TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

846 点作者 dynm超过 3 年前

56 条评论

danblick超过 3 年前
The author presents the idea that &quot;you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don&#x27;t understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don&#x27;t understand them!&quot;<p>I find this idea a little repellant, but it&#x27;s something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~&quot;You may not understand the forces that have led society to be organized the way that it is, but you should respect that sometimes the order of things reflects knowledge you may not have.&quot;<p>One of his essays on this topic was &quot;Individualism: True and False&quot;:<p>&quot;&quot;&quot;This brings me to my second point: the necessity, in any complex society in which the effects of anyone’s action reach far beyond his possible range of vision, of the individual submitting to the anonymous and seemingly irrational forces of society—a submission which must include not only the acceptance of rules of behavior as valid without examining what depends in the particular instance on their being observed but also a readiness to adjust himself to changes which may profoundly affect his fortunes and opportunities and the causes of which may be altogether unintelligible to him.&quot;&quot;&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fee.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;individualism-true-and-false&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fee.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;individualism-true-and-false&#x2F;</a>
评论 #29559933 未加载
评论 #29559398 未加载
评论 #29563087 未加载
评论 #29560977 未加载
评论 #29563485 未加载
评论 #29559503 未加载
评论 #29563804 未加载
评论 #29564225 未加载
评论 #29563091 未加载
评论 #29562881 未加载
评论 #29562644 未加载
评论 #29562490 未加载
评论 #29562095 未加载
评论 #29560214 未加载
评论 #29562343 未加载
评论 #29558874 未加载
AceJohnny2超过 3 年前
This reminds me of CEO-speak.<p>A CEO cannot speak their true mind or their true assessment of a situation. They can&#x27;t say &quot;wow we&#x27;re in trouble here&quot; because then people will jump ship and then the company will be even <i>more</i> in trouble (and the CEO would get sued for breaching Fiduciary Duty)<p>What a CEO says is merely wishful thinking for a goal they want people to follow. They can never speak their true plan. (And of course, it&#x27;s all just game theory, a more elaborate version of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;S0qjK3TWZE8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;S0qjK3TWZE8</a>)
评论 #29561855 未加载
评论 #29561487 未加载
评论 #29562312 未加载
评论 #29572683 未加载
评论 #29561746 未加载
评论 #29562819 未加载
评论 #29564766 未加载
评论 #29562026 未加载
评论 #29560471 未加载
mjlawson超过 3 年前
This reminds me of a set of poems, Knots, by R.D. Laing, the first of which goes:<p>&gt; They are playing a game<p>&gt; They are playing, at not playing a game<p>&gt; If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.<p>&gt; I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.<p>It&#x27;s a lovely collection, and though I haven&#x27;t thought about it recently, I think there&#x27;s a lot of value in considering these kinds of unspoken self&#x2F;group contradictions.
评论 #29559136 未加载
评论 #29559135 未加载
评论 #29561105 未加载
评论 #29563491 未加载
评论 #29558755 未加载
mherdeg超过 3 年前
Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like:<p>You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot.<p>Many members of a group in your society have decided they don&#x27;t want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you &quot;smug&quot; for the way your group talks about having everyone get the shot.<p>You realize that if the other tribe keeps acting this way, a lot of them will die -- 1% of them overall, and as many as 10-15% of the oldest members of the tribe, with them having a fresh chance to die with every mutation and reinfection every 12 months.<p>You realize that smugly insisting that those people should &quot;get the shot&quot; will make them dig in their heels and insist they will never do any such thing. This will, in turn, kill them. This will diminish their tribe&#x27;s size and political influence. Is this a plan? Is it a thing you are doing on purpose?
评论 #29560212 未加载
评论 #29558589 未加载
评论 #29558694 未加载
评论 #29558673 未加载
评论 #29561816 未加载
评论 #29558602 未加载
评论 #29558872 未加载
评论 #29563529 未加载
评论 #29562242 未加载
评论 #29558678 未加载
评论 #29563935 未加载
评论 #29559727 未加载
评论 #29566134 未加载
评论 #29558773 未加载
评论 #29558783 未加载
评论 #29558715 未加载
jvanderbot超过 3 年前
The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth.<p>You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don&#x27;t care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them.<p>Good policy is only partially based on truth, it&#x27;s more based on easy implementation and high acceptability. In the article, you <i>don&#x27;t talk about the real reasons (truth)</i>, you do what you need to do to steer the ship. That probably includes bullshitting, compromise, apparent-hypocrisy, etc.<p>I&#x27;m afraid we&#x27;ve completely forgotten to separate the means from the end goal.<p>I&#x27;ve tried to explain this to people, and I&#x27;ve been met with blank stares from even the most intelligent folks.<p>As suggested though, it works wonders if you&#x27;re at least a little good at magical thinking or self deception. (If I run these 3 miles, I&#x27;m much more likely to get that raise)
评论 #29558496 未加载
评论 #29558214 未加载
评论 #29560569 未加载
评论 #29558915 未加载
评论 #29558217 未加载
评论 #29558278 未加载
评论 #29568899 未加载
评论 #29562113 未加载
评论 #29558505 未加载
评论 #29561583 未加载
评论 #29558083 未加载
评论 #29561826 未加载
评论 #29559122 未加载
评论 #29558187 未加载
divbzero超过 3 年前
There seem to be many more examples along the same lines:<p>– Managers not talking about potential M&amp;A or layoffs to avoid distracting the team.<p>– Leaders not talking about their backup plans to avoid demoralizing their organizations.<p>– Athletes not talking about strategy and tactics to avoid tipping off opponents.<p>– Investors and traders not talking about ideas and methods to maintain their edge.<p>– Business owners not talking about outsized returns to avoid attracting competition.<p>– Economic leaders not talking about systemic risks where widespread awareness would increase likelihood of occurrence.<p>– Politicians not talking about policies known to be ineffective but implemented to placate voters.<p>– Members of exclusive groups not talking about internal dynamics to maintain exclusivity.
评论 #29563058 未加载
avgcorrection超过 3 年前
You are you. You read book reviews on Slate Star Codex [since renamed] which are half the length of the books themselves. You write essays which are both satirical and completely sincere where you lampoon social practices using the Alien Describing Human technique (again, to good effect). You are too rational and intelligent to make sense of the world in other ways (but you don’t talk about that (directly)). You have had oddball interests and hobbies your whole life, but sometimes you feel like something is missing.<p>Eventually you come to the conclusion that everything which you thought was irrational is in fact that. You pat yourself on the back for the humility that you have displayed. Then you go back to reading that book review on Slate Star Codex [since renamed].
bryanrasmussen超过 3 年前
As an authorial technique starting off with a just so story about how marriage came to be that lasts several paragraphs and is obviously not at all how marriage came to be and doesn&#x27;t even have the excuse of referencing some sort of supernatural source for being wrong might seem interesting but bored me too much to continue.<p>I&#x27;m supposing the rest of it is also wrong and badly argued.
评论 #29559151 未加载
评论 #29561298 未加载
评论 #29559224 未加载
评论 #29566412 未加载
igammarays超过 3 年前
In religion this is nothing new: it&#x27;s known as hypocrisy, which is despicable because a hypocrite inevitably ends up exploiting true believers, taking advantage of their trust and goodwill. It&#x27;s a well-studied phenomenon in religious literature (at least from what I know of Christianity and Islam). Tolstoy wrote much about the hypocrisy of the Orthodox leadership in the Russian Empire, and hypocrisy is a central theme of the Koran.<p>Religious people are well aware of the fact that many of their fellow practitioners (including leaders) do it for societal&#x2F;family&#x2F;community&#x2F;health&#x2F;power benefits without actually believing in any of the rhetoric. Hence the classic clergy child-abuser, for example. Talking about hypocrisy is not forbidden, rather it is necessary for a person to regularly question themselves to recognize hypocrisy and remain true to their beliefs. Someone who doesn&#x27;t believe should leave, because otherwise they may inadvertently or knowingly turn into &quot;a wolf in sheep&#x27;s clothing&quot;.
评论 #29579505 未加载
calibas超过 3 年前
&gt;Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful.<p>This is so painfully backwards. &quot;Saving the Planet&quot; doesn&#x27;t mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that&#x27;s a bit extreme, but it&#x27;s to illustrate that less activity, not more, is what&#x27;s best for the Planet.<p>It&#x27;s so odd that all our frantic doing is what&#x27;s thrown the Planet out of balance, and for some reason we think we&#x27;re going to fix things by doing even more. The less active and industrious human beings are, the less they obsess over money and work, the less taxing we are on the Planet.
评论 #29557162 未加载
评论 #29557874 未加载
评论 #29557561 未加载
评论 #29557788 未加载
评论 #29557340 未加载
评论 #29559583 未加载
评论 #29558082 未加载
评论 #29558130 未加载
评论 #29557329 未加载
评论 #29558540 未加载
评论 #29557923 未加载
评论 #29568350 未加载
评论 #29559403 未加载
评论 #29558552 未加载
评论 #29558009 未加载
taraskuzyk超过 3 年前
I would really appreciate it if someone could help me understand what the last few sentences of it meant, it kind of flew over my head:<p>&quot;So I guess this is kind of an argument in favor of humility, or against open-mindedness. If you have high openness to experience (and if you read this without a gun to your head, you probably do) you might wonder why so many people have low openness. Maybe this is part of why.&quot;<p>What is &quot;this is part of why&quot; referring to, the entire article? I just don&#x27;t really see how any of it would lead people to be less open minded
评论 #29560073 未加载
评论 #29559945 未加载
评论 #29561422 未加载
评论 #29562968 未加载
throwaway3b03超过 3 年前
Why does it take me something like one paragraph to recognize that someone is from the Lesswrong sphere? (I was myself a part of the community at one point, before it became a cult)
评论 #29560061 未加载
评论 #29560104 未加载
throwawayhaxor超过 3 年前
You know that your vote doesn&#x27;t matter in large-scale elections. Being a busy person, you don&#x27;t go out of your way to vote. When discussing an election with a friend, you mention you didn&#x27;t vote. Your friend and others in the group socially ostracize you. You don&#x27;t understand why, but after a few times you just say that you voted. In all future elections, you leave work early and indicate to your friends that you voted. You know your vote doesn&#x27;t matter, but you also know expressing that sentiment has no benefit. You secretly wonder if the pressure to vote is a social norm engineered by one side. After some time, you hear a new friend indicate they did not vote. You publicly scorn them, for the social benefits.
评论 #29560291 未加载
themodelplumber超过 3 年前
Nice job author :-)<p>&gt; You secretly guess that the group is sustained by a minority of true believers who make up critical mass for a larger group of people you, but you never talk about this and neither does anyone else. When you have kids, you feel weird about explaining your thoughts about all this to them, but you don’t parrot back what the religion says when you’re talking about the meaning of life either.<p>Bahaha. Maybe author doesn&#x27;t know that these people (like them) make up the outer candy coating to many a cult. They aren&#x27;t super committed, but they can&#x27;t really rule out the core truth possibilities. So they stick around, and their don&#x27;t-push, don&#x27;t-pull style kind of encourages others to stay in a loose orbit like themselves. (To outsiders they are definitely cultists; to core insiders they are seen as weak; I&#x27;ve been in cult leadership)<p>To me, here&#x27;s a, maybe _the_ big issue with people in this profile: They believe in being open-minded and actively avoid being closed minded. So they end up with this kind of question of vacillation on their hands. But IMO their problem is not best framed as avoidance of closed mindedness, it&#x27;s better framed as a problem in developing and testing new, fresh alternatives. So they end up stuck in a troubling, secret dichotomy like that. Stay OR go...A OR B. There is no C, no D, and no, they don&#x27;t really think about, or plan for that issue often enough. So many times the best options are found down in C-Z territory.<p>Just my experience. Thoughtful post, I enjoyed it.
评论 #29561897 未加载
评论 #29561876 未加载
godDLL超过 3 年前
If you&#x27;re out on a trail, where your environment is the trail, and your compadres are your compadres, sure talk to them. You have shared goals, your adversity comes from the non-sentient or sub-human sentient environment. Truth is clarity, clarity is action, action is goal.<p>But then you&#x27;re not out on a trail, your environment is other people, and your compadres are transient. You need to have a public face, a policy for your sentient environment. And you want to save the truth and clarity for when you have a thing to do with someone that shares your goals. Obfuscation leads to non-interference, leads to less adversity, smoother action, closer goal.<p>There are many levels and gradations to this. Push it too hard for the situation at hand, and you get confusion that leads to demoralization, and mass hysteria that drives harmful public policy.<p>First we farm the land, then we domesticate the animals, then we govern the people. The toolkit is the same toolkit.<p>At any given time some people are your land, some are your animals, and some are your compadres or adversaries. You don&#x27;t owe any truth to your enemy, nor your sentient environment.<p>This is indeed very difficult if you&#x27;re high in openness, but that&#x27;s how it was before you got here and it keeps on rolling like that. There was no reason it should change, so it didn&#x27;t.<p>It&#x27;s not like deception came into disuse at any point. Lying is what it is, human. Part of the way communities work, and social dynamics develop.<p>What was the point of the article? Acceptance?<p>That&#x27;s an individual thing. A situational thing. You shouldn&#x27;t just roll with deception, but you should expect it everywhere.
tpoacher超过 3 年前
This reminded me of today&#x27;s Dilbert strip: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dilbert.com&#x2F;strip&#x2F;2021-12-14" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dilbert.com&#x2F;strip&#x2F;2021-12-14</a>
评论 #29562537 未加载
kelseyfrog超过 3 年前
The real fun is talking about other peoples&#x27; plans they aren&#x27;t supposed to talk about. That&#x27;s the best part about the internet -- there aren&#x27;t any real consequences for doing so.
ineedasername超过 3 年前
This part sort of looks like a real life SCP-style [0] anti-meme:<p><i>Even more interesting are plans that work best if you yourself don’t understand them. For these, your best hope is that you inherit a culture that’s figured them out for you (and also forgotten about the reasons for you) so you can get the benefits just by going with the flow.</i><p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scp-wiki.wikidot.com&#x2F;antimemetics-division-hub" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scp-wiki.wikidot.com&#x2F;antimemetics-division-hub</a>
skinkestek超过 3 年前
Regarding number 3, I should probably be in the same place since I hang around here and have had a bit of both biology and astronomy and astrophysics in school, except 2 things:<p>- Besides it being massively useful[1] I&#x27;ve experienced too many weird coincidences now. So many that I cannot in good faith say I think it is just placebo or just survivorship bias.<p>- Recently I have also realized that if I were to leave my religion and <i>believe</i> in Big Bang as the sole explanation that would also be a belief. Just because it is now as common as Catholicism once was doesn&#x27;t mean it isn&#x27;t also a set of more or less fundamentally unprovable beliefs.<p>Do I recommend it to others?<p>Well. I don&#x27;t recommend hasting into something. Definitely not letting others use it to assume power of your life.<p>But if anyone experience the same as I did, that life just doesn&#x27;t work, yes, my life has massively improved, and if you wonder how to start, ask the $deity of your tradition in private and say you are seriously interested. If that doesn&#x27;t work try mine (I just asked &quot;God&quot; in the language of my childhood.)<p>[1]: A framework for delaying gratification is massively useful. Also I married someone with a long history of the same belief and there are so many problems I don&#x27;t have to worry about.
评论 #29562944 未加载
javajosh超过 3 年前
Regarding plan 1, the prenup is the most romantic idea of all. Why? Because you stay together not out of fear, but out of love. Sadly, there are limits to what prenups can do (they can&#x27;t apply to time-sharing the children, in most states). Note that not getting married is not enough; common law marriage applies if you live together long enough.<p>As for the rest, it&#x27;s disturbing and I don&#x27;t want to think about it. So I won&#x27;t.
