Topic: Is there a point to this board? (Read 504 times)

Well... He founded one of the most important "forums" about technology, HackerNews.com. And he has this other text about programming languages Beating the Averages

To enter in a forum about programming, and to participate in the discussions, you need to have some kind of knowledge about that subject. And it can not be just knowledge of "feeling." You probably need to read books based on academic research.

Paul Graham clearly hasn't been on proper Javascript forums. I'd rather debate midterms with TECSHARE than camel case and 4-space tabs with so called web developers.

How about PHP vs Perl?

C# vs Java?

Linux vs Windows?

iPhone vs not iPhone?

I've been around many tech forums and Bitcointalk is decidedly tame compared to many of those.

This text from Paul Graham about those virtual and forum discussions related to politics is awesome.

http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

Keep Your Identity Small 

I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.

As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?

What's different about religion is that people don't feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion, because people feel they have to be over some threshold of expertise to post comments about that. But on religion everyone's an expert.

Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.

But this isn't true. There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost. But the more precise political questions suffer the same fate as the vaguer ones.

I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.

Which topics engage people's identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn't. No one would know what side to be on. So it's not politics that's the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people's identities. [1]

Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer. For example, the question of the relative merits of programming languages often degenerates into a religious war, because so many programmers identify as X programmers or Y programmers. This sometimes leads people to conclude the question must be unanswerable—that all languages are equally good. Obviously that's false: anything else people make can be well or badly designed; why should this be uniquely impossible for programming languages? And indeed, you can have a fruitful discussion about the relative merits of programming languages, so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. [2]

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

politics and society board is one of the boards with biggest potential in this forum. Yes, of course there is a point to this board.

Bitcointalk is a place where people from all over the world can share their experiences not only about bitcoin, but economics, politics and society. Nowadays, we the discredit of the media world wide, forums like this are definitely a good source of information.

However, spam is a big problem in this forum, and politics and society board is no exception.

I believe that just by removing signatures in that board, it would be a much better board. There is no point in allowing signatures there, in my opinion. If someone wants to make +1 post, don't make it about politics, make a post about bitcoin. This is a bitcoin forum.

The point to politics is that everyone has their own opinion, and in some regard they are probably right. If there was a universal, "right answer" to a political question, it wouldn't be a political question. You can only change someone's political ideology if it comes from mistaken information on their part that they are willing to acknowledge to themselves. When people meet and discuss politics, its a way to become more worldly. You experience things from a different viewpoint, and that enhance your perspective on the matter. It doesn't need to change your opinion, just knowing that there are other opinions out there is valuable. If your intention is to change someone's political views with a persuasive argument, you are not only wasting your time, but you are probably annoying to be around. Politics used to be a gentleman's game, you didn't see those monopoly men beating the hell out of each other and screeching about their views. They just wanted a comfy chair, some scotch, and something to talk about.

The internet brings out the extremes in a lot of people, and that creates a lot of what most people would consider noise. Someone fullheartedly advocating for the massacre of penguins may seem absolutely ridiculous, but there might be something informative about their point of view. Maybe it helps you realize that penguins are bastards, though you still might not advocate their slaying. Ignore the noise, and participate in the conversations that interest you. Who cares if someone on the internet disagrees with you. You don't need to agree with someone to show them the slightest bit of courtesy. If someone is being belligerent, don't respond and let them talk to themselves.

As this forum is a discussion board, I'd say that politics can be an interesting topic to discuss, so yes, there is a point to it being here. On top of that, the crypto community tends to share at least one or two perspectives on things that most people do not. Try to have a discussion about fiat currencies with anyone that isn't a crypto user and see how long your discussion lasts.

I think the "different brains" theory is in a way about the fact that some people are conservatives while others are risk takers. Some of us prefer the safety of things that are certain and sure while some prefer to proactively search for success in places where things are uncertain and there is a possibility of absolute failure.

I guess it is similar to your risk appetite profile, some of us are willing to take on big risks/big rewards while others prefer not to take any risk at all so that there is no possibility of loss.

Exactly. Thanks to the internet, more and more we live in echo chambers. We are friends with people who share our views, and therefore our Facebooks are filled with posts that align to these views. We follow celebrities and political figures on Twitter who share similar opinions as us. We read from right-wing or left-wing websites which reinforce our biases. Because of the internet, we can rapidly find other people who share our opinions and form online groups or cliques to shield ourselves from opposing points of view.

If you don't know the opposing views, then you can't fully examine your own positions. If you don't have to defend your opinions against arguments, then how can you really be sure in what you believe? If you aren't exposed to new perspectives, then you won't grow as a person.

"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever." - Christopher Hitchens

P&S is the only board where I'm seriously tempted to put some folks who post 90% off-topic on ignore. Generally I don't care if you're a card-carrying communist or get your news form Alex Jones - as long as you can make a coherent argument and defend it without resorting to a diarrhea of whataboutism and ad hominem. Seems to be a vanishing skill though. There is also a significant number of posters who simply refuse to learn even the basics of the topic being discussed - I'm assuming that's because they rely entirely on the news outlets and don't want or know how to fact-check.

I don't see P&S purpose as needing to change someone's mind. Just learning different points of view is valuable.

---

So you're alleging that your on-topic posts were deleted but you're doing this by making an off-topic post in this thread.

You can always create your own thread, whether it's about Ukraine or about some perceived censorship.

Most people are idiots and everybody thinks they're always right. The left think they're right. The right think they're right. Christians think they're right. Atheists think they're right. Nazis think they're right. Snowflakes think they're right. How many times have you seen someone change their mind on any of those subjects? Most people don't want to listen to facts or arguments and will still believe whatever helps them sleep a bit better at night regardless of the truth.




