Yes—reposts are fine after a year or so, but this one had significant attention recently, so it counts as a dupe in HN terms. (This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)
I think there needs to be stronger social norms around this. Sometimes I get sucked in to nonsense topics too, although recently I've gotten a lot better at noticing and stopping myself from going down the rabbit hole.
It would help a lot if you had support networks to nudge you in the right direction. For me it's often as simple as asking "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?". And that realization and consideration can often snap people out.
As someone who participates a lot in online discussions, sometimes people get into really unproductive discourse which keeps going around in circles, so I think it's useful to have norms around refocusing the conversation and reminding people of their core values.
It's also useful to give yourself a limit to how deeply you're willing to engage on certain topics with Internet strangers, especially if you don't see the conversation going anywhere productive or meaningful after a while. The ability to walk away is a superpower. When you achieve enlightenment you gain the ability to let people be wrong on the internet without it bothering you.
I'm often flexible in my beliefs, and I believe this is a superpower, but it can be dangerous if you don't place some principled boundaries on your self, or how much you can allow yourself to be convinced to change your opinion. Rabbit holes can take you all the way to radicalization. This allows me to understand that I might be wrong without having to change my beliefs. What changes is that I simply stop trying to convince others of those beliefs I hold.
If an imaginary bored teenage version of yourself ran across what you wrote, at 6 PM on a Thursday night, would they read it with interest or at least amusement? That's my personal limit.
It is wild how difficult it is to break out of the cycle. When I really put my mind to it I can “be good” for a few weeks, but all it takes is one bad discussion to get me to act a little more hostile than I should. And sometimes that’s all it takes for me to backslide again for months. I wish I could say I was more mature than that, but I’m simply not. Or at least I’m not at this stage. Lately I have been trying again to turn over a new leaf, and so far I think I’m doing OK? But it has only been like a week so we will see lol
One of my favorite “methods” or whatever you want to call it I learned years ago, I believe on Reddit. This is also broadly applicable to most social situations in which you are deciding whether or not to broach a certain subject.
You ask yourself three questions, all three of which must be satisfied before you say whatever it is you were thinking:
> "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?"
This is my tactic as well. I'm in New England and a coworker was once distraught that someone dismantled a statue in the south. I asked if they had any idea that the statue existed beforehand? They did not.
We need the equivalent of tl;dr for concise communication, for intellectual mood, to mean "Disagree (or there's nuance needed here) but declining to engage." Maybe "Thanks but no"?
And it should be present anyplace there's a Like button.
There should also be a way for the writer to get a sense for whether it's coming from people whose judgment they respect.
(And (someday maybe) also a way to offer to compensate someone for their time, if they'll explain.)
But all of this is predicated on social media remaining viable.
It's comforting to me that this has been a challenge for many generations, the only difference is now the distractions are digital.
From Zhuangzi, Warring States period in China (born around 369 BC):
But to wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same - this is called "three in the morning". What do I mean by "three in the morning"? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, "You get three in the morning and four at night". This made all the monkeys furious. "Well, then", he said, "you get four in the morning and three at night". The monkeys all were delighted. There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called walking two roads.
(note: Burton Watson translation)
I interpret this to mean first that what the monkeys care about is petty and trivial (like the petty distractions we all encounter daily), and more importantly at the end of the day there's no real change in the situation one way or another (the sum either way is seven acorns). The monkeys, caring about these trivial things, are happy they won the argument and got their way, even though it amounts to no significant difference at the end of the day.
If I may add a contrary perspective here, I think this passage appears more clever than it actually is. For example, to draw a conclusion about oneself from this there would have to be a (false) implied equivalence between monkey reasoning and human reasoning, where a monkey may be simply ignorant of the sum and driven primarily by instinct towards a larger initial quantity, a human may have much more complex reasoning for choosing a larger up-front portion stemming from self-awareness (such as the knowledge that they may not be alive to receive the evening portion, or the knowledge that the trainer may be lying about a second handout). The fact is, they were not all the same. Time is one of the most valuable assets in this world, likewise for comfort.
If any conclusion can be drawn from this parable, it's that you really don't want to be a monkey in training.