评论 #29559589 未加载
bsedlm超过 3 年前
this is the best explanation I&#x27;ve even seen for a positive aspect to secrecy.<p>yet I still distrust secretive practices on principle, because evil deeds require secrecy 99% of the time
评论 #29560241 未加载
评论 #29559334 未加载
评论 #29558866 未加载
satori99超过 3 年前
Neal Stephenson&#x27;s latest novel <i>Termination Shock</i>, is largely related to point number two -- Geoengineering the atmosphere using sulfur filled bullets fired from really big guns.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Termination_Shock_(novel)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Termination_Shock_(novel)</a>
评论 #29564201 未加载
评论 #29559425 未加载
analog31超过 3 年前
I was skimming through a translation of Seneca, and one of the dialogs starts out with an agreement amongst the participants, to the effect of: &quot;Of course we believe in the stuff that the philosophers believe (about death, the afterlife, etc.), not the stuff that the people believe.&quot;
ListeningPie超过 3 年前
Is is possible to have some kind of vote, how many actually agree with his unsaid plans.<p>For me,2 captures why I don’t join a church. It seems hypocritical. One day I will ask who really believes the tenants of the church and what is the churches stance on being a member without believing them.
unixhero超过 3 年前
I didn&#x27;t understand the premise or point this article was making. I have some college level credits in philosophy. Maybe it has been too long.
评论 #29566289 未加载
edpichler超过 3 年前
Is there anyone married here that use jewellery, signed contracts with the state and threw a big wedding party as a strategy to be very embarrassing and costly to you, the couple, to break up?
评论 #29564894 未加载
Manheim超过 3 年前
There&#x27;s so much here to argue. I disagree with the fundamental idea that there are good reasons to not talk with the intent to let misconceptions and delusions thrive in a society. Society and the progress of humankind hugely benefits from increased knowledge and understanding of facts acquired through scientific method.<p>I think Richard Dawkins makes a convincing argument on this with his book &quot;The God delusion&quot; in regards to the article&#x27;s &quot;dilemma number 3&quot;.
greyhair超过 3 年前
Nice philosophical expressions here, but I&#x27;ll give you two, short takes.<p>My wife and I happily lived together before marriage, and discovered that there are a number of legal advantages to just getting a civil marriage that are doable with a bunch of paperwork, but largely untested in court. I won&#x27;t go into the details, but it particularly convoluted if you want to have children. The legal issues are an exercise left to the reader. Hint: They all hinge on whether you want your significant other at the helm if something bad happens to you, or your family. If your answer there is &quot;my family&quot; you have other issues to think about.<p>I was born and raised on a family that went to church. As was my wife. I grew up with a bunch of doubts that only increased. Same with my wife. We are atheists now, and have been for some time. We raised our kids as atheists. We don&#x27;t feel any shame in that, even though some people think we should. My kids are completely comfortable in that as young adults. We talked about it regularly as they grew up, we didn&#x27;t want to be quite about it.<p>There, I just talked about it. And not for the first time. And likely not for the last.
disambiguation超过 3 年前
This is like abstract art for the overly analytical mind.
type-r超过 3 年前
&gt; Force everyone to solve the problem entirely by reducing CO2 emissions.<p>I know it&#x27;s not the point of the post but that&#x27;s not the only other option. We can also keep CO2 emissions high, or even increase them. We just need to recapture them later. This is already being worked on, supported mostly by companies like Stripe and Microsoft. If we just invested more into this, we wouldn&#x27;t have such a rough choice.
评论 #29561324 未加载
dv_dt超过 3 年前
This seems more like the hubris and false choice fallacy list. Where you keep quiet because you don’t want the criticism.
AtlasBarfed超过 3 年前
The Global Warming one was weak. The inherent contradiction in modern life is that you participate in the economy as part of &quot;modern life&quot;.<p>But that is unquestionably leading to a future such that if this were coalesced to a single (rational) person and telling them they will certainly get painful, awful cancer if they do X anymore that any sane person will stop doing X.<p>You can&#x27;t change the sheer inertia, and even if you did, there is a powerful set of people (this would be, say, the part of the brain addicted to a drug that will kill you with painful awful cancer) whose influence over society is far more powerful.<p>So you either become an &quot;edgelord&quot; and pick rational sanity but everyday life is so bad it is functionally insane, or you go along with the flow and pick rational insanity, but everyday life is a lot better and therefore really the sane choice.
xupybd超过 3 年前
As one of the church goers that genuinely believes in God and the afterlife I&#x27;m surprised and saddened to hear people attend in disbelief. It&#x27;s a shame the same community can&#x27;t be found amongst others that hold similar beliefs. It&#x27;s sad that someone can&#x27;t be true to their own beliefs.
