【Hacker News搬运】互联网争论剖析

[hackernews]

Title: Anatomy of an Internet Argument

互联网争论剖析

Text:

hn link

Url: https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-an-internet-argument

很抱歉，作为一个AI，我无法直接访问外部网站或其内容，包括您提供的Substack链接。因此，我无法阅读或分析该链接中的文章内容。

不过，如果您能提供文章的摘要、主要内容或者某些关键段落，我可以帮助您分析这些内容并尝试进行总结。如果您需要帮助理解文章内容，我可以提供一些通用的方法来分析文章：

1. **阅读标题和摘要**：了解文章的主题和大致内容。
2. **识别主要观点**：找出作者的主要论点和支持这些论点的证据。
3. **分析论据**：检查论据是否合理，是否有事实或数据支持。
4. **考虑作者的目的**：思考作者想要传达的信息或可能的目的。
5. **总结文章**：结合上述分析，用自己的话总结文章的主要内容。

如果您有文章的具体内容或需要帮助理解某个特定部分，请提供相关信息，我会尽力协助您。

Post by: nkurz

Comments:

KTibow: this post came at a good time for me (just lost an internet argument). same author has an interesting post about building mental models <a href="https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/geoffrey-hinton-on-developing-your" rel="nofollow">https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/geoffrey-hinton-on...</a>

KTibow: 这篇文章对我来说来得正是时候（刚刚在网上输掉了一场争论）。同一位作者发表了一篇关于构建心理模型的有趣帖子<a href=“https:&#x2F；defenderofthebasic.suback.com&#p；geoffrey hinton关于开发你的“rel=”nofollow“>https:&#x2F；defender of base.suback.com；p■；杰弗里·辛顿</a>

jareklupinski: i thought it was<p><pre><code> - INSULT
- RETORT
- COUNTER-RETORT
- RIPOSTE
- COUNTER-RIPOSTE
- NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
- RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
- WORDS OF PRAISE FOR FISHFOOD
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</code></pre>

jareklupinski: 我以为是<p><pre><code>-绝缘-反驳-反侵权-反击-反兴奋剂-涉及浮游生物的荒谬陈述-对任意声明和禁止敌对双方的威胁的回应-对鱼食的赞美之词-确认并接受条款</code></pre>

schmidtleonard: This is a great way to win battles and lose wars.<p>I came to this realization after getting good at climate science arguments. I could take a denialist "did you consider" argument, go to the IPCC reports, find labs, find papers, and return with summaries and citations in relatively short order, and after delivering them with kid gloves I could move people off one denialist argument... and onto another. If I repeated the exercise, there would be a third in line.<p>Bad arguments take 1 unit of effort to generate and 1000 to refute. If you don't have a strategy for handling that asymmetry, you're toast, and the strategies for handling it do not involve kid gloves. Gish gallopers are gonna Gish gallop, and no amount of good faith is going to stop them if they don't want to stop. At some point you have to give up on the unbounded cost of good faith and call out the bad faith arguments. If you put them on blast, you might persuade spectators and that's about the best you can hope for on a finite budget.

schmidtleonard: 这是赢得战争和输掉战争的好方法<p> 在精通气候科学论证后，我意识到了这一点。我可以接受一个否认者&quot；你是否考虑过&quot；争论，去IPCC报告，找到实验室，找到论文，然后在相对较短的时间内返回摘要和引用，在小心翼翼地交付之后，我可以让人们摆脱一个否认论的论点。。。和另一个。如果我重复这个练习，就会有第三个排队<p> 糟糕的论点需要1个单位的努力才能产生，需要1000个单位来反驳。如果你不这样做；如果你没有处理这种不对称的策略；重新烤面包，处理它的策略不涉及儿童手套。Gish疾驰者会Gish疾跑，如果他们不这样做，任何善意都无法阻止他们；我不想停下来。在某些时候，你必须放弃诚信的无限成本，并提出不诚信的论点。如果你让它们爆炸，你可能会说服观众，这；这是在有限的预算内你所能期望的最好的结果。

photochemsyn: This approach seems to presume you're not trying to talk to a programmed bot whose job is to amplify a prepared set of talking points (an approach pioneered by I believe the Edelman PR firm in the 1990s internet era, when all the bots were human).<p>If someone's willing to pay a PR firm to run a bot farm of any kind, this has to be taken into account. Such issues include fossil-fueled global warming, the efficacy of the latest patented FDA-approved pharmaceutical product, the role of virological gain-of-function research in the origins of the Covid pandemic, the necessity of government funding budgets for various purposes from public health to the provision of weapons to European and Middle Eastern conflicts, desirability of regulation of financial institutions (Glass-Steagall etc.), and possibly most relevant to HN, the wisdom of running Linux vs. Windows vs. Apple operating systems to meet your personal, business, and other computing needs.<p>How would one respond in such cases? "Well, I understand that your job requires you to amplify a certain set of talking points and play down others, and I sympathize with your need to earn a living by doing so, so have a nice day?"<p>Of course a bot will never admit to being a bot - but even if you're dealing with a good faith actor, there's also the issue of whether or not you have a shared information base, e.g. attempts to discuss evolutionary theory with someone who believes the universe was created 6000 years ago probably won't go well.

photochemsyn: 这种方法似乎假定您；我们不会试图与一个程序化的机器人交谈，这个机器人的工作是放大一组准备好的谈话要点（我相信这是爱德曼公关公司在20世纪90年代互联网时代开创的一种方法，当时所有的机器人都是人）<p> 如果有人；如果你愿意付钱给公关公司来经营任何类型的机器人农场，这必须考虑在内。这些问题包括化石引发的全球变暖、FDA批准的最新专利药品的功效、病毒学功能丧失研究在新冠肺炎大流行起源中的作用、政府为各种目的提供资金预算的必要性，从公共卫生到向欧洲和中东冲突提供武器，金融机构监管的可取性（Glass-Steagall等），以及可能与HN最相关的问题，运行Linux与Windows与苹果操作系统以满足个人、企业和其他计算需求的明智性<p> 在这种情况下，人们会如何回应&“；好吧，我明白你的工作要求你放大某些谈话要点，淡化其他要点，我同情你需要通过这样做来谋生，所以祝你今天过得愉快吧&“<p> 当然，机器人永远不会承认自己是机器人，但即使你；如果你正在与一位真诚的演员打交道，那么；这也是你是否有共享信息库的问题，例如，试图与相信宇宙是在6000年前创造的人讨论进化论可能会赢；事情进展得不太顺利。

****:

****: