Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for:
1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual.
2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty animals can suffer just as much as we can. They have desires and kin. Some even mourn the passing of their brethren. But few eyes are batted when our microencephalized cousins are abused and killed by the billions. Cheap in-vitro meat is probably a prerequisite for this change.
I doubt I'll be right on all of these, but I'm hopeful.
Now for something I really can't say: I think all three of these atrocities share a root cause. Some of you will probably guess what I'm getting at.
Most unspeakable thoughts today deal with isms and phobias: sexism, racism, agism, Islamophobia, homophobia.
There are others of course. For example, I am not a climate-change denier, but if I was I certainly wouldn't say so on HN!
I'm gay so I'll pick on my own group: HIV is ridiculously high amongst urban gay men. To me, it's obvious why this is the case. Evolutionarily, men have had no reason not to try and be as successful with as many partners as possible. Women, who may be saddled with a pregnancy and baby for years, had evolutionary pressure to be more choosy with sexual partners. This created fertile ground for HIV to spread amongst gay men.
Now, could a straight person say that without being ostracized from polite society? Probably not!
The question I would throw back to pg though is this: are we better or worse off for avoiding these topics entirely? The truth sometimes comes at a cost. Let's say that we found out that white people are less smart than East Asians. What good could come from knowing that? I don't know the answer...
While you may be right that future generations will condemn us for them, none of those things are remotely controversial enough. You can say any of them in almost any setting and people will mostly yawn. Many people think prisons should be banished, or at least severely limited (especially US prisons); there are plenty of popular vegetarians out there; assisted suicided is just your average polarizing subject.
This is what pg wrote five years ago, referencing this essay:
Just as well I've avoided saying most of the "things you can't say," or 90% of the people who read that essay and think "hear, hear" would hate me instead.... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=255492)
I think there's a flaw here in your assumption.
You're assuming that because a society is in the future, that they will be more correct than where we currently are.
However, there are societies that had atrocious human rights violations that linearly came after ones with comparatively less human rights issues.
Secondly, I think you're assuming a moral/ethical high-ground in those statements, but I don't think those are necessarily proven.
I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make, (e.g. that I think we're rather "young" in our understanding of how nutrition impacts the body), but because when confronted by that "animals have feelings and we are being cruel", my response is "yes, but that is nature."
Two qualifiers. Do I think we could be better? (more humane raising and slaughter) Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think as technology grows, that we should move to more humane options? I would be more appalled if we didn't.
But will I ever "regret" choosing to eat meat, or fault those who do? Not a chance. I'm sure many people will disagree with the following, and I'd hope to hear a response rather than just get downvoted to oblivion, but so long as it is sustainable (which is a BIG qualifier that links heavily with my above statements about technological progress), we are at the top of the food chain, period. I am a predator, and I take pleasure in continuing to be one, to certain degrees.
Given that my justification is simply "this is a system that has worked for far longer than humanity has existed" mixed with "but I like it (so long as it does not become destructive to the point of disrupting said system that has existed successfully for so long)" I admit I feel that this is a weak argument. But I've both never found a really compelling counter, nor have I found any particular "holes" in mine. (Aside from the obvious "but it's not sustainable", to which I'd hand wave a bit and blame that more on an unfortunate side effect of market forces than on the choice to eat meat itself, which is also a bit of a reduction problem since the latter powers the former, and turtles all the way down, but I'd mostly respond with that I'd rather look for solutions than knee jerk responses, and personal consumption at this point is NOT going to impact "how things are", perhaps ignoring the wisdom of the whole "be the change you wish to see" etc... (but then, the change I want to see is simply better implementation, not vilification/removal of the "problem", so maybe not?)
Wow, this rambled. Sorry about that. This is just an issue that I have convoluted feelings on, as someone who tries to be conscious about both maintainable systems and loving to consume animals.
Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told.
The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you'd also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's very convincing evidence.
Is it a possibility that someone has controversial opinions but could be unafraid of expressing them to a group of peers?
It's possible, yeah, but you have to be particularly insensitive to both verbal and nonverbal rejection cues in order to be willing to do it more than once.
Ever pitched a controversial opinion to a group of peers? You'll find that a lot of people look down at their hands, or away from you, or at each other with a blank/expectant/fearful face.
"The Conformist Test doesn't consider a third possibility: that you simply don't care what anyone thinks."
True enough. But considering how very hard it is to disentangle yourself from the thinking of your time, someone who comforts himself with this thought is almost certain to be mistaken. It's not enough to be an ornery cuss. You have to be Voltaire, and then some.
>"Is it a possibility that someone has controversial opinions but could be unafraid of expressing them to a group of peers?"
Sure, but if you want to be able to do it more than once you need to be...
1.) Useful enough to someone that the people you offend or scare can't simply discard or destroy you.
2.) Content with a count of friends that hovers near and will almost certainly reach 0 repeatedly.
3.) Prepared to deal with people who feel righteous glee in taking the most extreme misinterpretations of your words possible and maliciously applying them to you and yours.
4.) Plastic enough in your thinking that in the face of new evidence you're able accept not just that you were wrong, but that you've hurt and alienated people over things you have now reversed on.
Related to this, one thing I find interesting is that I actually have to filter myself far more when speaking anonymously online than I do in person.
I get the impression that online communications tend to be scored more often than understood. It's up or down, agree or not, run across a hot-button keyword and idea is instantly categorized and binned as this or that.
Face to face, when you can pair a threatening idea with a calm and friendly face or something which sounds wrong with a visible intelligence people tend to more amenable to understanding.
I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership.
It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
"Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers?"
I think this test is fascinating when applied to the Musk vs. Gates debate from yesterday.
How taboo is it to say forget charity? I know I feel uncomfortable with saying: 'forget the poor, we can fix them after we've figured out how to create a sustainable form of first world living' and yet that seems like a far more rational strategy to act upon.
I had this thought this morning, though of a slightly different tone.
The radio talking head mentioned that they were going to interview an anti-civilizationist, someone who apparently thinks that developed society is unsustainable and will be the end of us all. Apparently he advocates for a return to pre-civilization?
I immediately thought, "We need to be able to leap forward, not backward. If this involves some sacrifice of human lives, it will save trillions in the long run. Pre-civilizaiton is just waiting for the next asteroid to impact the planet."
I don't understand how someone could be against civilization.
I don't really understand this article. What is the point of an empirical approach to taboo. I was a student of philosophy for years, and ethics is essentially a top-down way of finding the exact things he's looking for. Whether it be Kant's categorical imperative or Singer's expanding circle, it seems to me this taboo chasing is missing the bigger picture of finding a justifiable ethical framework, and then everything he's asking about falls out simply, and easily.
I'm pretty disappointed in most people's responses. Here's two real, actual taboos that no one wants to touch with a 20ft stick:
1. consensual incest
2. consensual pedophilia
All of these things are just utterly shunned. It would be unspeakable for me to argue in support of these in real life, except with very close friends and in a very detached manner. In fact, this has probably put me on some sort of list (especially considering the stuff I saw on 4chan last night...).
The interesting thing is that I would never want to do any of those things. Yet I know that my own repulsion is based on irrational disgust, and the reason for our shunning is also based on irrational disgust. When we take universal moral baselines -- empathy, compassion -- none of these taboos, assuming the sex is protected and consensual, harm anyone.
We've also got eugenics and polygamy, but I could probably argue for those without being shot. Oh wow, and consensual cannibalism. I'm usually the devil's advocate, but even this shit is starting to make me feel dirty.
I'm glad this was submitted here for discussion. The first time I read this essay I had trouble coming up with ways our society behaves that "people in the future will find ridiculous." Many of the ones in the comments are just ways our society is backwards, but not many taboos.
1. America's devoted support for our military. A support so unquestioning that you can be beaten up for saying otherwise. Polar opposite from the Vietnam war. Strange how much this has changed in less than forty years.
