[HN Gopher] Thought-Terminating Cliche
___________________________________________________________________
Thought-Terminating Cliche
Author : deegles
Score : 93 points
Date : 2021-08-20 15:04 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| diplodocusaur wrote:
| 1 day ago ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28236851
| detaro wrote:
| no discussion, nearly no points, thus irrelevant.
| dang wrote:
| HN users appreciate links to previous threads, but only if
| there are actual comments there.
|
| Also, we don't count posts as dupes if the previous post didn't
| get significant attention. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
| jrootabega wrote:
| "Thought-Terminating Cliche" is also an autological term: it can
| describe itself.
| wwarner wrote:
| Ooh that pushed my buttons. When someone responds to me with one
| of these phrases, it gets my hyper-logical dander up!
| flurie wrote:
| I find it interesting that the submitter posted this as a result
| of deciding that "calories in, calories out" was a thought-
| terminating cliche[1]. Given that it's a pithy rephrasing of the
| first law of thermodynamics, I'm curious if the submitter feels
| the same way about the other laws.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=28246836
| twic wrote:
| It's true, but it's irrelevant because you don't control the
| calories out.
| [deleted]
| deegles wrote:
| Responding to any discussing about weight loss with that phrase
| fits the description.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Does it?
|
| Weight loss methods include a lot of pseudo science and I
| think it's important to keep in mind that whatever low fat or
| low carb or paleo diet you try is ultimately only going to
| succeed if you lower your calorie intake or raise your
| calorie expenditure.
|
| Obviously there are some exceptions to that rule if you
| aren't accounting for changes in calorie absorption or bmr,
| but everything I've seen or read seems to show that those
| variations are miniscule.
| strbean wrote:
| When dealing with addiction, more thinking often ends in
| better rationalizations for addictive behavior. For that
| reason, I'm not sure "Thought-Terminating" is inherently a
| bad thing.
|
| Anecdotally, I've seen tons of people fight through different
| fad diets with no success. They spend tons of time talking
| about ways to trick their metabolisms, naturalistic arguments
| about what to eat and not eat, etc. Perhaps they would be
| more successful if they stopped over-thinking and focussed
| purely on reducing their portion sizes and increasing their
| exercise. Again anecdotally, it seems like usually exercise
| is emphasized along with diet at first, but quickly gets
| dropped. Within a couple weeks, the fad diet is forgotten as
| well.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Specially because humans can't eat all matter. All calories
| come out, but some are undigested and don't contribute to
| nutrition.
| flurie wrote:
| Continued, sustained discussion predicated on the phrase
| itself rather seems to disprove your point, doesn't it?
|
| Additionally, from the link:
|
| > Bennett explains that exceptions are made to the use of
| phrases, that would otherwise be considered thought-
| terminating if they are used in addition to evidence or
| strong claims.
| smorgusofborg wrote:
| When I hear sports discussions they don't spend a lot of
| time reminding us that everything is subject to the same
| gravity. If some jackasses did it would become a thought
| terminating cliche, and eventually we would be breaking out
| of it, but it would be tainting the direction of each
| discussion from the point where it was invoked.
| kazoomonger wrote:
| I think this analogy doesn't quite hold, as you don't
| have athletes saying "I can't throw as far as you because
| of gravity", whereas you really do have people making
| ridiculous claims when it comes to weight loss.
| flurie wrote:
| Interestingly, I find myself subject to the opposite
| quite often. It's a common cliche in the US to describe
| superlative athletic ability as "defying gravity." Would
| you consider that a thought-terminating cliche?
|
| I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you, but I
| would ask that you please refrain from name calling.
| pc86 wrote:
| It's a pithy rephrasing of an incorrect overgeneralization of
| the first law. Calories aren't the only thing that can affect
| weight. There are medical conditions, hormone levels, thermic
| effect of food, and at least one or two other things that are
| escaping me right now.
|
| Is it going to explain 20 pounds of bodyfat? Absolutely not.
| But "calories in, calories out" isn't backed up by the science.
| taneq wrote:
| It is. If you think it isn't then you're missing something
| (like maybe calories excreted unmetabolized?) But it's also a
| bit of a reductio ad absurdum and isn't a very interesting
| take on the problem (and I say this as someone who also used
| to spout it.)
|
| Within a pretty tight margin, calories in minus calories out
| DOES predict weight gain. The real question is _why_ someone
| feels the need to eat more calories than they burn even when
| they already have ample stores of calories, and what they or
| others can do to change this. And THAT is a much more
| interesting question.
| kazoomonger wrote:
| CICO is 100% backed up by science. The point of repeating
| CICO is that there are people that legitimately try claiming
| "I ate only an apple a day and I can't lose weight!". This is
| clearly impossible.
|
| Now, you can get more specific than that and say "well this
| medical condition makes you more hungry" or "this medical
| condition means you can't get as much energy as you should
| from eating". But fundamentally, a condition like say PCOS
| isn't magic. It doesn't make you absorb food better,
| otherwise we would have already evolved to use that
| absorption process.
|
| Having said all that: yes, no two people are exactly the
| same, we're not bunsen burners, etc. But the reason you're[1]
| fat is because you eat too much.
|
| [1]: general you, not you specifically
| pjc50 wrote:
| > It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we
| would have already evolved to use that absorption process.
|
| This is itself a thought terminating cliche. Has anyone
| actually _checked_?
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| > It doesn't make you absorb food better, otherwise we
| would have already evolved to use that absorption process.
|
| While I don't know about the first half of this sentence
| (though I have my suspicions!) it's pretty obvious the
| second half is false. You're saying that we all have to
| process food identically because evolution has selected the
| optimal result in humans. But evolution does not product
| perfectly consistent results. In fact it relies on
| producing inconsistent results! Because sometimes small
| flaws turn out to actually be a benefit and get selected,
| that's how evolation works. So the fact that humans are a
| result of evolution does not prevent different people from
| having different abilities to absorb nutrients.
|
| > But the reason you're[1] fat is because you eat too much.
|
| You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then totally
| forgot about CO! Obviously you could extend this sentence
| to "... and/or you don't do enough exercise" but, similar
| to the previous point, there are likely to naturally be
| variation in calorie outputs. In fact "running hot" might
| seem like a weakness but could be a perfectly valid
| evolutionary strategy, presuming it gave some other benefit
| (like sharper mind or stronger body, better for obtaining
| more food). It's quite possible for both strategies to be
| baked into one set of genes, perhaps selected by activity
| in childhood.
|
| ---
|
| It's self evident that CICO is true. It's just completely
| worthless for providing any insight. Very much a thought-
| terminating cliche as originally described.
| philwelch wrote:
| > You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then
| totally forgot about CO! Obviously you could extend this
| sentence to "... and/or you don't do enough exercise"
| but, similar to the previous point, there are likely to
| naturally be variation in calorie outputs.
|
| This is technically true but a but specious. Obviously
| you shouldn't eat as much as Michael Phelps if you don't
| train like Michael Phelps. But it's probably a lot more
| actionable for you to eat fewer calories than for you to
| start training like an Olympic athlete.
| kazoomonger wrote:
| > it's pretty obvious the second half is false
|
| It's really not. As I said above, people are not
| identical. Yes, evolution doesn't produce perfectly
| consistent results. However, absorbing nutrients is the
| direct foundation for the only thing that matters in the
| process of evolution: reproduction. You can't reproduce
| if you die from lack of nutrients. Given how much of
| humanity's existence has been staving off starvation and
| famine, any improvements would be heavily selected for,
| and would quickly spread.
|
| As an extreme example, if you could survive on an apple
| per day, the next famine that rolled around would leave
| you pretty free to repopulate with your superdigestive
| genes, since most everyone else would be dead.
|
| > You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then
| totally forgot about CO!
|
| I don't really understand the point you're trying to make
| in this paragraph. Even if some people "run hot" or they
| have some magic gut that lets them survive on an apple
| per day or whatever, it's still a fundamental truth that
| if they're fat, they're eating too much. Yes, someone can
| exercise more or whatever to change their output, but the
| reason they're currently fat is because they're currently
| eating too much.
|
| > It's self evident that CICO is true. It's just
| completely worthless for providing any insight. Very much
| a thought-terminating cliche as originally described.
|
| Yes, no, and no. As described above, there really are
| people that think "I eat just an apple a day and I can't
| lose weight!". CICO is a baseline for saying "no, that's
| impossible". It's not a thought-terminating cliche, it's
| making sure that everybody is on the same page of
| accepting basic science.
| Zababa wrote:
| > Given how much of humanity's existence has been staving
| off starvation and famine, any improvements would be
| heavily selected for, and would quickly spread.
|
| If that was true, shouldn't we have evolved to hibernate
| at some point?
|
| > You can't reproduce if you die from lack of nutrients.
|
| You also can't reproduce if you can't run fast when a
| wolf is hunting you. Those muscles are going to take some
| energy even while not running away from a wolf. I think
| you're trying to reduce evolution and reproduction to a
| single variable, which is a mistake.
| sushisource wrote:
| > It's just completely worthless for providing any
| insight
|
| I dunno, I think you might be surprised by how many
| people genuinely do not seem to understand it. It's
| valuable to them if they are willing to listen, problem
| is a lot of the time they really aren't, hence their
| problem.
| philwelch wrote:
| _How_ do these things affect weight?
|
| Thermic effect of food, for instance, seems to be the
| phenomenon where the metabolism increases after a meal.
| Metabolism is calories-out. So thermic effect of food isn't a
| refutation of CICO, just a complication. CICO is still the
| primary mechanism of weight control.
|
| The main _actual_ counterexample to CICO is water retention.
| flurie wrote:
| Is it? If a body is retaining additional water and
| absolutely nothing else, it can be the result of consistent
| changes in external temperature, a lack of micronutrients,
| or a result of illness. In the absence of these, the amount
| of water in the body remains quite consistent. I'm not
| talking about water that comes with glycogen as part of an
| unexpected calorie surplus, because that is not permanent.
|
| You are correct that water weight can cause spikes in
| weight measurement, but this is just a contributor to
| weight as a noisy measurement, not an example that it is
| not helpful.
| philwelch wrote:
| I agree with you that it isn't a significant or important
| factor in most cases, but it is technically a
| counterexample, and is probably the _most_ significant or
| relevant counterexample.
| woopwoop wrote:
| I've always been confused by the "calories in, calories out"
| claim. It is usually used to mean that weight gain/loss is
| proportional to calorie surplus/deficit. But I don't understand
| how that is a restatement of the first law of thermodynamics.
| What I could believe is the claim that the number of calories
| stored in a person's body is proportional to their lifetime
| caloric surplus, from which it follows that the change in the
| number of calories stored on a person's body over a period of
| time is proportional to their caloric surplus over that period.
| But weight is not proportional to stored calories, since fat is
| more calorie dense than protein. So in order to gain muscle,
| lose fat, and maintain the same weight, doesn't a person have
| to run a caloric deficit?
| Zababa wrote:
| I think the problem is that "calories in, calories out" is not
| that easy since it's hard to measure the calories in and the
| calories out precisely. "Calories out" especially, as most
| people will just tell people to use a TDEE calculator or some
| other approximation. When you're then asking them to have a 500
| calories deficit, it is very possible that it won't work for
| them as they (as in, the tool they used) overestimated the
| "calories out" part.
|
| Edit: to expand on that, "calories in, calories out" is a
| classic motte and bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-
| and-bailey_fallacy). Here the motte is "it's easy for anyone to
| lose weight, just input a few numbers in a few apps". The
| bailey is "calories in, calories out is scientifically true".
| I've never seen advocates of calories in, calories out offering
| a more precise way to measure the consumption of calories than
| a TDEE calculator that you can find online, where you usually
| input your weight, height, age and sex. The "calories in" part
| is easier to deal with, as if you measure everything you put in
| your mouth, you have the upper bound of the calories you can
| absorb. Still, the calories out are hard to measure reliably,
| especially in people that already have a slower metabolism than
| others (which makes it easier for them to gain weight in the
| first place).
|
| There's also the distinction that "calorie intake" is often
| meant as "what you put into your mouth" but is actually "what
| you actually absorb".
| MichaelGroves wrote:
| > _I think the problem is that "calories in, calories out" is
| not that easy since it's hard to measure the calories in and
| the calories out precisely._
|
| You don't have to, precise calorie counting is a strawman
| argument against CICO. All the fat people I've ever known,
| which is most of my family and many of my friends, all eat
| way too much. I ate too much too, ever since I was a kid.
| Huge portion sizes and constantly grazing throughout the day
| without set meal times were the norm for me and those around
| me. After hearing CICO repeated often, I recognized these
| behaviors in myself and corrected them. I didn't need to
| count calories for any of it. Where I would once buy a pizza
| and devour it over the course of an evening, I now save half
| for lunch the next day. Anybody can do that if they choose
| to. By eating less, I've lost about 75 lbs in 5 years.
| Zababa wrote:
| So your refutation against that is your personal
| experience? I'm glad it worked out for you but that seem a
| bit weak.
|
| > precise calorie counting is a strawman argument against
| CICO
|
| Precise calorie counting is what most people talking about
| CICO promote though. And not to "get an intuition for how
| much calories are in food", what you hear most often is
| "calculate your TDEE, eat 500 calories under".
| MichaelGroves wrote:
| The most important message of CICO is not "count your
| calories". It's _" you're fat because you eat too much."_
| Matter isn't materializing out of the aether and putting
| itself into your ass, it comes from you eating too much
| food. Fat people are fat because there is an imbalance in
| how much they eat and how active they are. And in modern
| American society, the vast majority of it is from a
| culture of binge eating. This is what I've observed not
| only in myself, but in every other fat person I've met.
|
| There are all kinds of coping mechanisms people use to
| excuse themselves and stay fat. _" I don't eat more than
| normal, I'm just a genetic anomaly who absorbs more
| nutrients from food than everybody else.."_ Well assuming
| that wasn't BS, the answer is _still_ to eat less. Or _"
| CICO is just a thought terminating cliche"_; if I had
| fallen for that BS, I'd still be fat. I'm glad I saw
| through those lies.
| balfirevic wrote:
| > I would once buy a pizza and devour it over the course of
| an evening, I now save half for lunch the next day.
|
| Do you have trouble falling asleep while hungry?
| carry_bit wrote:
| "mass in, mass out" is another truism, yet not many people plan
| their diets around that.
| pjc50 wrote:
| How many people measure their exhalation mass, though?
|
| (Yes, weight loss is substantially through exhaled CO2)
| flurie wrote:
| I agree with you that this is both correct and unhelpful, but
| there's an interesting reason for that! It's because a good
| bit of weight loss is achieved through exhalation. If we had
| a way to measure that consistently and accurately, it would
| be more helpful information.
| carry_bit wrote:
| You can just weigh yourself periodically, weigh what you
| consume, and then compute how much mass has left your body.
|
| As a diet, you could plan out what you want to weigh over
| time, and then before each meal calculate how far below
| that goal you are and limit your consumption to the
| difference.
| philwelch wrote:
| It's also technically more accurate since CICO doesn't
| account for water weight.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I will throw out a personal un-favorite. When talking about the
| fear of violence from the mentally ill, someone will say --
| almost as if the string were pulled on a talking doll -- "the
| mentally ill are more likely to be subject to violence than to
| ..." and away we go.
|
| It may be true, but it does not actually address the question.
| The question is, are they more violent than those who are not
| mentally ill?
| the-dude wrote:
| But that is just communism.
| narrator wrote:
| A related concept is the association fallacy [1], which is a more
| subtle form of the ad hominem fallacy.
|
| It works like this:
|
| A. You believe X.
