticulate arguments that the rule still has merit. Exceptions do not make the rule bad.
A good rule can be a bad heuristic. In my experience this one misleads more often than it informs.
Absolutely agree. Many, many abhorrent ideas and perspectives are accepted very often due to them being deliberately well thought-out and appearing more "academic" sounding to the layperson. There are entire organizations (colloquially, "think-tanks") dedicated to writing pamphlets, books, and memos filled with eloquent in-depth talking points that get distributed to their respective talking heads. I can't blame many people today for seeing this problem as the foundation of all mainstream media, instead of taking the time to individually investigate each source of information. However it does lead to this "everything is the opposite of what we're told" hysteria the author talks about
However, there are fewer articulate (and internally consistent) defenses of flat earth theory, than say… particle physics. In my experience.
Plenty of timecube style ones, however.
That's true, but if you want one, you can find one. If you've conditioned yourself to think that articulate==credible, then sometimes it only takes one.
Yes, and this is not just due to the intelligence of the "believers" but due to the fact that describing 2=2=2 in a self-consistent way only takes understanding it while describing 2=2=3 in a way that appears self-consistent requires a true rhetorical genius.
>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.
The author has to say this because the consumers of the author's content would stop being right if the author was constantly dropping truth bombs like "being articulate doesn't make you right" they wouldn't get liked, retweeted, shared, and circle jerked about in the comment section on the front page of HN.
Literally every content creating person or company with an established fan base is in this quandary. If Alex Jones said "hey guys the government is right about this one" or Regular Car Reviews said "this Toyota product is not the second coming of christ" they'd hemorrhage viewers and money so they cant say those things no matter how much they personally want to. Someone peddling platitudes to people who fancy themselves intellectuals can't stop any more than a guy who's family business is concrete plants can't just decide one day to do roofing.
Alex Jones literally did this though starting around 2016.
This is a strong argument probably but strangely aimed here. Reading the article, it does seem like you and the author agree about everything in this regard? You are kind of just rearticulating one part of their argument as critique about them. Why?
Or where do we place the reflex here? What triggered: this author is BS, is pseudointellectual, is bad. We jump here from a small note about articulation and intelligence, to what seems like this massive opportunity to attack not only that argument, but the author, the readers, everyone. Why? Does the particular point here feel like a massive structural weakness?
What was the trigger here for you, for lack of better word? Why such a strong feeling?
There are YouTubers that have talked about their struggle to change content that they discuss in their channels. The general advice is, make a new channel for a new topic because of how fans and their attention work. One YouTuber I occasionally watch talked about how they at first got hate mail when changing their topic because people in their old topic perceived the YouTuber to be one of the only voices in that field.
My guess is Alex Jones is actually a big enough personality to be able to have a brand independent of his ideas. Not every creator has that luxury.
Not every internet comment is a disagreement with what it's replying to.
The entire "media intended for voluntary casual consumption" industry is rife with these sorts of "gotta keep doing what you're known for" traps. Pretty much every industry with minimal product differentiation is like this to varying extents. Sorry my examples weren't completely devoid of exceptions <eyeroll>.
Anyway, two can play this stupid game. Why is it such a problem that I'm alleging this content is basically scratching the same itch in the same way as tabloids but for different demographics? Why do you feel the need to make this out to be an attack on everyone rather than a narrowly targeted "the world do be the way it is" criticism?
I don't really think its a problem and didn't indicate as such. Its why I was asking questions, trying to reconcile arguments, and overall not trying to assume one way or the other. But I can see I somehow have wasted your time regardless, sorry about that!
For everything else, sorry, I really don't know what you are saying, but your kind of righteous anger at the author is something I can certainly respect even if I am not quite sure what context you are coming from here. "Media intended for voluntary casual consumption" seems to be a pretty wide net.. what are you trying distinguish with that phrase? Media whose consumption is compulsory and not casual.. Maybe like educational/job training videos I guess? Instructional manuals? Also, what is the author here known for, that they have to keep doing? Really trying to parse here, is it maybe just "being intellectual"?
Small aside, but it's easier to talk to my cat recently then to try and use any form of prose to communicate something successfully on HN. The breakdown of communication is almost surreal these days and I don't even know what to point to. Threads get like 3 levels deep and it just becomes a mess! While never perfect, this used to be such a great place for deep discussion, whats changing?
> You get certainty in an uncertain world. You get a community that will defend you. You get a simple heuristic for navigating complex issues.
Like religion
Religion artifacts exists in part for organizing communities. For example, The Ten Commandments were revolutionary and short.
As a long time proponent of reasonable-ism I disagree with a lot of this. The assumption that a lot of our problems stem from 2 sides just seeing an issue differently is just nonsense in this day and age.
The big Problem, is that one side has slid heavily into authoritarianism, and the other side is completely ill-equipped to fight it.
On any particular issue, the right will say whatever gets them more Power, and the left will bring out some sort of philosophy professor to try and pick apart the nuances of the conversation.
I was thinking about this while reading the article. 15 years ago I prided myself on actively searching out opposing views and engaging with them. I still do that in the small scale, talking with coworkers or friends who have opposing views, but where the fuck can you find any reasonable conservative commentators these days. What are the most prominent voices? People like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder? They don't have an intellectually honest bone in their body.
How the hell can you even get a balanced view in terms of news/media you consume when one side is dominated by lunatics and bad actors.
Oren Cass and Commonplace are pretty good writers on the US Republican side.
For real. Honestly, the idea that all people are good and caring and just see things differently is the comforting lie.
I really really want to believe it. You get to feel happy about humanity, smarter than all the hysterical people, etc,
It took so so so much evil from the Republicans to convince me that they are Not a reasonable side, do Not warrant any consideration, and that people who follow them Are morally corrupt.
Here is a program for avoiding insanity:
1) Always listen to your rational adversary, repeat their arguments back to them to their satisfaction rather than in caricature.
2) List facts; states of affairs that are not in dispute. Adduce no fact in isolation.
3) Form the strongest version of your rational counterparts' argument.
4) Apply reason faithfully to analyze.
5) Lather rinse repeat.
It seems the above is the best humans have every been able to do, it is child's play that we somehow forgot, maybe because we labelled it as something obscure like "the scientific method" or "legal process". I think this is as simple as "follow your nose".
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 irrelevant — the important thing is that large platforms are politically unstable.
The solution to this is to fragment the internet. Unfortunately, this is incompatible with the information economies of scale that underpin the US economy. In my opinion, our insanity is an externality of the information sector, much like obesity for staple goods or carbon dioxide for energy.
I don’t agree with these individualized how-to guides. I can turn my phone off and go outside, but I still have to live in a world informed by social-media sentiment.
"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 happen.
To be clear, if I were in charge, there would be significantly more banning and moderation on all platforms. I am arguing moderation is more politically feasible in small communities, not that is any more or less ethical.
"virtues" is just a loaded word now unfortunately.
Let’s bring it back! I think being honest is good!
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.
You're correct that decency is a nicer word for conformity. Preventing social discord avoids violence, but creates repression. I think the compromise is basically liberalism. Let people make their own communities. Let people switch communities, criticize other ones non-violently, enforce their own w/ democratically determined rules, etc.
A better solution to this would be to fragment within social media platforms. Allow users to post any content that's legal within their local jurisdiction. And give other users easy tools to create their own "filter bubbles" so that they don't see content which they personally consider insane or offensive. This would allow the social media platforms to sidestep political debates about censorship.
I have wondered if the long term trajectory of social media is as a locally governed utility, similar to energy or water. I would love a boring page landlocked to my neighborhood. Obviously there would the NextDoor "Karen" issue, that would need to be addressed somehow...
Then you get the other side of this problem, the echo chamber effect. If people self sort they'll eventually end up in social circles that are completely illegible from the realm of physical politics, which leads to a political instability of a different kind.
It's a hard problem. I think multi armed bandit based algorithms can help. Bluesky is a sort of "live" example of self filtering and it ends up creating a lot of fractional purity politics over which filter bubble is the just/moral filter bubble.
Sounds like bluesky
Nah, the solution is deanonymization.
People with no shame, and with strong anti-social tendencies should not be given a safe space.
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.
If companies really wanted to fire people for posts, they would start with firing people for vaguely anti-capital sentiment. Not saying racist things or whatever.
We need to be careful what we ask for. Who is effectively doing the censorship matters. Powerful people are probably not going to be censoring based on 'good morals' - because they themselves do not have good morals.