I am inclined to the think that the internet is more and more filled with patterns that exploit the "weaknesses" of the human mind. My Youtube suggestions often include video shorts of scantily clad women in very suggestive postures (the videos have millions of view counts). That's hacking the male mind...
Yeah, I think the process of socializing, especially in person, leverages some kind of hardware acceleration that we all have and counteracts these gaps in our security, but the moment people get online all of a sudden all that biology just goes out the window.
Just imagine, for example, the in-person equivalent of a YT conspiracy video. It would be some motor-mouth at a party who traps you in a corner to tell you all about how the field of archaeology is an elaborate hoax meant to keep us from finding out the "truth". You would basically smile and node, or maybe even humor them for a second, but the moment you get a whiff that there is an unlimited stream of this stuff you would look for the nearest exit.
Videos that play on people's insecurities would just be that friend in your group who's the emotional vampire, that always requires a tag team to manage.
And yet, as soon as these personalities take their form online, we find them interesting, irresistible even. Like, "But, this guy says that giants used to walk the earth and the fact that all pyramids look the same can't be just a coincidence.", and the next thing you know you find a community among others and some people get completely swallowed by one grift or another.
I guess this kind of thing has been happening for a while too, with TV, it's just become a lot more effective now with networked computers.
I had the same thought but it goes beyond the internet: A surprisingly large amount of all human economic activity is around exploiting other people's psyche/biology. And then we wonder why everything is so broken. Well we allow people to make money off of addicting people, whether it's to games, sugar or social media or suggestive pictures, alcohol, gambling.. there are some base triggers in our biological code that are legal to press.
Yeah, probably. The “attention economy” is something that they optimize for. But the focus on “hacking weaknesses” through the decades smells like Christian Sin holdovers. Like there's some concrete buggaboo spot in your brain where the Devil sits. You can see this happening again and again:
- Junk food
- The junk science about the Pleasure Button rat experiment
- Spiritualists obsessing over the dastardly Ego
- People blaming every impulse control problem on Dopamine
Which would be fine if these reactions in fact did anything to solve these problems (or alleged problems). But they don't. Because the answer is always to resist the Devil harder and to trust in your own fortitude.
I find the most common trap on HN is pedantry. Generally, I see a lot of thoughtful ideas but the discussion tends to focus on minutiae instead of the core idea.
Although it's generally very civilized and might be higher than an average in internet, I can't say it's high anything except computing. In every other topic there are mostly "I read some articles in internet and now I will share my knowledge" people. Many people have said it and I can confirm it regarding these very few topics I feel competent enough to comment about. If not anything else, then LK-99 discussion made it very clear.
This idea gets something right, which is often missed: individuals are ultimately responsible. Personal responsibility is like a muscle. Stop exercising it and eventually you wont be able to use it. When personal responsibility gets mocked we lower expectations and beget the idiocy we claim to detest.
> Personal responsibility is like a muscle. Stop exercising it and eventually you wont be able to use it.
How many people genuinely don't know any better? Some people are naturally more inquisitive/curious than others.
I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless.
I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one.
I prefer to think of "shared responsibility". Biblical per "I am my brother's keeper". Modern per "reality is a social construct", including (but not limited to) truth, norms, morality, and esteem.
Problem is, people are evolved apes that have inherent psychological weaknesses that just don't disappear because of 'responsibility' or whatever. If you feed a brain meth, it'll get hooked. It goes so much deeper than "personal responsibility", especially when you are embedded in a social cesspool of medium illiteracy that enforces normalized thinking that you'll be expected to yield to or be left out.
When buying stuff, I ask myself: "Do I really need this? How will I use this?"
Generally, no clear answer = no buy. A vague idea about how I might use something, won't do.
For most things, deciding these questions is quick & easy. But it's a surprisingly high bar. Expensive items may pass easily, if I perceive them as a much-needed, notable improvement. Many items won't, even if they're free.
Why I do this? Because all stuff has a cost attached: €$£, environmental footprint from manufacture/disposal, (physical) storage space, mental capacity & time spent on its maintenance, etc. Even "free" stuff really isn't free. And I prefer to spend any of those resources where it's most useful (or makes me happy, anyway).