|
| B. A crazy person also believes/believed X.
|
| C. Since you believe X and a crazy person also believed X, you
| are a crazy person.
|
| D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me
| why being a crazy person is ok. Why do you support doing crazy
| people things like being a serial killer?
|
| Example:
|
| A. You are against cigarette smoking.
|
| B. The Nazis were also against cigarette smoking[2].
|
| C. Therefore you are a Nazi.
|
| D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me
| why being a Nazi is ok. Why do you support anti-semitism?
|
| The latest updated version of this is: What you believe is
| arbitrarily labeled a conspiracy theory. People that believe in
| conspiracy theories believe the earth is flat. Why do you believe
| the earth is flat?
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a...
|
| [2]
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_C...
| threatofrain wrote:
| I find that the use of "logical fallacies" to be an
| intellectual smell as well.
|
| For example, the ad hominem fallacy, where we might trust a
| doctor just because they are a doctor. Or when we might avoid a
| restaurant just because of popular opinion (bandwagon fallacy).
| It's strange that people would seek out these fancy words when
| we can just say _credibility_.
|
| Similarly, we culturally expect that judges are not receiving
| re-election funds from the parties that appear before their
| court, and not because money necessarily damages their
| judgment, but rather for the sake of judicial _credibility_.
|
| The effective judgment of credibility is not as simple as
| logic.
| lisper wrote:
| > the ad hominem fallacy, where we might trust a doctor just
| because they are a doctor
|
| That's not an ad hominem fallacy. At worst it's an argument
| from authority. Ad hominem is something like: the person
| advancing this argument has done something bad, therefore the
| argument they are advancing must be false (or the converse --
| the person advancing this argument has done something good,
| therefore the argument they are advancing must be true).
|
| An argument-from-authority fallacy is a kind of ad hominem,
| usually employed with respect to some third party not
| involved in the dispute: "This person has a credential, and
| they say X, therefore X must be true." The problem is that
| this might not be a fallacy depending on the specific
| credential and the value of X. If someone is a doctor, then
| what they have to say about medicine is actually more likely
| to be true than someone who is not, all else being equal.
| Asking your doctor for advice on how to fix your car, on the
| other hand, is something you probably ought to avoid, unless
| your doctor also happens to be into cars.
| [deleted]
| narrator wrote:
| The modern trend in political discussion is to ignore the
| finer points of the issue and just look at _who_ is backing
| what side of the argument. The finer points are only for
| properly accredited specialists debating in private so as to
| not confuse the public. One 's job as a member of the public
| is blind faith in their authorities and denigration of
| dissenters.
|
| However, the idea of a logical fallacy is one can take an
| argument apart and out it back together and identify bad
| arguments without relying on an authority figure's arbitrary
| pronouncements. If one reads a restaurant review and the
| reviewer said they didn't like the restaurant because some
| hated person said they liked the food there, we can easily
| conclude that this is the association fallacy at work and
| disregard that review. If we see 1000 1 star reviews because
| A Bad Person said he liked the food there, and we believe it,
| we are falling for the bandwagon effect fallacy, by a bunch
| of people who believed the association fallacy.
| chriswarbo wrote:
| > I find that the use of "logical fallacies" to be an
| intellectual smell as well.
|
| I find there's an over-obsession with logic in some
| discussions too; as in, ancient-greek-style modus ponens
| stuff. To me, that's not particularly interesting when it
| comes to the real world[1]; after all, logically-speaking we
| _could_ just be a brain in a jar, or whatever.
|
| An argument being "logical" (as in, not self-contradicting)
| is _not_ enough to make it credible; it 's just a very low
| bar, which lets us dismiss the most nonsensical claims
| quickly. Arguments which cross the "logical" bar should
| _also_ align with empirical evidence, have a likelihood that
| 's at least comparable to alternative explanations, etc.
|
| ---
|
| I don't think "conspiracy theory" has quite become a thought-
| terminating cliche yet. It can usefully describe a common
| failure-mode in thinking.
|
| In particular, conspiracy theories become less and less
| likely as they're inspected closer and closer; e.g. requiring
| even more people to be "in on it" (making it less likely to
| be kept secret), requiring ever-more elaborate epicycles to
| explain-away observations/experiments/events, etc. They can't
| be _disproved_ , but who cares? That's not a good enough
| reason, on its own, to affect anything.
|
| Another legitimate use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" is a
| particular case of "affirming the consequent" (i.e. getting
| implications the wrong way around). For example "if X is
| true, Y would make so much sense", where X is the
| "conspiracy" and Y is some well-known/self-evident fact about
| the world. This might be true, but the mistake is to treat Y
| as proof of X: this would give us "if X is true, Y would make
| so much sense, so X is true", which is an elaborate way of
| saying 'if X is true, X is true'. Here Y isn't actually proof
| of anything, it's just a _distraction_.[2]
|
| [1] In _artificial_ contexts, like mathematics and
| programming, I find logic to be fascinating and rich; e.g. I
| spent a _lot_ of time studying topics like type theory and
| co-induction at grad school!
|
| [2] The "logical fallacy" here is assuming (X -> Y) -> (Y ->
| X)
|
| PS: From a bayesian perspective, 'if X were true, Y would
| make so much sense' _is_ evidence for X. It 's not _proof_ ,
| but it makes X more likely (essentially by ruling-out the
| potential for Y to disprove X). However, (a) the change in
| likelihood depends on the prior probability, if X were wildly
| unlikely then such weak, indirect evidence cannot make up for
| that; and (b) this sort of nuance of probabilities is
| negligible compared to the wild chains of "logic" spewed by
| the conspiracy theorists I know.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > A crazy person also believes/believed X.
|
| This is more a form of spam filtering; given finite
| intellectual effort, strangers who talk about certain subjects
| get ruled out of consideration. Just as sending a lot of mail
| about Cialis will get your IP on a list.
| miteyironpaw wrote:
| Isn't spam filtering a large part of what these cliches are
| used for, or at least what the people using them think
| they're for? e.g. "That's just your opinion." "Now is not the
| time." "Here we go again."
| rspeele wrote:
| On the other end, how about:
|
| A. The mainstream media, M, is biased and sometimes delivers
| incomplete or inaccurate information. They tell
| $mainstream_story.
|
| B. Alternative source, A, rejects $mainstream_story and says
| that actually, $alternative_story is the truth.
|
| C. Any data M points to to debunk $alternative_story and
| support $mainstream_story is assumed to be fake or manipulated,
| because M lies.
|
| D. There is no need to apply the same skepticism to A and their
| arguments, because by going against M, they have already
| demonstrated that they are "good guys".
| potta_coffee wrote:
| This is why I trust precisely zero media.
| etchalon wrote:
| This is so very much a thing and I love how it's structured
| here.
| MarkLowenstein wrote:
| Whatever.
| still_grokking wrote:
| There is nothing to see here, please move on.
| kazinator wrote:
| Thought-terminating EE dad joke:
|
| If your thought bus isn't terminated, you will get unwanted
| reflection.
| Graziano_M wrote:
| Words are violence.
| HKH2 wrote:
| It's just a social construct.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| previous related discussion only 4 months ago:
|
| _What are some thought-terminating cliches in the software
| industry?_ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27012428
|
| and earlier only a year ago a few discussions:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23521426
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22722522
| motohagiography wrote:
| Was introduced to this concept some years ago, and have found
| since that challenging a thought-terminating cliche is seldom
| welcome. In group settings and often on teams, most people are
| content to be aligned to the perception of what represents power,
| with no thought as to whether it is moored to reality, truth, or
| has consistency with anything external. These cliches are a
| mechanism that facilitates that non-relationship to the world.