For every person fired for posts, there's a lucrative Fox News commentator gig.
Because Facebook monetizes the engagement of its formerly reasonable users by selling that engagement to spam bot farms?
Does that also apply to people living under oppressive governments? Anonymity can be a useful tool for sharing information that those in power don't want released, for example whistle blowing.
You said it brother!
We should make everyone who disagrees with baxuz where name tags on their chest in the real world too. So we can know who they are.
We can even put the names on a bright yellow six sided star. That way everyone can see them clearly.
If anyone should be given a safe space, then everyone should be given a safe space.
So that people with no shame, and with strong anti-social tendencies who are in power can come back at the de-anonymized people. Yeah, thanks.
A woman wearing anything but a burqa in an extremist Islamic society would be popularly categorized as one of the "people with no shame, and with strong anti-social tendencies". So according to you liberal women in Iran, Pakistan, Sudan etc should not be given a safe space, is it?
When I go to the polling place to cast my vote for the candidate of my choice; I am often holding my nose and voting for the one who I think will do the least damage. I often wonder why sane, rational problem solvers are not on the ballot.
Then I realize that our system often rewards the attention seekers rather than pragmatic leaders. Those who quietly get the work done are not invited on talk shows or podcasts. The don't have rallies and make the evening news.
All the oxygen in the room is sucked in by the performance artists, who often say outlandish things but rarely get anything productive done.
This article is advice for individuals on how to resist the societal incentives to embrace insanity. But what I'm really interested in is advice for how to fix our society so it doesn't incentivize insanity.
Reminds me of seatbelts on airplane, put them first before trying to help others.
How do you help others if you physically restrain yourself from doing so though? I can imagine some help but it severely limits the help you can provide and needed, depending on the situation.
We are at this point where we need to “Turn on, tune in, drop out” again. This mass media circus of social media and influencers doesn’t help anyone except their own self centred interests. Fair to say this is easier in Europe where we don’t have the propaganda firehose but I think it’s time to switch off US friends
There's some truth to this because "Culture is not your friend, man." Ironically though it really needs update, maybe more like turn off, tune out, rise up?
> this is easier in Europe where we don’t have the propaganda firehose
quite ironic, given that we're talking about cognitive dissonance amongst other things
Really should have mentioned algorithmic feeds too. They’re imo one of the biggest contributors to this.
Diversify your sources is a good start but without algos are a gravity well of sorts too - it pulls you into echo chambers - that are stronger than manual attempts to select diversity
The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary such that we can use the same words but talk right past eachother, allowing extremely moderate positions to be reframed as extreme and making what ought to be minor disagreements unresolvable. People making an "I can see both sides" argument are completely missing the point - the issue is that most people can't see both sides, and even when they go out of their way to look at the other side's argument, they come away even more convinced that the other side's argument is dumb because it is dumb, if it is assumed everyone is speaking the same language. People haven't all suddenly become insane, or dumb, or unreasonable; we've just taken for granted that people geographically close to us using the same vocabulary would mean the same things, and thus we never developed the skills to translate between people who are in fact living in wildly different worlds possibly in the same household. And much of this is by design - pointing out how dumb someone else is, and complaining about the burden of dealing with these dumb people, takes so much less effort than actually doing the work to build consensus and make changes.
Can you give an example or two of this conflicting vocabulary?
> The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary
Glad others are noticing this, it deserves more attention than it gets and everyone should be aware it's happening.
I'm genuinely interested in some concrete examples of "changing peoples vocabulary."
I'm not really in the loop, and I think I do a decent job of avoiding echo chambers.
one of the first steps in any color revolution is changing the language to confuse everyone, so it's not surprising that it's so common
Exactly correct on echo chambers. I say my opinion on something and I hear the exact same responses from pro people and the exact same responses from con people. Everyone hears it.
Repeating the same words someone else does to make yourn point makes me think the other person isn't capable of considering they might be wrong.
I disagree with saying "I can see both sides". That's another echo chamber. If I say I can reasonably see both sides of an issue, one side calls me an idiot and uneducated and suc h and the other goes straw man and how I'm a communist and/or Hitler. No. I can see why side A thinks the way they do and side B thinks the way they do.
