undefined | Better HN

0 pointssquigz5mo ago0 comments

> We've gotten this far because we've been playing life on easy mode with a ridiculously nurturing planet and practically unlimited energy available under the ground, but we aren't smart enough or forward thinking enough to take on the minor pain necessary to avoid the catastrophe we are lumbering towards. We are short-sighted, selfish, self-important, and we haven't earned the regard in which we hold ourselves.

Where's your "factual basis" for such assertions?

> Regarding your specific point about using recent context to inform political opinions, if you spend any amount of time listening to the opinions of people online you'll find that not only do they fail to accurately recall past events, but they don't bother to research what actually happened, and when they do they fail at anything but the most superficial political analysis.

1) People regularly online are a rather specific group

2) People sharing their opinions online are a very specific group

3) Basing your views on society at large on opinions of those groups is a risky strategy, especially given how easy it has become to spread propaganda online

Anyway as for my optimism, it's based on actually interacting with people directly. Having discussions with them. Talking to them about what they believe, and why. They're usually a lot more complex and intelligent than those various descriptors used above.

0 comments

zelphirkalt5mo ago

Now one could counter equally, that people you interact with directly are:

(a) limited in number due to the nature of your interaction with them

(b) will express themselves differently, due to the nature of interaction. (Just like people expressing themselves online act differently.)

(c) are probably also a very specific group or bubble, which is simply the people you get to interact with. Which _might_ be more varied than the other person online, but might also be less varied. Really depends on how you pick the people you interact with.

(d) Anecdote of one person N=1 is not really a good factual basis for other people.

So if you want to show how your view is more based on evidence, then you will have to do better than anecdote and no links to statistics or cases we can peruse.

squigzOP5mo ago

Maybe so. But between "people are stupid and that's why all these bad things are happening" and "people have complex motivations and rationals for doing what they do", I'm going to lean toward the latter, anecdote or not.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse