It's not always logic vs guts. Logic is great when you are dealing with theoretical problems that are well defined and you know the variables involved etc. In real life problems, often there are way too many variables, are time bound, things aren't as well defined. It's in those cases that people resort to gut..
I've found the lack of an ability to use basic logic to be extremely widespread down to simple conversational matters. It severely impedes and distracts conversations (online and off). I wish it were primarily a problem when dealing with theoreticals, as I find it's a problem just about any time you converse where there are many people. Emotionalism is rampant.
I have yet to find a forum - in ~25 years of near daily discussions on forums online - where incredibly obvious logic failures don't happen persistently. And I'm only talking about the basics, nothing complex.
The worst and most common, I believe, is: because you said X, therefore you must believe / endorse / be implying Y. It's some kind of emotional transitive property of logic failure.
Example concepts:
I say: Bush did X. Response: Yeah but Obama did a thing, he's worse, how can you support him?!? (Obama isn't part of the conversation at all, there was no statement endorsing Obama whatsoever)
I say: the US did X. Response: Yeah but Russia (or China etc) is evil and did a thing, they're even worse because of a thing! (the other countries aren't part of the conversation at all, I never suggested the other countries are good or bad or did or didn't do a thing).
I say: I'm in favor of an immigration system like Canada or Australia. Response: how can you support internment camps and murdering children at the border? Or more calmly: why are you against immigration? (there was no mention of being against immigration at all, Canada allows plenty of immigration via their approach)
Some of it is obviously an emotional attempt at diversion, an irrational reflex to change the conversation away from what it's pointing at for one reason or another. Logic is in part about self-control and my observation is that it's a rare quality.
I've yet to find a forum where this doesn't happen constantly, basically in every large thread. You spend half your effort on forums either trying to pre-empt very primitive logic failure responses via how you structure what you write so you don't have to waste your time later correcting people, or you have to waste time responding after the fact and noting that no, in fact you didn't endorse x y z.
I always feel ambiguously about this kind of arguments. I agree that there is a lack of rational discussion, but on the other hand if someone really cares about Y then they will be quite protective of perceived attacks on X, a tangentially related topic.
Ideas and subcultures are in a constant fight for mindshares, I disagree with how pervasive and hypocrite this battle is, but it is not like there is no reason for it.
I suppose this is a fundamental flaw of 'online communication' having low bandwidth when it comes to conveying information.
We humans spent most of our history interacting with people in a more direct way, and having out 'gut' conclude things about another person based on what they say, do, how they look, how they sound, and so on, was and is important to our survival.
If I meet a person face to face who says 'Bush did x', I might also notice the tone of voice, that the have a Southern drawl, that they're wearing camo and a red hat with MAGA on it. In this situation I'm not likely to conclude that they're pro-Obama despite their critical statement wrt Bush.
I've noticed this flaw in myself as well, and it's frustrating and takes effort to counter. When I see a politically loaded comment on HN, I really have to make an effort to not jump to conclusions.
All that said, I have a little plugin that allows me to tag users and while plenty of commenters surprise me, I find that most are almost shockingly consistent when it comes to which 'bucket' I put them in (right, alt-right, conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, evangelical, etc.). So perhaps it's not so strange or inaccurate that many of us jump to conclusions based on very limited information.
(not that I think it's a good thing to do so. I do agree with your comment.)
> If I meet a person face to face who says 'Bush did x', I might also notice the tone of voice, that the have a Southern drawl, that they're wearing camo and a red hat with MAGA on it. In this situation I'm not likely to conclude that they're pro-Obama despite their critical statement wrt Bush.
Stereotypes are convenient when you need to make decision in a pinch, but they are horribly ignorant and misguided when talking to people. You can easily dispel your ignorant bias by asking a single pointed question.
As far as politically loaded hyperbole and labeled stereotype buckets I find Bush and Obama far more in common than Trump and that Trump and Clinton have far more in common. When I look at these people I don’t care what their politics are or how charming they are. I am trying to examine their motivations and how they interact with people. I am not sure which labeled bucket that would put me in and I don’t really care because I despise political labels.
Like with stocks, the price depends on what other people think the price is, so you can be correct and lose your shirt because everyone else thinks something that is wrong. (Which also makes them right!)
Similarly, it's likely that common illogical arguments like whataboutism persist exactly because they are effective in convincing non-logical people and may be a logical strategy if you actually want to achieve some kind of political change.
This is why options are dangerous. Other people set the price of the stock.
That said, stocks are fundamentally safer. If you own company X and they succeed/profit well longterm, you receive great dividends regardless of the stock price.
That's fine and all except we should at least recognize when we've decided by gut and when by logic. Unfortunately this doesn't happen in most cases which means that when weighing alternatives we give equal credit to gut and logic based decisions because we don't even know which is which.
Saying "I don't know" is one of the most honest and correct things a human can say about most problems. Then starting from that they may attempt to gather some (partial) information and build a logic to support some solution. But if instead we're starting with "let's do this" then we already lost.
I agree on the honesty part, but in many cases "because I think it is right" is a valid argument.
It is wrong to pretend to have a logical reasoning behind your gut feeling where there is none, but there is nothing wrong in not wanting to work with a company because they give a 'bad feeling"
Yeah our gut/brain is like a machine learning tool. It will reach to a conclusion due to how experience has structured our brain to be however we always do not know the reason why. For simplistic and every day things it is very often right, but the more unusual and complex the scenario the more likely it is to misjudge. And it is also rather often that when we get that gut feeling we start to search for logical arguments only after and at which point there is danger that we will only look for arguments supporting our gut.
One should strive to avoid reliance on their "gut". First, guts are often biased; second, it's hard to communicate gut feelings. Consider it a bad habit that should be corrected or reduced for things that impact others.
I completely disagree with this; gut feeling is how we are scared of unusually silent alleys, gut feeling is how some people just have the wrong smile and look scary, gut feeling is how we perceive the infinite complexity of the human experience.
It is wrong to codify gut feelings into objective rules ("smiling too much is now a crime" obviously does not work). We should also strive not to be dominated by our gut feeling and to be self critical of how appropriate they are in any given situation.
Sometimes the rational position is to realize that strict rationality is not the perfect solution to every problem.
I was also worried about the conversion and the rate and fees but in the end when I calculated, it was barely any different from the spot price on Coinbase at that time.
Honestly the ATM could've been a bit more clear on the fees and the rate, etc. But I was quite happy with the service.
Justice is supposed to measured and balancing for society as a whole, meted out by an impartial judge and jury of peers.
Revenge is completely subjective and ruled by emotional responses by the aggrieved party. It's almost always going to be more destructive disproportionate than it needs to be.
The last people that should decide the fate of those who have harmed them are the victims. That just leads to pure chaos.
I could decide that if someone threatened my life that I would achieve justice by circumventing law enforcement and the justice system by murdering the person in question plus their whole family, whether they meant it or not. I could state reasons of personal/family honour and whatever other bullshit would justify those actions in my mind. That doesn't make it right, or just. It makes it a response borne of unchecked emotion.
You might say that is okay, but it would quickly lead to pure anarchy if we all followed that ideal. That's why we have a justice system in place that doesn't (or tries not to) focus on revenge.
>couldn't they have worded this a little more sympathetic and a little less lawyer?
Sure, if all the lawyers will promise not to take some statement out of context and sue them over that.. As long as such lawyers exist and that's the way the legal system works this is what can be expected out of statements from companies..
Wait. Isn't the right approach to make sure money doesn't influence litigation or legislative process, than trying to ban someone from funding another party's litigation.
If money can influence litigation, isn't that a bigger problem than a third party funding some lawsuit for whatever reason?
>I recently sold everything I owned and started living out of my converted dodge caravan while I was prototyping what I wanted to build next. With an eye on my burn rate, I lived as cheaply as possible. I can tell you without a doubt that there is no natural system in place for homeless to get out of that rut, and it looks and feels dehumanizing.
I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has enough skills to "build things" has enough skills to get an average software job. So, just curious, did you choose to build things and be homeless instead of getting a mundane software job and not be homeless?
Aren't you hijacking the topic of homelessness here then? When people say homeless they don't mean someone who is homeless out of choice and can get out of it whenever they want to?
Probably the best thing we can do for homelessness is to not see it as a problem of "others", but as a continuum with a self-sustaining end that anyone could end up at.
Wasn't his original comment about how his (atypical) experience not living in a house gave him a bit of an insight into some of the issues that "real" homelessness creates for people? I don't see anywhere that he claimed he was just as disadvantaged as the average homeless person or anything like that.
I think your comment was informative. It kind of reminds me of "There, but for Fortune", by Phil Ochs:
Show me an alley, show me a train
Show me a hobo who sleeps out in the rain
And I'll show you a young man with many reasons why
And there but for fortune, may go you or I
Especially in countries with (dare I say) primitive social security, going intentionally homeless could quickly become a permanent thing. A broken down car and a medical emergency, a family tragedy -- and coming back might suddenly become an insurmountable obstacle. Difficult to get a job without a place to stay, difficult to get a place to stay without money, difficult to get money without a job...
Did you want to be homeless? There are SO many people that do not have the opportunity or education or resources you do. And yet you choose their poverty. Why?