评论 #29559518 未加载
评论 #29559675 未加载
评论 #29562894 未加载
Kosirich超过 3 年前
Some people have pointed out that this article makes case for &quot;traditionally&quot; conservative issues and I agree. I&#x27;m not ashamed to admit that I&#x27;m greatly influenced by Taleb way of summarizing knowledge in his books and how he deals with this issues, so I&#x27;ll give it my take: - if something existed through out cultures, it was probably tested and it exists for a reason(1,3,4) - word used today in English might not have completely (etymological) different meaning (3) - question of progress is not a yes&#x2F;no question but &quot;at what speed&quot; (4,6) - high value signals have &quot;value&quot; if there is skin in the game(1) - you don&#x27;t experiment on complex systems(2) - the idiot-yet-intellectual (5) - it&#x27;s the outcome that matters (6)
评论 #29563610 未加载
didibus超过 3 年前
Most of these seem to imply you don&#x27;t remember the plan while still following it, so in a sense, you don&#x27;t have a good reason not to talk about them, since you actually wouldn&#x27;t know what to talk about.<p>That means the only thing I take from this is that you get really good followers by indoctrination which is a combination of leading by example, shaming&#x2F;rewarding people at a social level, and possibly force or power, and that requires you to be sleazy about it, by never divulging the real motives to others. Maybe you can get yourself to believe in it as well to a point and forget, but that seems less likely to me, most likely you just got others indoctrinated to follow your plan without knowing the real reasons why, which eventually get forgotten to history.
wnoise超过 3 年前
Hobo-Dyer? That&#x27;s clearly inferior to either the <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Peirce_quincuncial_projection" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Peirce_quincuncial_projection</a> or it&#x27;s oblique aspect, the <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Guyou_hemisphere-in-a-square_projection" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Guyou_hemisphere-in-a-square_p...</a> .
phailhaus超过 3 年前
The author is not making these arguments. Look:<p>&gt; This might be a bad plan [...] But I emphasize that I know nothing and I’m just parroting the opinions of others.<p>If you&#x27;re posting about how these plans aren&#x27;t accurate, you&#x27;ve missed the point. The author is making a broader observation, that you can conceive of plans that actually <i>benefit</i> from secrecy, and lead to all sorts of interesting human behavior. The particulars are irrelevant, it&#x27;s about how the parts fit together.
fartcannon超过 3 年前
Number 5 is the &#x27;He who smelt it, dealt it&#x27; world view.
beardedman超过 3 年前
Is this supposed to be laced with opinion &amp; personal philosophy? If so fine, but if it&#x27;s meant to be objective then it fails quite badly &amp; quite obviously.
_theory_超过 3 年前
This is all a pretty good argument in favor of conservatism, especially the last bit. There are plenty of cultural practices that preserve or promote something valuable in society, and maybe we don&#x27;t even know why they work. But they do.<p>Kind of like NNs...sure, maybe if you spent enough time, you could figure out exactly how each one is doing what it&#x27;s doing. Or, you could accept the general principles and enjoy the results.
divbzero超过 3 年前
This reminds me of rhetoric used in politics on many levels.
omalleyt超过 3 年前
The relevant concept here is what’s called “common knowledge.”<p>Systems behave differently is everyone knows that everyone knows that… (repeat ad infinitum)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Common_knowledge" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Common_knowledge</a>
bradhe超过 3 年前
man that was painful to read
评论 #29558018 未加载
评论 #29558048 未加载
jonstewart超过 3 年前
Who is the author? I read the About page but it offered few details, just links to some articles. It’s fair enough to say that the work should stand alone, but it’s also fair enough to apply Sturgeon’s Law when encountering a new blog.
malwarebytess超过 3 年前
Conservatism: the article.<p>Kinda shit, tbh. Philosophical suicide and just so stories. Disgusting.
kevinwang超过 3 年前
Can someone explain why marriage works better if the parties don&#x27;t talk about the game theory aspect? I don&#x27;t understand why that would change anything.