Info-processing is no different. That funny cat video isn't just making you laugh. It took some time to download, some time to watch, some mental processing.
That time & 'mental energy' are limited resources. Just like the money in your wallet, or the storage space in your attic.
But most people are ill-equipped to treat their time & mental energy as the limited resources they are. Be frugal with $$: sure! Brain-time, not so much.
As for disinformation, that's (mostly) a lost cause imho. Even experts have trouble separating quality from fluff. How are mere mortals supposed to do this? Even if: there's a wave of AI-powered crap coming up.
My main tools for Critical Ignoring (kudos for the excellent name):
1. SelfControl - with complete block of all social media, news sites, etc. (took a while to compile a very long and thorough list, but now it's pretty solid)
2. News Feed Eradicator extension for Firefox - to prevent being distracted when I intentionally go on social media for specific info.
I really really like discussing my favorite subjects. This leads me to talk to people who are quite obviously trolling.
A strange idea gets into my head. I think that if I can be clear enough (or honest enough. Or something dumb like that) then they will get sincerely interested too.
> lateral reading, in which one vets information by leaving the source and verifying its credibility elsewhere online;
I do all three things including this one, though this one can cut both ways. Leaving Washington Post to go verify this suspicious story at my trusted Daily Caller.
Generally I do this kind of thing a lot when you see a photo of some famous person, like George Orwell, and then a pullquote that seems a little bit too conveniently aligned to some current news event and not quite the thing you'd know Orwell to have said (like this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-orwell-people-accom... I knew that Orwell was more likely to see people as victims, not accomplices), Snopes is very good for vetting these.
But I had to have read a bunch of Orwell to know this quote seemed fishy.
I think were all getting there as a whole. Everyone at some point is bound to be looped into an mlm, cult, conspiracy or worse at some point and will eventually see the limits of attention or not. A true sage will recognize his limit and apply his limited folk sense of reality wisely within a model that optimizes a quality modern life.
Underfunded public education effort versus the entirety of the madhouse attention economy driven by quadrillions upon quadrillions of calculations, experts in psychology, and decades of statistical data and honed strategies? Rewarding teenage kids with a global attention lottery driven by clicks, to the point where some stupidly huge fraction of young kids aspire to be...influencers? Seems like a fair fight.
We lose the war for every single medium to advertisers. Because money. And every single time we tell ourselves it's the ad dollars that support these great free services that are the next great threshold in humanity's access to information and will usher in a utopia of free communication and thinking.
Same thing happens every time. We learn nothing. Those dollars are too sweet.
This isn't how people are in practice. People aren't "digital citizens" who critically examine online sources and cross reference. This isn't some "ideal" to be reached either, it's completely out of tune with our emotional reality
Take this thread for example, there's an article, and then there's deluge of discussion and different perspectives. It's kind of contradictory, we're all sitting here distracting each other over not distracting each other
here's a different perspective: stupidity, distraction, and manipulation aren't inherently bad. They're just misunderstood
By putting a huge emphasis on serving/caring for the local (physical) community around me, I have more or less been able to implement "critical ignoring" without really trying to do so.
I like leaving my phone at home for taking walks or put it in a drawer while working. But since it's the main device for communicating with my peers plus a lot of services require you to have a phone, it becomes increasingly essential (which I don't like, but there we are).
It doesn't have to be so radical. Just have a lean (social network apps free) smart phone with only essential notifications on (e.g. family and friends via messaging apps).
I think one of the best defences against this is to write your own "tomorrow manifesto" - what you think should be done to fix the world, your twin your life
If every child did this it might encourage better civics lessons, and if we do it (and keep it up to date) it might encourage us to take a back seat on some of the stuff that we don't hinkatters so much
This is a big part of it, but I don't buy that the problem is disinformation - from the couple of times I have seen it Twitters community notes works pretty well for that.
And we need to be better at ignoring things, sure.
But my theory is that the real problem isn't that people don't know to evaluate something for truth, it is that they are not interested in truth in the first place - they are interested in things that reinforce their believes. It is not something new, and it is something we are all going to fall for from time to time, but I don't think most people care about truth for the most part.