2. Eugenics, while not totally taboo, it's hard to talk about it without being labeled a bigot, racist, etc.
3. I also think it's difficult to have a discussion on pedophiles that doesn't involve advocating locking them up forever, it might be worth having a more empathetic discussion on such crimes. (I almost didn't include this last one for fear of getting in trouble, I rewrote it a dozen different times, but it's such a taboo subject that it should be examined.)
I'm happy you did include 3. While I can normally discuss absolutely anything with my girlfriend, my opinion on this matter is one of the very few things she refuses to discuss with me.
This is probably my favorite essay from PG. I think about it at least once a week. It's easy to get caught up in a world of professionalism, which is just a fancy word for acting like you aren't human, and go through every day doing social norms just because they are social norms. This essay reminds me to stop and think about the things that I do and see other people doing.
> It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right.
I love this kind of insight. I think that we, as humans, are very egotistical by nature. The time we're living in is surely the time we have all the answers and everything important figured out. We simply can't live with the feeling of "eh, it'll be way better in 100 years". We always need the feeling of certainty and ownership. Throughout history, we have always been certain of what we thought, regardless of how much reason we had to believe it.
> If you believe everything you're supposed to now, how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s-- or among the Mongols in 1200, for that matter? Odds are you would have.
Here's a similar thought: "What are the odds that a huge percentage of the people with a certain position were born together in the same geographic location at the same time?" If that doesn't make you scared of being morally brainwashed, I don't know what will.
That's what I'm seeing here. Very little discussion on the article, lots of people posting lists of things they feel persecuted for believing, with the implication being that they're sitting there drumming their fingers and waiting to be validated by history. Oh, and other people arguing with them about those things. Hooray for the Internet I guess? :)
The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous.
Hence the behavior you see inside many startups - non-founding members questioning the mission/purpose/intention/success of the company is typically taboo.
"What can't we say? One way to find these ideas is simply to look at things people do say, and get in trouble for."
I was thinking of this very essay when pg "got into trouble" for his comments about female founders, whenever I see vicious backlash to dissent here whenever some of these issues are discussed. I think (haven't read anything to back this, absolutely my own personal feeling) that debacle may have had just a little bit in his decision to step down.
Read the section headed Why once again, it's gold. This piece ranks in my personal top ten pg essays.
It's so interesting that the piece mentions Summers, albeit one year earlier than the famous speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_be...). I would so love to sit down with pg and have his honest opinions on this subject. Of course, not probably he cannot afford to deviate from ""i pensieri stretti & il viso sciolto."
Ask pg: What does the pg of today (the pg with kids) think about what the pg of the past (circa 2004) wrote about the parts of the essay related to kids?
If there's something interesting to diff, it's the ideas people have that pertain to taboos and taboo subjects before and after kids.
I suspect if more developers and engineers had kids, iPads would have a kid mode. I wonder how thinkers and writers (and painters?) would think and write and paint differently with/without kids.
I have to say, while I really like this article, I think it goes too far with the statement: "Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot."
He prefaces that statement with a very black and white example of people who ban the color yellow. Using that example every reader can agree they are idiots, but in truth these issues are never that black and white. So calling them idiots, and suggesting you would become one by entering the debate goes a little too far - IMHO.
This all rather reminds me of the thinking that brought about the female founders conference.
I have faith that at some point in the future this form of sexism will become less fashionable !! What were we thinking you will all say. And no-one will remember the dissenters.
>It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics.
I think this is a pretty unfair generalization, and furthers the stereotype that STEM majors are smarter/harder-working/generally better than liberal arts majors. It is not inconceivable to me that most people choose to major in something they are passionate. I think people who choose a major just because they perceive it as easy are a small minority of students.
Aside from that, I personally believe academic success is primarily due to hard work, rather than intelligence. I imagine almost all PhDs are reasonably intelligent and could in fact make it through a physics program, provided they were willing to put in the time and effort.
One of my earliest memories is of Christmas eve, sharing a room at a relative's house with my younger siblings. It was some time after midnight, my siblings were asleep. I heard a rustling outside and, knowing santa was purportedly coming, I pretended to sleep and kept one eye very slightly open.
In comes Santa. I can just make out his big fat belly, red suit, white beard, and a big sack. He unloads presents in various places around the room. Then, as he's leaving, the light from the slightly open door catches his face and I realise it's my dad in a Santa outfit. I remember very distinctly feeling crushed and exhilarated at the same time. Santa wasn't real, but I'd found out what grown-ups know.
I planned to confront my dad about it the next day. When I woke up there were sooty bootprints in the fireplace, and my siblings were just so incredibly excited about the whole thing that I didn't have the heart to bring it up.
There are few things outside of fantasy that will create that feeling for a child. Reaching a level of maturity where you get that excited about the real world is a rite of passage. So that's what I'm going to do. I don't care if my kids believe in Christmas or whatever, but if there's some fantasy that enriches their lives without harming them, I'll commit to it until they grow out of it.
Honestly I will probably do as my parents did. I will buy christmas presents, label them "From: Santa", and I'll put them under the tree in the middle of the night, and I will decline to explain how they got there. My children can choose or decline to believe whatever rumors are swirling around the neighborhood.
EDIT: personally I never asked about it because I didn't want to risk stopping the gifts.
My mother was insistent that my siblings and I knew Santa wasn't real. She was very naive as a child, and when she was 16 someone at school made a joke about kids that believe in Santa. She got in an argument with them, herself believing that Santa was real. Kids were cruel, as they are, and I guess it followed her for the rest of her school days.
My own children are young right now, so I let them enjoy it. I'll just make sure when they get a little older they know who's really buying those presents.
in the culture i was raised in (indian), santa was treated as a shared joke between parents and kids - there would be some anonymous presents under the tree and our parents would insist that santa had placed them there, and we would groan and try to get them to admit it was them, and everyone would laugh about it. if i had kids i would almost certainly bring them up with a similar system, regardless of where we were living at the time.
I didn't; I've always showed my child the non-sense others believe without cause. Now 20, she has a solid grasp on reality and a firm bullshit detector.
I let them figure it out themselves. "Hmm, if Santa is real, why don't we hear the bells?" Same for the Tooth Fairy. "Wait... fairies aren't real." "OK, so how does the money get there?" "Well... I guess you put it there." "Your words."
I try hard to never explicitly lie to my kids. Sometimes I have to pad my words. Like to answer "Are you going to die today?" Well, maybe, but a rather low probability. That scares them a bit, so sometimes I have to reassuringly tell them no. I feel bad about not being totally truthful, but I think the confidence and security for them is worth a loose interpretation.
In the future, people will not be measured by how productive they are. They will see that human organizations greater than 150 people are divorced from reality. Productivity will be considered a shared delusion held during the Age of Work.
Managers often ask me how they can make their workers more productive. What I cannot say is, "There is no productivity."
There is a book that goes into deconstructing productivity. It's called "How to Survive in an Organization" by James Heaphey. It's based on a generation's worth of study on organizations like corporations.
I see Sexism, Racism, Islamophobia (and speed limits !) mentionned as taboo and unspeakable several times in this thread.
I'm not sure we live in the same era. There is mainstream politicians all over Europe and the US saying sexist, racist and islamophobic things. They usually win votes by saying them. (And there is motorist groups still openly advocating for no speed limits ;-).
There is a confusion here between unspeakable and "currently fought by a sizable active minority".
[+] [-] ggreer|12 years ago|reply
1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual.
2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty animals can suffer just as much as we can. They have desires and kin. Some even mourn the passing of their brethren. But few eyes are batted when our microencephalized cousins are abused and killed by the billions. Cheap in-vitro meat is probably a prerequisite for this change.
3. Banning assisted suicide for the elderly and terminally ill. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/
I doubt I'll be right on all of these, but I'm hopeful. Now for something I really can't say: I think all three of these atrocities share a root cause. Some of you will probably guess what I'm getting at.
[+] [-] nostromo|12 years ago|reply
Most unspeakable thoughts today deal with isms and phobias: sexism, racism, agism, Islamophobia, homophobia.
There are others of course. For example, I am not a climate-change denier, but if I was I certainly wouldn't say so on HN!
I'm gay so I'll pick on my own group: HIV is ridiculously high amongst urban gay men. To me, it's obvious why this is the case. Evolutionarily, men have had no reason not to try and be as successful with as many partners as possible. Women, who may be saddled with a pregnancy and baby for years, had evolutionary pressure to be more choosy with sexual partners. This created fertile ground for HIV to spread amongst gay men.
Now, could a straight person say that without being ostracized from polite society? Probably not!
The question I would throw back to pg though is this: are we better or worse off for avoiding these topics entirely? The truth sometimes comes at a cost. Let's say that we found out that white people are less smart than East Asians. What good could come from knowing that? I don't know the answer...
[+] [-] oskarth|12 years ago|reply
This is what pg wrote five years ago, referencing this essay:
Just as well I've avoided saying most of the "things you can't say," or 90% of the people who read that essay and think "hear, hear" would hate me instead.... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=255492)
[+] [-] natecavanaugh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] existencebox|12 years ago|reply
I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make, (e.g. that I think we're rather "young" in our understanding of how nutrition impacts the body), but because when confronted by that "animals have feelings and we are being cruel", my response is "yes, but that is nature."
Two qualifiers. Do I think we could be better? (more humane raising and slaughter) Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think as technology grows, that we should move to more humane options? I would be more appalled if we didn't.
But will I ever "regret" choosing to eat meat, or fault those who do? Not a chance. I'm sure many people will disagree with the following, and I'd hope to hear a response rather than just get downvoted to oblivion, but so long as it is sustainable (which is a BIG qualifier that links heavily with my above statements about technological progress), we are at the top of the food chain, period. I am a predator, and I take pleasure in continuing to be one, to certain degrees.
Given that my justification is simply "this is a system that has worked for far longer than humanity has existed" mixed with "but I like it (so long as it does not become destructive to the point of disrupting said system that has existed successfully for so long)" I admit I feel that this is a weak argument. But I've both never found a really compelling counter, nor have I found any particular "holes" in mine. (Aside from the obvious "but it's not sustainable", to which I'd hand wave a bit and blame that more on an unfortunate side effect of market forces than on the choice to eat meat itself, which is also a bit of a reduction problem since the latter powers the former, and turtles all the way down, but I'd mostly respond with that I'd rather look for solutions than knee jerk responses, and personal consumption at this point is NOT going to impact "how things are", perhaps ignoring the wisdom of the whole "be the change you wish to see" etc... (but then, the change I want to see is simply better implementation, not vilification/removal of the "problem", so maybe not?)
Wow, this rambled. Sorry about that. This is just an issue that I have convoluted feelings on, as someone who tries to be conscious about both maintainable systems and loving to consume animals.
[+] [-] mef|12 years ago|reply
If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told.
The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you'd also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's very convincing evidence.
Is it a possibility that someone has controversial opinions but could be unafraid of expressing them to a group of peers?
[+] [-] cryoshon|12 years ago|reply
Ever pitched a controversial opinion to a group of peers? You'll find that a lot of people look down at their hands, or away from you, or at each other with a blank/expectant/fearful face.
[+] [-] _xhok|12 years ago|reply
"The Conformist Test doesn't consider a third possibility: that you simply don't care what anyone thinks."
True enough. But considering how very hard it is to disentangle yourself from the thinking of your time, someone who comforts himself with this thought is almost certain to be mistaken. It's not enough to be an ornery cuss. You have to be Voltaire, and then some.
[+] [-] incision|12 years ago|reply
Sure, but if you want to be able to do it more than once you need to be...
1.) Useful enough to someone that the people you offend or scare can't simply discard or destroy you.
2.) Content with a count of friends that hovers near and will almost certainly reach 0 repeatedly.
3.) Prepared to deal with people who feel righteous glee in taking the most extreme misinterpretations of your words possible and maliciously applying them to you and yours.
4.) Plastic enough in your thinking that in the face of new evidence you're able accept not just that you were wrong, but that you've hurt and alienated people over things you have now reversed on.
Related to this, one thing I find interesting is that I actually have to filter myself far more when speaking anonymously online than I do in person.
I get the impression that online communications tend to be scored more often than understood. It's up or down, agree or not, run across a hot-button keyword and idea is instantly categorized and binned as this or that.
Face to face, when you can pair a threatening idea with a calm and friendly face or something which sounds wrong with a visible intelligence people tend to more amenable to understanding.
[+] [-] dxbydt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century.
Always interesting to think about.
[+] [-] brd|12 years ago|reply
I think this test is fascinating when applied to the Musk vs. Gates debate from yesterday.
How taboo is it to say forget charity? I know I feel uncomfortable with saying: 'forget the poor, we can fix them after we've figured out how to create a sustainable form of first world living' and yet that seems like a far more rational strategy to act upon.
[+] [-] hobs|12 years ago|reply
I immediately thought, "We need to be able to leap forward, not backward. If this involves some sacrifice of human lives, it will save trillions in the long run. Pre-civilizaiton is just waiting for the next asteroid to impact the planet."
I don't understand how someone could be against civilization.
[+] [-] enraged_camel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scoofy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Exenith|12 years ago|reply
1. consensual incest
2. consensual pedophilia
All of these things are just utterly shunned. It would be unspeakable for me to argue in support of these in real life, except with very close friends and in a very detached manner. In fact, this has probably put me on some sort of list (especially considering the stuff I saw on 4chan last night...).
The interesting thing is that I would never want to do any of those things. Yet I know that my own repulsion is based on irrational disgust, and the reason for our shunning is also based on irrational disgust. When we take universal moral baselines -- empathy, compassion -- none of these taboos, assuming the sex is protected and consensual, harm anyone.
We've also got eugenics and polygamy, but I could probably argue for those without being shot. Oh wow, and consensual cannibalism. I'm usually the devil's advocate, but even this shit is starting to make me feel dirty.
[+] [-] sfx|12 years ago|reply
1. America's devoted support for our military. A support so unquestioning that you can be beaten up for saying otherwise. Polar opposite from the Vietnam war. Strange how much this has changed in less than forty years.
2. Eugenics, while not totally taboo, it's hard to talk about it without being labeled a bigot, racist, etc.
3. I also think it's difficult to have a discussion on pedophiles that doesn't involve advocating locking them up forever, it might be worth having a more empathetic discussion on such crimes. (I almost didn't include this last one for fear of getting in trouble, I rewrote it a dozen different times, but it's such a taboo subject that it should be examined.)
[+] [-] namenotrequired|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubiquity|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] B-Con|12 years ago|reply
I love this kind of insight. I think that we, as humans, are very egotistical by nature. The time we're living in is surely the time we have all the answers and everything important figured out. We simply can't live with the feeling of "eh, it'll be way better in 100 years". We always need the feeling of certainty and ownership. Throughout history, we have always been certain of what we thought, regardless of how much reason we had to believe it.
> If you believe everything you're supposed to now, how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s-- or among the Mongols in 1200, for that matter? Odds are you would have.
Here's a similar thought: "What are the odds that a huge percentage of the people with a certain position were born together in the same geographic location at the same time?" If that doesn't make you scared of being morally brainwashed, I don't know what will.
[+] [-] Russell91|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mwfunk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanca|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klochner|12 years ago|reply
Hence the behavior you see inside many startups - non-founding members questioning the mission/purpose/intention/success of the company is typically taboo.
[+] [-] Jun8|12 years ago|reply
I was thinking of this very essay when pg "got into trouble" for his comments about female founders, whenever I see vicious backlash to dissent here whenever some of these issues are discussed. I think (haven't read anything to back this, absolutely my own personal feeling) that debacle may have had just a little bit in his decision to step down.
Read the section headed Why once again, it's gold. This piece ranks in my personal top ten pg essays.
It's so interesting that the piece mentions Summers, albeit one year earlier than the famous speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_be...). I would so love to sit down with pg and have his honest opinions on this subject. Of course, not probably he cannot afford to deviate from ""i pensieri stretti & il viso sciolto."
[+] [-] nwenzel|12 years ago|reply
If there's something interesting to diff, it's the ideas people have that pertain to taboos and taboo subjects before and after kids.
I suspect if more developers and engineers had kids, iPads would have a kid mode. I wonder how thinkers and writers (and painters?) would think and write and paint differently with/without kids.
[+] [-] whyme|12 years ago|reply
He prefaces that statement with a very black and white example of people who ban the color yellow. Using that example every reader can agree they are idiots, but in truth these issues are never that black and white. So calling them idiots, and suggesting you would become one by entering the debate goes a little too far - IMHO.
[+] [-] onmydesk|12 years ago|reply
I have faith that at some point in the future this form of sexism will become less fashionable !! What were we thinking you will all say. And no-one will remember the dissenters.
[+] [-] camelite|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbbolton|12 years ago|reply
I think this is a pretty unfair generalization, and furthers the stereotype that STEM majors are smarter/harder-working/generally better than liberal arts majors. It is not inconceivable to me that most people choose to major in something they are passionate. I think people who choose a major just because they perceive it as easy are a small minority of students.
Aside from that, I personally believe academic success is primarily due to hard work, rather than intelligence. I imagine almost all PhDs are reasonably intelligent and could in fact make it through a physics program, provided they were willing to put in the time and effort.
[+] [-] MatthiasP|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] applecore|12 years ago|reply
Today's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7443420
Interesting.
[+] [-] robobro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Blahah|12 years ago|reply
In comes Santa. I can just make out his big fat belly, red suit, white beard, and a big sack. He unloads presents in various places around the room. Then, as he's leaving, the light from the slightly open door catches his face and I realise it's my dad in a Santa outfit. I remember very distinctly feeling crushed and exhilarated at the same time. Santa wasn't real, but I'd found out what grown-ups know.
I planned to confront my dad about it the next day. When I woke up there were sooty bootprints in the fireplace, and my siblings were just so incredibly excited about the whole thing that I didn't have the heart to bring it up.
There are few things outside of fantasy that will create that feeling for a child. Reaching a level of maturity where you get that excited about the real world is a rite of passage. So that's what I'm going to do. I don't care if my kids believe in Christmas or whatever, but if there's some fantasy that enriches their lives without harming them, I'll commit to it until they grow out of it.
[+] [-] gatehouse|12 years ago|reply
EDIT: personally I never asked about it because I didn't want to risk stopping the gifts.
[+] [-] hubtree|12 years ago|reply
My own children are young right now, so I let them enjoy it. I'll just make sure when they get a little older they know who's really buying those presents.
[+] [-] zem|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnaritas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelGG|12 years ago|reply
I try hard to never explicitly lie to my kids. Sometimes I have to pad my words. Like to answer "Are you going to die today?" Well, maybe, but a rather low probability. That scares them a bit, so sometimes I have to reassuringly tell them no. I feel bad about not being totally truthful, but I think the confidence and security for them is worth a loose interpretation.
[+] [-] JackFr|12 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, is this meant to be a defense of smug superciliousness?
[+] [-] neutronicus|12 years ago|reply
Sometimes, you go along with obvious bullshit because there's something in it for you.
[+] [-] jamesaguilar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barce|12 years ago|reply
Managers often ask me how they can make their workers more productive. What I cannot say is, "There is no productivity."
There is a book that goes into deconstructing productivity. It's called "How to Survive in an Organization" by James Heaphey. It's based on a generation's worth of study on organizations like corporations.
[+] [-] juliendorra|12 years ago|reply