评论 #29561258 未加载
chernevik超过 3 年前
It&#x27;s very clever. But if you think Mao was some benevolent genius modernizing his people with a sly trick, you need to read more history.
joejohns超过 3 年前
If you have a big plan, you don&#x27;t need to say it aloud to different people. Do it in silence and let your action speak for it.
imwillofficial超过 3 年前
This article is a sad way to look at the world
评论 #29559049 未加载
mrfusion超过 3 年前
Neat article. I don’t understand what he’s saying for number 4 though.
jollybean超过 3 年前
Like discovering the ancient concept of &#x27;Public Communications&#x27; by accidental recourse of self aware rhetoric.<p>Every single thing we do, if the public were to have access to the raw facts, it would cause &#x27;outrage&#x27;. The entirely of leadership is putting the difficult facts into the difficult context and making the trade offs.<p>We &#x27;don&#x27;t talk about&#x27; the fact that we don&#x27;t give medical aid to COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a dollar figure on it (i.e. triage), similarly the fact we have $1200 &#x27;solutions&#x27; to COVID that could probably wipe it out without vaccines if we could get everyone the tech, but we can&#x27;t &#x27;afford&#x27; it, or that masks do not protect you like wearing a gas mask through a chlorine cloud, rather, they&#x27;re minimally protective but nevertheless we believe &#x27;do make difference&#x27; and we want people to wear them, so we don&#x27;t talk about it in detail, rather, just suggest or require them as policy in some locales.<p>Because people make decisions based on the emotive strength of the rhetorician, the magnitude of impressions, emotions, group consensus, &#x27;opposition&#x27;, politics, their instinct for the validity of the source ... and not conscientious and dispassionate civic reasoning ... we worry about what is said on &#x27;mass media&#x27;. People will do largely what their favourite &#x27;talking head&#x27; say to do ... so we have to be careful about what &#x27;talking heads&#x27; say, at least in some situations.
评论 #29558891 未加载
评论 #29558502 未加载
评论 #29556965 未加载
fargle超过 3 年前
emphatically agreed. ssshhhhhhh...
crmd超过 3 年前
They lost me at the dangers of ultrasonic humidifiers.
评论 #29557255 未加载
评论 #29558287 未加载
reducesuffering超过 3 年前
You&#x27;re the (US) government. You want to prevent deaths from Covid. Research keeps generally concluding that previous Covid infection natural immunity is roughly as good as vaccine induced. You realize if you message this to the public and allow equality to vax-passes, never-vax people will be incentivized to now try and get covid so they can be restriction-less without being vaxxed, further spreading covid. You decide not to message this, leaving some astute researchers perplexed.
评论 #29559473 未加载
评论 #29559268 未加载
vmception超过 3 年前
I keep my tax plans secret.<p>A) Because I paid alot for the CPAs, tax lawyers, private letter rulings and case law.<p>B) Actually talking about it to those struggling with taxes would result in them noticing they can&#x27;t participate any more than driving to the neighboring municipality for cheaper gas tax, instead of anything more convenient, and could result in the tax laws changing from their widespread annoyance.<p>C) tax clickbait publishers like ProPublica won&#x27;t figure it out for them for another two decades, which is long enough.
评论 #29558780 未加载
评论 #29559040 未加载
czbond超过 3 年前
Even if G*d didn&#x27;t exist, one probably can&#x27;t prove either way. So, from a risk&#x2F;reward payoff, it seems believing is a higher payoff than not.<p>And from a purely emotionless approach, if you&#x27;re a Western religion (Christian) you don&#x27;t have a high bar to cross. Just believe, no deeds or acts are required.<p>That is a high ROI trade either way. &lt;shrug&gt;<p>[Edit: I am not endorsing a specific Western Religion, I&#x27;m giving an example. I don&#x27;t know Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc enough to say what the bare minimum is]
评论 #29559683 未加载
评论 #29559721 未加载
评论 #29560205 未加载
评论 #29559663 未加载
评论 #29559692 未加载
评论 #29559846 未加载
评论 #29559876 未加载