We will always be apes in shoes. I don't think we'll ever lose the tribe mentality either and online debates is just a continuation of that.


The people who voted to leave don't understand politics or economics either. Most people who vote know fuck all about anything and that's why democracy is a flawed system. Every scenario involving leaving the EU is going to leave the UK significantly worse off, but hey, they they told we'd save money by leaving and less immigrants would be here so that's all the matters. Those were lies too.

I am not very familiar with the section, recently made my first post on that board.
But from you statement, the problem seems to not be with the board, but a couple of users who do not engage in arguments for logical conclusions but to fan their 'internet' ego.

Sone discussions actually remain logical, and while it might not end with one party conceeding defeat, it's obvious that they have both learnt one or two new things.

Opinions ate generally difficult to change, cause majority of the facts or data you'd present are already at the disposal of all involved.
It could sometimes just be for good sport.

I think any reasonable person should have no option but to change their views if the observable events presented by others reasonably/logically requires such action.

Most peoples opinions/views (including my own) are based at times on incorrect/incomplete data. The fact we have made analysis upon such data is only negative if we refuse/ignore new hard evidence/information that conflicts or was missing and refuse to reanalyse again.

Like I say people tend to make an analysis and form opinion on bad data . They will voice that opinion and then dig their heels in to defend it at all costs regardless of conflicting observable and factual events/information. They then become unreasonable and irrational.

Really one should be pleased that someone who has an opposing opinion comes along to help you examine the data you both have access to. Of course sometimes people are over exuberant in their views and it can be hard to alter your opinion/perspective on things because that can have huge knock on effects to other opinions/views you may have and even your views on your own past behaviours causing great stress and regret.

Of course many opinions on broad things like left and right political views have some many factors/permutations on so many levels then to have a conclusive firm opinion is almost impossible. This is where AI will be able to develop a more logical/informed opinion if only based on probability and the scale of the data it can draw from.

I'll admit that I haven't read those articles you linked to, but my political leanings have changed severely over the years, though the change could have happened before my frontal cortex was fully developed. 

My views on Trump have changed somewhat, but it's not really a result of anything on bitcointalk but rather the president himself and the fact that he hasn't instigated WWIII, tanked the economy, or put people in internment camps. 

As far as the P&S board goes, there's no way I'm posting there.  I don't think anybody changes their views based on forum discussion, and it all seems to be a big dick-waving contest to me.  And when you can't get people to agree with you?  Yep, the end result is insults and you hit the nail on the head with that one.

I kind of like those boards actually. I had never visited them since being here before perhaps 3 weeks ago.

Some people posting there provide excellent argument/grounding for their opinions -- some are quite extreme.

I am often lurking there whilst I await for alt discussion to get back to how it was and for the best alt posters to return.

There is a point if you are neutral and want to learn or have an opinion but are open to information that could assist you in seeing things more clearly. Or at least take the next layer of the onion off.

Geeze, you have no idea how this looks in the Ukrainian-occupied Russian section of this forum. It's so much worse and uglier.
The moderator there has like 6 sockpuppets attacking, trolling and censoring everyone. And he pretends to be 2 different moderators!

Right now he censored me mentioning that all 4 former presidents of Ukraine warned against Martial Law. In the very topic called "Ukraine".

Most people don't understand national or world economies or political structures. This is obvious from the fact that nearly half of the UK voted to stay in the EU, and this is after the economic and social destruction following the membership in the 1970s. Italy and many other countries have suffered the same fate, but despite this, there are still people who believe that we should continue to destroy the UK by remaining under the control of the puppet masters behind the EU.

The politics board would be great to discuss this in a rational fashion, and maybe we could counter the misinformation that is routed through the traditional media. Unfortunately there are members with weak arguments, and a lack of knowledge, who feel that the only way to support their opinions is with vitriolic comments, and personal abuse.

I am observing this place since 2014 and my impression is: no, they haven't.

Judging one ideology over the other isn't the point of this thread 

I don't know who's right and who's wrong. I just want to know if some people changed their opinion a bit in this board or if we're discussing for nothing 

Isolation from their fake news sources and education regarding the world helps. Normally, more educated people tend to have more of a world view, and therefore lean more liberal. Arguably, this could be a solution to a lot of the right's rhetoric.

I'll have to take a look cause I'm always very dubious of statement concerning "different brains". Sounds too easy to me.
That's a terrible conclusion which would mean there is no way for the two groups to reach to an agreement... So what we have to kill each other? Doesn't sound very good to me...

I do hope there can be some evolution, did you experiment some? I know my view on US elective system or their constitution have evolved a bit. Also on weapons freedom in a democratic country. I'd just like to know if some others experimented changes in their opinion, otherwise this board is a bit useless don't you think?

Politics is a tricky subject. Brains are actually "wired" differently for left and right individuals.

https://phys.org/news/2016-12-hard-wired-brain-circuitry-political-belief.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

Pretty much we're not going to be able to introduce ANY new information regarding the situation because they view the world in an entirely different light.

Hello world!

Considering the incredibly heated arguments currently ongoing in the different threads I follow, I'm wondering something: is there a point to the exchanges in Politics & Society?

I mean in some threads there have been cleared and objective arguments given by some, and the opposite party most of the time finished by insulting the other without answering the argument.

That can happen with people like TECSHARE and BADecker but I don't think anyone expects to make those change there minds as they're closer to bots than to human beings.

But has anyone ever seen his opinion changed thanks to the exchange in this board?
I have, a bit, with Trump, but I can't say it's by a big way.

Are our discussions here useful or are we just a group of baboons throwing shit while waiting for other baboons to comfort us in our opinions?