Hacker News

points by Terr_ 3 days ago | 0 comments

IMO there's an ongoing battle between two very different concepts of what speech means.

1. I speak "X" because I believe X to be true. I am virtuous because I am correct, and honest.

2. I speak "X" because that is is the current signal for demonstrating loyalty in the in-group. I am virtuous because I demonstrate allegiance and membership.

_____

In the first case, you apologize for an error because it's how you get back to a state of being correct. (Or if you don't apologize, it's because you double-down and insist it isn't an error.)

In the second case, you don't apologize because the "error" was merely a strategic misstep of over-triggering the dirty out-group, and anyway caring about them too much is suspicious.

[–] done_lurking 3 days ago

I think this is almost at the truth. My view is that everyone values two frequently opposing things: truth and social reward. Whether you behave like (1) or (2) depends on which you value more, and how much pressure is being applied from either direction. I like to think that most people usually value being correct over social reward but this is not always the case, and frequently this difference in values results in totally unproductive arguments. There is no persuading someone who defends a position for social reward. The best thing you can do is try to make their position seem absurd and silly as a social punishment, and hopefully witnesses will think agreeing with you will result in higher social reward. I believe this is also why high profile debates are frequently just two people slinging insults back and forth. This is actually what a significant number of people find persuasive, since it determines whether their social circle will reward them or punish them for their beliefs.