[+] [-] photochemsyn|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 (87 comments 10 months)
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37428937 - Sept 2023 (134 comments)
Also related:
Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34647146 - Feb 2023 (2 comments)
Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33773093 - Nov 2022 (84 comments)
[+] [-] TheAceOfHearts|2 years ago|reply
It would help a lot if you had support networks to nudge you in the right direction. For me it's often as simple as asking "why do you even care about this?" or "why is this so important to you?". And that realization and consideration can often snap people out.
As someone who participates a lot in online discussions, sometimes people get into really unproductive discourse which keeps going around in circles, so I think it's useful to have norms around refocusing the conversation and reminding people of their core values.
It's also useful to give yourself a limit to how deeply you're willing to engage on certain topics with Internet strangers, especially if you don't see the conversation going anywhere productive or meaningful after a while. The ability to walk away is a superpower. When you achieve enlightenment you gain the ability to let people be wrong on the internet without it bothering you.
[+] [-] figassis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hiAndrewQuinn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Obscurity4340|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Forgeties79|2 years ago|reply
One of my favorite “methods” or whatever you want to call it I learned years ago, I believe on Reddit. This is also broadly applicable to most social situations in which you are deciding whether or not to broach a certain subject.
You ask yourself three questions, all three of which must be satisfied before you say whatever it is you were thinking:
1) Does it need to be said?
2) Does it need to be said by me?
3) Does it need to be said by me right now?
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|2 years ago|reply
This is my tactic as well. I'm in New England and a coworker was once distraught that someone dismantled a statue in the south. I asked if they had any idea that the statue existed beforehand? They did not.
[+] [-] thimkerbell|2 years ago|reply
And it should be present anyplace there's a Like button. There should also be a way for the writer to get a sense for whether it's coming from people whose judgment they respect. (And (someday maybe) also a way to offer to compensate someone for their time, if they'll explain.)
But all of this is predicated on social media remaining viable.
[+] [-] franksvalli|2 years ago|reply
From Zhuangzi, Warring States period in China (born around 369 BC):
(note: Burton Watson translation)I interpret this to mean first that what the monkeys care about is petty and trivial (like the petty distractions we all encounter daily), and more importantly at the end of the day there's no real change in the situation one way or another (the sum either way is seven acorns). The monkeys, caring about these trivial things, are happy they won the argument and got their way, even though it amounts to no significant difference at the end of the day.
So let it be.
[+] [-] zarathustreal|2 years ago|reply
If any conclusion can be drawn from this parable, it's that you really don't want to be a monkey in training.
[+] [-] simmerup|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacebacon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zvmaz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asimpletune|2 years ago|reply
Just imagine, for example, the in-person equivalent of a YT conspiracy video. It would be some motor-mouth at a party who traps you in a corner to tell you all about how the field of archaeology is an elaborate hoax meant to keep us from finding out the "truth". You would basically smile and node, or maybe even humor them for a second, but the moment you get a whiff that there is an unlimited stream of this stuff you would look for the nearest exit.
Videos that play on people's insecurities would just be that friend in your group who's the emotional vampire, that always requires a tag team to manage.
And yet, as soon as these personalities take their form online, we find them interesting, irresistible even. Like, "But, this guy says that giants used to walk the earth and the fact that all pyramids look the same can't be just a coincidence.", and the next thing you know you find a community among others and some people get completely swallowed by one grift or another.
I guess this kind of thing has been happening for a while too, with TV, it's just become a lot more effective now with networked computers.
[+] [-] Nathanba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avgcorrection|2 years ago|reply
- Junk food
- The junk science about the Pleasure Button rat experiment
- Spiritualists obsessing over the dastardly Ego
- People blaming every impulse control problem on Dopamine
Which would be fine if these reactions in fact did anything to solve these problems (or alleged problems). But they don't. Because the answer is always to resist the Devil harder and to trust in your own fortitude.
[+] [-] dbtc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miohtama|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __turbobrew__|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obscurette|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MuffinFlavored|2 years ago|reply
How many people genuinely don't know any better? Some people are naturally more inquisitive/curious than others.
I used to go to StockTwits a lot to follow $SPY. The amount of people who do not want to see the other side of topics and instead land on simple reductionist conclusions was very high. To ask them to exercise their muscle in trying to see both sides (like by asking them to consume + investigate facts before forming opinions) would be fruitless.
I feel like when it comes to politics, religion, etc. you very rarely find anybody who is willing to take their original view point, admit they no longer like it/"were wrong" and switch to an opposing one.
[+] [-] specialist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] titzer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvncleaninst|2 years ago|reply
Where do you see this happening?
[+] [-] RetroTechie|2 years ago|reply
Generally, no clear answer = no buy. A vague idea about how I might use something, won't do.
For most things, deciding these questions is quick & easy. But it's a surprisingly high bar. Expensive items may pass easily, if I perceive them as a much-needed, notable improvement. Many items won't, even if they're free.
Why I do this? Because all stuff has a cost attached: €$£, environmental footprint from manufacture/disposal, (physical) storage space, mental capacity & time spent on its maintenance, etc. Even "free" stuff really isn't free. And I prefer to spend any of those resources where it's most useful (or makes me happy, anyway).
Info-processing is no different. That funny cat video isn't just making you laugh. It took some time to download, some time to watch, some mental processing.
That time & 'mental energy' are limited resources. Just like the money in your wallet, or the storage space in your attic.
But most people are ill-equipped to treat their time & mental energy as the limited resources they are. Be frugal with $$: sure! Brain-time, not so much.
As for disinformation, that's (mostly) a lost cause imho. Even experts have trouble separating quality from fluff. How are mere mortals supposed to do this? Even if: there's a wave of AI-powered crap coming up.
[+] [-] puttycat|2 years ago|reply
1. SelfControl - with complete block of all social media, news sites, etc. (took a while to compile a very long and thorough list, but now it's pretty solid)
2. News Feed Eradicator extension for Firefox - to prevent being distracted when I intentionally go on social media for specific info.
[+] [-] tremon|2 years ago|reply
This is something that's also known in addiction circles, and has several different formulations: abstinence is often easier than moderation.
[+] [-] swayvil|2 years ago|reply
A strange idea gets into my head. I think that if I can be clear enough (or honest enough. Or something dumb like that) then they will get sincerely interested too.
It's usually hopeless.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zzzeek|2 years ago|reply
I do all three things including this one, though this one can cut both ways. Leaving Washington Post to go verify this suspicious story at my trusted Daily Caller.
Generally I do this kind of thing a lot when you see a photo of some famous person, like George Orwell, and then a pullquote that seems a little bit too conveniently aligned to some current news event and not quite the thing you'd know Orwell to have said (like this one: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-orwell-people-accom... I knew that Orwell was more likely to see people as victims, not accomplices), Snopes is very good for vetting these.
But I had to have read a bunch of Orwell to know this quote seemed fishy.
[+] [-] spacebacon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] titzer|2 years ago|reply
We lose the war for every single medium to advertisers. Because money. And every single time we tell ourselves it's the ad dollars that support these great free services that are the next great threshold in humanity's access to information and will usher in a utopia of free communication and thinking.
Same thing happens every time. We learn nothing. Those dollars are too sweet.
[+] [-] mvncleaninst|2 years ago|reply
Take this thread for example, there's an article, and then there's deluge of discussion and different perspectives. It's kind of contradictory, we're all sitting here distracting each other over not distracting each other
here's a different perspective: stupidity, distraction, and manipulation aren't inherently bad. They're just misunderstood
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aliasxneo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lagniappe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _def|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twic|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigDinosaur|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] high_5|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|2 years ago|reply
If every child did this it might encourage better civics lessons, and if we do it (and keep it up to date) it might encourage us to take a back seat on some of the stuff that we don't hinkatters so much
[+] [-] tomjen3|2 years ago|reply
And we need to be better at ignoring things, sure.
But my theory is that the real problem isn't that people don't know to evaluate something for truth, it is that they are not interested in truth in the first place - they are interested in things that reinforce their believes. It is not something new, and it is something we are all going to fall for from time to time, but I don't think most people care about truth for the most part.
[+] [-] modeless|2 years ago|reply