Heh, I feel your frustration. But consider this: maybe internet is a stupidity amplifier. Crazy people can type faster, because they think less, and because they don’t waste their time researching. The craziest ones probably prioritize their internet duty over real life. So, a reasonable person writes maybe 1 comment a day, but a crazy person can write 1000, quite literally.
A corollary is that the world is less crazy than internet would make us believe. Though there is this scary thing that many people get their beliefs from internet, so the crazies of one generation become the teachers of the next generation.
In reality you probably actively filter out stupid people. On internet, you sometimes can’t. You like some website, the stupid people like the same website; if you continue to hang out there, you will continue seeing them.
People who actively identify as X are probably the least likely ones to change their mind. (Unless they are the subtype that identifies as X but spends lot of time arguing against X.)
To some degree, this is also a function of age. More time to collect evidence, more time to evaluate it… those who were able to change their opinion, probably already did. Though you can find new evidence at any age.
those with the greatest instincts towards kindness and systemic changes may nevertheless cause great harm
There is a difference between actually being kind, and having “kindness” as an applause light. Genuinely kind people may also unknowingly cause harm, but they stop when they get feedback. People who just have “kindness” as a part of their identity, will treat the complaining victim as an enemy.
(The typical first step of the “kindness” tribe, after they get power, is making feedback a crime. Anyone who opposes them, by definition opposes kindness itself, and needs to be silenced for greater good.)
I do get frustrated with people now, in a way I didn’t before. What can I do to stop this?
If that is possible, spend more time talking to young people, individually or in small groups, offline. I am not saying that is the only way, but it is the easier way.
Do you have a reason to believe you have a comparative advantage at convincing people? If you don’t, maybe sharing a convincing document written by someone else is much less work, and hurts less on rejection. The problem is finding a document that is convicing to the other party, not you. But even then, expect that 99.9% will not care. Such is life. People are stupid and irrational.
From more meta perspective, is convincing other people the best course of action for you? The time you spend arguing, is the time you could have spent working on your goals. Maybe doing X yourself is better than trying to convince other people to do X. Maybe the online crowd is mostly unimportant, but actual changes come from small groups of dedicated people; in that case the winning strategy would be to go to a bubble and find/found such group. (There probably already exists someone with similar goals, try finding them.) Heck, maybe you just need to get more rich, or more fit, or dress better, or write better, and then people will start taking your opinions more seriously—it’s crazy, but it probably works! Or make your opinions more viral: leaving a 100th comment in a long debate where nobody listens is less impactful than making a YouTube video.
And of course, the ancient art of not giving a fuck is also a powerful road to the peace of mind.
I am reminded of the phenomenon where people get promoted to the job they are incompetent at and whether a prinple of “people update until they hit a position they are unreasonable about” shares the same kind of mechanics.
It’s certainly worth considering that the internet may have a greater volume of content produced by crazy people. That doesn’t ease my worries about a world full of people who are at least crazy at some low level sufficient to make them wrong about quite major stuff, but it does at least put my ‘people are wrong on the internet?!’ worries in better context.
If age alone is a heuristic of sanity, then things are looking quite bad because I think I’m one of the younger people who actively chats on the discord. But in general, I see what you mean and people are liable to change over time.
Regarding those who see their goal of kindness as an excuse to hate and persecute, that is certainly an issue. Binary two-party politics does tend to lead to a belief that anything you do is justified if it allows you to triumph over the truly evil, and that leads to no end of unpleasantness.
Regarding linking people essays and papers, unfortunately this doesn’t tend to be received all too well. Norms-wise (in that community), it’s generally seen as a bit rude to link people lengthy documents that the other person needs to read rather than providing a summary or argument as to why you personally believe the thing. That said, perhaps it would be worthwhile to do so anyway when I become frustrated with a conversation, rather than saying something rude or excusing myself and leaving without further debate.
On the meta perspective, changing the minds of these people is of course not going to change much about the real world. It’s just something I enjoy doing, really. And perhaps if I cannot make myself enjoy doing it, then the solution is what I’m already in the process of doing: Not arguing with them.
I will consider this, at least, but it would sadden me to lose what I had once enjoyed.
it’s generally seen as a bit rude to link people lengthy documents that the other person needs to read rather than providing a summary
Let me guess—if you provide a summary instead, you will receive dozen additional questions about details (which may actually be explained in the article). In worst case, they will not be framed as questions (“but what about the special case X?”) but as assertions (“lol, you completely ignore X”).
Possible solution: The article has a summary on the top; you copy the summary and add “more info here”.
Heh, I feel your frustration. But consider this: maybe internet is a stupidity amplifier. Crazy people can type faster, because they think less, and because they don’t waste their time researching. The craziest ones probably prioritize their internet duty over real life. So, a reasonable person writes maybe 1 comment a day, but a crazy person can write 1000, quite literally.
A corollary is that the world is less crazy than internet would make us believe. Though there is this scary thing that many people get their beliefs from internet, so the crazies of one generation become the teachers of the next generation.
In reality you probably actively filter out stupid people. On internet, you sometimes can’t. You like some website, the stupid people like the same website; if you continue to hang out there, you will continue seeing them.
People who actively identify as X are probably the least likely ones to change their mind. (Unless they are the subtype that identifies as X but spends lot of time arguing against X.)
To some degree, this is also a function of age. More time to collect evidence, more time to evaluate it… those who were able to change their opinion, probably already did. Though you can find new evidence at any age.
There is a difference between actually being kind, and having “kindness” as an applause light. Genuinely kind people may also unknowingly cause harm, but they stop when they get feedback. People who just have “kindness” as a part of their identity, will treat the complaining victim as an enemy.
(The typical first step of the “kindness” tribe, after they get power, is making feedback a crime. Anyone who opposes them, by definition opposes kindness itself, and needs to be silenced for greater good.)
If that is possible, spend more time talking to young people, individually or in small groups, offline. I am not saying that is the only way, but it is the easier way.
Do you have a reason to believe you have a comparative advantage at convincing people? If you don’t, maybe sharing a convincing document written by someone else is much less work, and hurts less on rejection. The problem is finding a document that is convicing to the other party, not you. But even then, expect that 99.9% will not care. Such is life. People are stupid and irrational.
From more meta perspective, is convincing other people the best course of action for you? The time you spend arguing, is the time you could have spent working on your goals. Maybe doing X yourself is better than trying to convince other people to do X. Maybe the online crowd is mostly unimportant, but actual changes come from small groups of dedicated people; in that case the winning strategy would be to go to a bubble and find/found such group. (There probably already exists someone with similar goals, try finding them.) Heck, maybe you just need to get more rich, or more fit, or dress better, or write better, and then people will start taking your opinions more seriously—it’s crazy, but it probably works! Or make your opinions more viral: leaving a 100th comment in a long debate where nobody listens is less impactful than making a YouTube video.
And of course, the ancient art of not giving a fuck is also a powerful road to the peace of mind.
I am reminded of the phenomenon where people get promoted to the job they are incompetent at and whether a prinple of “people update until they hit a position they are unreasonable about” shares the same kind of mechanics.
Thank you for the wonderfully detailed reply :)
It’s certainly worth considering that the internet may have a greater volume of content produced by crazy people. That doesn’t ease my worries about a world full of people who are at least crazy at some low level sufficient to make them wrong about quite major stuff, but it does at least put my ‘people are wrong on the internet?!’ worries in better context.
If age alone is a heuristic of sanity, then things are looking quite bad because I think I’m one of the younger people who actively chats on the discord. But in general, I see what you mean and people are liable to change over time.
Regarding those who see their goal of kindness as an excuse to hate and persecute, that is certainly an issue. Binary two-party politics does tend to lead to a belief that anything you do is justified if it allows you to triumph over the truly evil, and that leads to no end of unpleasantness.
Regarding linking people essays and papers, unfortunately this doesn’t tend to be received all too well. Norms-wise (in that community), it’s generally seen as a bit rude to link people lengthy documents that the other person needs to read rather than providing a summary or argument as to why you personally believe the thing. That said, perhaps it would be worthwhile to do so anyway when I become frustrated with a conversation, rather than saying something rude or excusing myself and leaving without further debate.
On the meta perspective, changing the minds of these people is of course not going to change much about the real world. It’s just something I enjoy doing, really. And perhaps if I cannot make myself enjoy doing it, then the solution is what I’m already in the process of doing: Not arguing with them.
I will consider this, at least, but it would sadden me to lose what I had once enjoyed.
Let me guess—if you provide a summary instead, you will receive dozen additional questions about details (which may actually be explained in the article). In worst case, they will not be framed as questions (“but what about the special case X?”) but as assertions (“lol, you completely ignore X”).
Possible solution: The article has a summary on the top; you copy the summary and add “more info here”.