I'm not talking about hot topics either.
I'm really starting to just want to get away from all society and/or just never have more than surface level conversations with people.
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?
I assume it was the author ratting on themselves and their para social relationships. I'm guessing "friend" here is a person the author follows on Twitter and occasionally exchanges a DM with
And the influenced are rewarded by the influencer that is validating their polarized views.
You also might be putting too fine a point on "influencer". A relative of mine on Facebook might be a kind of "influencer"—at least with regard to his small cadre of family and friends that follow him.
You can look at it it this way, but why your small circle of family and friends would reward polarizing opinions? If anything, I have seen people losing real life relationships by not knowing when to stop in online arguments
That's for sure. Sure think a lot less of some members of my family and a coworker or two thanks to SM (can we just call it SM?).
>most people are not influencers.
Perhaps, but many are. They just don't have much reach or don't use a digital platform.
> but most people are not influencers.
they either get elected or appointment to the government
Nobody can vouch for their own sanity. Attempting to do so only make you sound insane. Incentives to be insane? Sure, but.... it is timing the stock market of ideas. Some will get rich but most will not. And sanity either has to return or insanity will destroy many lives and the society in which it is allowed free reign. In any case if you promoted insanity when sanity returns and people regain their ability to have a memory you may reap what you seeded.
> Nobody can vouch for their own sanity. Attempting to do so only make you sound insane.
Exactly, and if people deem you to be insane, you cannot do anything about that. They will find reasons for why what you are saying is out of your insanity. There is a great movie about a woman being held against her own will at the locked up psychiatric ward and it explores this.
We need 'unfluencers'.
The problem is that it would just be the same few message repeated ad nauseum:
- Treat it all like it's trying to sell you something
- Think for yourself
- Nothing is as simple as it seems
- One person does not represent an entire race/country/group (ie. anecdata is not truth)
etc.
As they say, however, a lie can travel the world twice before the truth has tied its shoe laces.
There is a critical problem with influencers: once they build a large audience, they often feel compelled to stick to the same message, even if they later realize it's wrong, because influence itself becomes a business and a source of power.
It's easier said than done. I simply observe everything and try not to react unless I absolutely need to.
This summer I started to write my thoughts an observations. Maybe you will find it helpful.
https://www.immaculateconstellation.info/the-middle-path-a-m...
Trying to talk reason to multiple sides makes you an outcast.
Lol case in point: me trying to have a reasonable discussion about property taxes going up 66% in one year.
I thought people might argue that this could put an unfair burden on poor families or fixed income families, or maybe some reason to justify or not.
Nope. Lots of name calling, trying to dox me, ad hominem attacks on everyone from multiple sides.
I'm convinced that anonymity (or, more correctly, perceived anonymity) makes some people act in ways they never would face to face.
Eh this probably makes me a "Boomer" but I've seen it for years. Basically everyone's a troll now.
I am 31 years old. Same experiences. You have to find the right audience. For me, it was particular IRC channels where they were still quite reasonable.
> You get certainty in an uncertain world. You get a community that will defend you. You get a simple heuristic for navigating complex issues.
This is what faith used to provide. I say this as a not religious person: Maybe societies really need something like religion to channel irrationality?
We've been trying religion for as long there have been humans. Tends to suffer from the same shortcomings: very easy to subvert and abuse by adversial agents (grifters, sociopaths, etc) and increases in-group/out-group thinking.
We need something new.
But the point is, that's the same happening right now without religion. At least, with organized religion, you have someone accountable.
Again, this come from someone without a religious affiliation.
The irony of an article that talks about beliefs being fed by internet content, then suggests using internet content to address it.
Turtles all the way down.
I think disengaging from social media is a big part of this. These advertiser and engagement fueled algorithms promote all of the insane takes as well. You find much more fulfillment engaging with people locally or people in your close circles.
I’m not on social media unless you consider HN social media (I don’t) and the world is still totally as insane as it was before the internet.
For your average city person:
The food you’re offered is sugar + preservatives, the water is either non-existent (Tehran) or poisoned with fracking gas (Flint), almost all local communities have collapsed into extreme versions of themselves, the rich and poor still don’t mingle, men fear women and women want nothing to do with men, there is no upside to having a family or children.
I just spoke at a HBS event in DC last night about robotics and on one side of the room were people starting AI companion services and in the other side people were saying AI was causing the rise of Tradwives. It was like looking at 50 “deer in headlights” when explaining how thoroughly they have already integrated third party algorithmic logic into their decision processes - and are totally unaware of it.
The real world is absurd and getting less coherent with more information available. Humans aren’t biologically equipped for the world we collectively built.
Your disconnect from Social Media and "the world still totally insane"—the latter is of course not dependent on the former. Perhaps we need to get the rest of the world also off Social Media? Off the internet?
Given that we can't do that, I choose then to continue my hobbies, take more walks, try to declutter my place, improve my health, lose weight, look for comfortable chats with my daughters, wife, friends…
I'm not sure where you see men and women not trusting one another. If I had to guess it would be that you perceive this from things you have seen on the internet?
I find the internet is kind of like that silly cave in "The Empire Strikes Back"—where you find only what you bring with you. Try looking for positive things and people and see if you are not rewarded. (And if you cannot, just drop the internet completely. I have a friend that I think checks online for about 30 minutes in the morning and then he's done for the day.)
I have teenagers headed to college. I’m seeing it first/second hand.
Across high schools in the US kids aren’t dating like they used to and are vocal about not just ambivalence but hostility toward having kids.
Oddly enough my kids want to get married and have kids and report on how it’s odd to them others positions, so if anything I’m biased the other direction from exposure.
I don’t care either way, not having kids is a valid approach, but it’s a fact that there’s going to be societal impacts.
You think Tehran and Flint are good cases for 'average city'?
Yes
Both are significantly different but still fail to provide the most basic service: access to clean water
I can trivially get access to plenty of clean drinking water in most “wild” places in the world, in fact that’s like the third core thing you learn in survival schools (of which I’ve attended many).
You're doing the thing that the article is talking about. Neither are average examples. I don't know about Tehran, but you have to really be cherry-picking to make a data set where Flint ends up as an average case of municipal water quality.
Stoked you took a survival class though! I'm not being sarcastic, it sounds fun.
No it’s demonstrating that at the relative extreme ends you have the same problem thus creating the linear equation with the minimum set
The reader should deduce that any measure along the same linear map - which is effectively every city aka the “average city” - will eventually be subject to this condition (water insecurity)
You can trivially verify this by looking at issues of water insecurity and water quality issues across every size city. Notice that you will have non-trivial numbers of “boil water” events in the United States south. You may have significant periods of drought throughout your average city in sub-Saharan Africa, Sonoran desert or western China for example.
I think maybe your definition of “average” only includes modern metropolitan areas and not simply as cities where people are geographically clustering across the globe.
I lived in San Angelo Texas in 2009 and I did not have potable water in my home. I had to go to Walmart and fill 5 gallon jugs of Culligan water every few days. That’s not particularly abnormal
To be fair I offered a fairly complex/compressed way to approach this, so not easily interpreted, but nonetheless that’s the point
Man, I’d love to hear that talk.
> there is no upside to having a family or children
what exactly does this even mean?
Search: Gen Z explains why they don’t want a family and kids
All are rational arguments
https://youtu.be/fHpgIvuETx0?si=zWIqJvQMeDcSD223
I felt the same thing when i was 22--kids aren't for me, this world sucks, etc etc. Eventually I "grew up," toned down short term hedonistic pleasures, read books that deepened my connection to humanity and realized family is extremely meaningful.
First off, there's nothing new about interviewing people who are in their early 20s and hearing moaning and groaning about how this world sucks and it's not worth bringing anyone into it. I'm not religious whatsoever, but there's something deeply spiritual about the human experience of family/kids. It's certainly not for everyone if you're mature enough to understand the downsides and decide not to--but the secondary point I want to make is that I think most people are naive/immature. They follow trends and take a lot of direction from social media. The endless short term dopamine hits from every corner of your life will definitely have anybody questioning -- "why would i make my life harder when i can live only for myself and continue tiktoking in the evenings for 3 hours" -- our society is fundamentally broken, and that's not just the USA. I've traveled to other places and have bumped into the social media zombies everywhere.
More succinctly:
The Nash equilibrium of public discourse on social media is extremism and polarization ...
... because for each individual, the way to get more clicks and influence is by becoming more extreme and polarizing.
Sigh.
Exactly, so about that, there's good news and bad news. Epistemic and mean field game theory is eventually going to be well understood stuff and define better alternatives very, very specifically. After we understand our past completely AND can predict our future, we'll know exactly what to fix and how, but unfortunately nothing whatsoever will change anyway. Probably someone will weaponize it to actually make things worse! Cold comfort to be sure, but I personally will still sleep easier after I know exactly why we are doomed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU
Idk, I’m a big critic of social media (don’t use any but hacker news). Really do think it has lots and lots of problems.
But what’s polarized me isnt that. It’s just reading regular news and caring about the world.
Being reasonable is basicaly the core requirement of civilization. If your culture is incapable of tolerance or variation it's also incapable of growth. It gets locked in a cyclical purity test and collapse.
Who is the arbitrator of what’s right?
>A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.
I'm a long time Jon Stewart fan and if I'm being honest, looked at the "other side" as if it was a bunch of retarded people isn't new and predate 2016. No doubt Trump and social media got conservative to embrace condescending and extreme rhetoric and pushed it to another level but let's not pretend they invented anything.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.
Uh.... The vast majority of new stories from major outlets ARE manufactured consent.
What does "manufactured consent" mean?
I thought consent is a synonym of agreement or willingness. If so, what do they mean with "manufactured agreement" exactly?
I don't live in USA and English is not my mother language, so maybe I'm missing some alternative urban definition for this expression?
I have a hard time taking this kind of enlightened-centrist both-sides gruel very seriously. Calling every strong position "extreme" is a classic sleight-of-hand maneuver by people who want to mask their own wrong-side-of-history beliefs that they know they should feel ashamed of expressing.
Yes, yes, look for truth beyond labeled groups, but pretending that the "sides" are equal is some utterly moronic "Fair and Balanced" bullshit.
> it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.
Many issues really do have a bright dividing line. I mean, for fuck's sake, there are people who are currently fighting against releasing the Epstein files, documents that clearly incriminate pedophilic rape and sex trafficking.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent.
I think the author here doesn't actually understand what manufactured consent is, because believing otherwise demonstrates media illiteracy. Talking about our extreme filter bubbles (community/information homogeneity) in one breath and then denying the pervasiveness of manufactured consent in the next is otherwise a perfect demonstration of Gell-Mann amnesia.
"enlightened-centrist" and "both-sides(ism)" are phrases left-leaning people use to try and say "My team good, your team bad, to believe anything else is insanity/stupidity!" without coming off as a douchebag. (It doesn't work)
This is a common misconception about what it means to be against political extremes.
It does not mean "both sides have a point".
It does not mean "both sides" are equally bad.
It does not even mean that there are necessarily two sides.
The term "centrist" is used to imply and reinforce these misconceptions, encouraging people toward extremes. When you see things in black and white, of course everything is a straight line from good to evil (with you at the far end of good), so if someone only partially agrees with you, they're in the "center" and that much closer to Hitler than you. It's hard to step outside of this fantasy. But I'll try to help you.
Imagine the following dialogue.
A: "Are you Hindu or Muslim?"
B: "Neither. I'm an atheist."
A: "Oh, so you are torn between Vishnu and Muhammad."
And yes, one of the political parties is significantly more deranged than the other right now. You don't need to be extreme to see that and it is possible to vote for the more reasonable party without drinking their kool-aid.
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-sculpt their reality around the basis that they were always right anyway. Just take a look at how the story around the Epstein files changes with the way the wind blows. It feels very familiar to the "Narcissist's Prayer."
I haven't used social media in over a decade and I change my mind all the time. Changing your mind is a good thing for a thinking being.
Social media figures aren't changing their mind in the same way, they are changing and optimizing their public performance.
Professional social media is a paid performance. We understand that Tom Cruise is not really a highly skilled jet fighter pilot but a well paid actor playing the role of one. No one cares what Tom Cruise thinks about Ukraine/Russia air defense tactics. This gets hidden in plain sight with social media though and why social media is hyper stupifying.
> A lot of this goes away when you stop spending so much time on social media, which is a very poor reflection of "reality."
It mainly "too much time of political social media". You can always tell.
What you find is that a lot of people will be repeating talking points and/or catch phrases without putting much thought into it. A lot of this is fed to them by people who are essentially evangelists and many of these people I am convinced are given they talking points, because they all say the same thing at roughly the same time.
> Prominent figures on social media change their minds all the time, but they'll re-sculpt their reality around the basis that they were always right anyway
They can do that if they are getting a decent turnover of new viewers. That doesn't work too well when their fanbase is declining.
If you look into the UFO land which is the worst for this and the most obvious because often the claims are ridiculous. What often happens is that someone will be outright exposed for being a fraud e.g. someone proves that a video was fake. They will then disappear for a few months or maybe a few years. During that time, many more new people would have filtered into the community and many won't look into that person's background.
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.
> as a writer or journalist you are forced to depend on approval of others
and sometimes the disapproval of others, as we've seen with the sort of rage-baiting headlines many blogs, social media accounts, and even traditional media outlets, are writing
and the thing is... this approval/disapproval reaction isn't elicited to necessarily build coalitions, make friends, or change minds, it's often built to sell eyes-on-ads which is a completely perverse incentive that has eaten the mainstream internet
The challenge is that short-term incentives can easily lead to long-term problems, as the short-term min/maxing can leave you stuck in a particular global minimum, with no clear way out.
>the short-term min/maxing can leave you stuck in a particular global minimum, with no clear way out.
Short term min/maxing leaves you in a local maximum (the opposite of what you said)
Local maximum != global maximum (usually).
I said global minimum, which can easily happen if you end up at local maximum, but you’ll never know unless you randomly search elsewhere (and potentially end up even lower).
A local maximum by definition cannot be a global minimum. A local maximum has to be higher than things around it, which are part of the global space.
Fair point. However, the local maximum doesn’t have to be far from the global minimum.
If the global maximum is 10, minimum is 1, you could easily end up in a region with local maximum 2, minimum 1.
This comments section is so full of examples illustrating what the OP is critiquing that it's depressing.
Not sure what the point of this is other than to complain about being out of touch with the world. Too many people think "diversifying your information" means subscribing to whatever drivel they find on substack instead of, you know, following a diverse set of _actual journalists_.
Over the last many years, newspapers have slashed actual journalists in a number of areas: investigative reporting, arts, local news. A lot of those actual journalists have moved to Substack in order to maintain some kind of career writing about the subject they love.
For me, the tragedy of Substack isn’t that it consists of purely unserious people. It’s that fine journalists go there because, with the death of open-web blogging, there’s a feeling that there is no where else to go. And then, once there, they start to pick up all kinds of bad behaviors that both Substack the for-profit corporate owner and its culture of writers and commenters encourage.
That's true, the point I was making was that it's about you decide to trust with sending you news not just the outlet. The problem is that many people who are rightfully distrustful of traditional media end up following cranks. And Substack seems to be the place where the cranks hang out.
> The friend who saw conspiracies everywhere built a following. Then an audience. Then a 7-figure income stream.
That person is almost certainly a grifter. If I was dishonest enough to do it, I would to.
It isn't that difficult if you are reasonably articulate, look reasonably tidy and can upload a 20 minute video once day to get an audience. A lot of these people are simply choosing a "side" and then repeating the talking points.
There are people that make 10-20k a month just reading the news and many of them aren't even good at doing that.
> 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.
In my opinion, the problem is that journalists in general used “both sides” rhetoric where it wasn’t warranted to avoid accusations of bias. It feels that nuance is used out of cowardice more often than not.
There’s also the fact that not all positions are equally valid or evidence based. Nuance doesn’t mean treating each position as equally valid, but evaluating each on the evidence. Journalists almost uniformly mistake “both sides” for nuance. There’s nuance in discussions about global warming, but treating “global warming is not man made” as a valid position is not an example of that.
Nuance is definitely something we need more of, but we also need to call a spade a spade more often.
The boy who cried "there's a wolf on both sides!"
The phrase/concept "both side ism" is a very clever bait and switch that, so far as I can tell, was designed to marginalize/discredit people who are trying to actually engage with the issues (instead of just toxically emoting), and it was avidly adopted and weaponized as such. By both sides.
No, moderatism or centrism is legitimately a fallacy. The idea or intuition that, given two endpoints, the most correct position is one in the middle, is a fallacy. It depends entirely on the endpoints.
For example: the three fifths compromise. Turns out, bad. The correct answer was emancipation all along, and the 'centrist' answer was just bad. Because, well, one of the endpoints was slavery. If you 'halfway' slavery, that's still bad. There's no merits or 'well what about's when it comes to slavery.
That doesn't mean centrists or moderates are wrong - they're often right. But it DOES mean that just taking a middle of the road approach isn't reasonable. You need to actually understand why you're doing that, and why the middle makes the most sense. In some parts of the world, right now, as in right now right now, the 'both sides' argument is pro-genocide. In the past it's been pro-slavery, pro-colonialism, pro-holocaust, whatever. Plenty of really bad stuff.
So, you can't hide behind 'both sides'. You need to justify WHY 'both sides' and why in the middle is best for this particular case.
If all your relationships fail in the same manner, it is likely that the problem is you.
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.
Manufactured consent is a real thing, with mounting evidence that it's becoming increasingly prevalent. The ownership structures around major news outlets are worrisome and what many considered 'reliable' for years are now showing seriously problematic habits (like genocide erasure - lookin' at you, NYT.)
Liberalism has come under completely valid scrutiny as we've seen fiscal policies implemented by Clinton and Obama blow up in our faces. No, we don't think Reaganomics is anything but a grift, but many of us see the grift in NAFTA and the ACA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley and have begun to question the honesty of centrist liberal economic policies because we are seeing them fail catastrophically.
> The incentive gradient was clear: sanity was expensive, and extremism paid dividends.
Author is doing something subtle here - without making a defense or interrogation of the statement, they are saying "Not being liberal / centrist is extremism, and thus invalid". I call bullshit.
I have not profited or benefited from my "extreme" leftist views. If anything, I take a risk every time I talk about them out in the open. My comment history is going to be visible to all future employers. Should the government continue it's rightward slide I'll have a target painted on my back that I put there. I don't believe the things I believe because it's convenient, I believe them because in my estimation, we are operating on a set of failed systems and it's important that we fix them because they present a real and present danger.
We have Trump because Biden was utterly incapable of facing the actual problems people are having with the economic prosperity gap. If you don't address the actual hardship in people's lives, you leave the door open for a huckster to make those promises for you. Most will take the unreliable promise of a better tomorrow over being lied to about whether they even have a problem. You don't need a PhD in economics to know that whatever the GDP might be you're still broke and you can't afford to feed your kids.
Totally agreed with all points. Thanks for writing it up so elegantly
Breaking people raises the GDP. It wasn't that Biden was incapable, I mean besides the dementia his party and the media hid from its viewers, he was capable of fixing the problem for the less than billionaires.
The problem is believing the other party has an alternative. The problem is belief in the other. Who we believe the other is.
The other isn't anyone who doesn't have power over you. The problem is believing people who say someone who doesn't have power over you is the other.
There is only the powerless and the powerful.
The author might want to admit that 'moderate reasonable' positions are also branded and incentivized, and can lead to lucrative jobs in the corporate media and think tank worlds and even in the social media influencer space.
What really smells bad here is the 'stupid and insane' theme - everyone who disagrees with my moderate position is living in stupid-world or lacks sanity is itself an extremist fundamentalist position held by many so-called centrists and institutional bureaucrats whose impartiality is questionable as they are economic beneficiaries of the status quo.
Relatedly, extremist positions arise from extreme conditions - a well-paid experienced factory employee who loses their job due to the corporation outsourcing manufacturing to India will likely adopt an extreme position of opposition to shareholder or venture capital control of corporate decisions, and start advocating for worker control of corporations. Does that make them stupid and insane? Or is that just the spin the shareholders and venture capitalists are trying to put on their reasonable moderate position about sharing wealth and power in a more democratic fashion?
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent
Where's the lie in that? Hasn't this lady read her Gramsci? Seems like she didn't.
> Tech writer (Wired, TIME, TNW), angel investor, CMO
I see now, for sure she hasn't read her Gramsci.
This person doesn't seem aware of their contradictions in both complaining about people not following diverse viewpoints and also downright dismissing any amount of self-reflection that might be coming from people to their left.
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.