|
| A friend recently observed that he had more in common with people
| in his opposite political tribe than he did with ostensible
| centerists, and he said it was because the people on the other
| team also believed something, where the ones in the middle were
| in-effect, nihilists, or believing nothing. I mention it because
| when I thought of nihilisim, I always interpreted it as an active
| kind of anti-belief, or against all belief, instead of a bland
| passivity, detached from a moral anchor or foundation. For this
| kind of nihilist, the thought-terminating cliche is the necessary
| boundary of their ontology about the world. It's the person
| saying, "it is what it is," as they do horrible things. If you
| have ever spent time in bureaucracies, it is easy to see how a
| bunch of people trained to accept small injustices passively can
| be mobilized into an atrocity machine. They're "de-moralized,"
| which we misuse to describe frustrated efforts, when what it
| means is that by lacking roots to beliefs and replacing them with
| this thought-termination, they do not exercise moral agency.
| They're just following orders.
|
| I've concluded the cliches are worse than thought terminating,
| they are jingoistic slogans of nihilism people repeat to justify
| and release themselves from moral agency. All this is to say,
| it's an important concept. Thought-terminating cliches are the
| mental reference points for the origins of what we understand now
| as the banality of evil.
| inter_netuser wrote:
| "Thought-terminating cliches are the mental reference points
| for the origins of what we understand now as the banality of
| evil."
|
| there is research into this? how did we get from "zomg
| conspiracy" to "banality of evil"?
| herval wrote:
| Hannah Arendt said it in that very book:
|
| "[Eichmann] was genuinely incapable of uttering a single
| sentence that was not a cliche," and he used these cliches as
| a mental defense mechanism to avoid thinking about what he
| was doing for the Nazi Party."
|
| https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-
| terminating_clich%C3%A...
| ehnto wrote:
| I have noticed it's more prevalent in people with very strong
| routines, perhaps mundane jobs and a very structured life. I
| imagine it's because they've got strong incentive to maintain
| the status quo but they're also tired of talking about the same
| thing over and over, so they serve as social shortcuts to
| getting to a new topic (or getting you to go away).
|
| One other thing I see it used for is to divert from negative
| topics people are tired of re-hashing. Talking about drought in
| a farm town gets pretty tiresome as the months go on, that's
| when you start getting the "it is what it is" statements. They
| care really, they just gain nothing from talking about it
| constantly.
| darkerside wrote:
| I don't disagree with your principle. That said, we need to
| release ourselves from thoughts at times. We can adjudicate
| forever whether the blue you see is the same as the blue I see,
| or which is the superior potato chip, or whether to take the
| road less traveled or not. And if we remain locked in eternal
| debate, we end up like Sylvia Plath's protagonist, watching the
| figs shrivel up as life passes us by.
|
| People sometimes learn of Kahneman's system 1 and system 2
| thinking and decide it's a failure to ever use system 1. No!
| System 1 is used for most of our day, to free us up for the
| decisions that really matter. An underrated aspect of the art
| of making decisions is deciding which decisions to make
| deliberately.
| adamrezich wrote:
| disappointed to see 0 results for CTRL+F "emotion." it's not so
| much that the cliche "terminates your thought" these days as much
| as it is that it triggers a learned emotional response to the
| trigger stimuli that _then_ results in a cessation of any logical
| processing. when I first noticed this around 2016 I became very
| aware of it whenever I encounter it, and have since become aware
| of just how many of these trigger-responses I 've unwittingly
| learned over the years, leading me to do what I can to avoid this
| style of thinking.
| onoira wrote:
| > It's nothing personal.
|
| > I'm just saying.
|
| > No need to get defensive.
|
| > I never said I didn't like it.
| darkerside wrote:
| If you say so.
|
| Let's table it.
|
| Anyway.
|
| So... how about them Yankees?
| da_chicken wrote:
| I would say the most common one IT people would be familiar with
| is: "We've always done it this way."
| twic wrote:
| "It's best practice" might be even more lethal. Or "It's how
| Google do it" if you're in Silicon Valley.
| ballenf wrote:
| I thought it was "let's put it in the backlog".
| jacobsimon wrote:
| LOL
| maleldil wrote:
| To be fair, people don't often challenge that. I usually say
| "It's how I'm used to doing it, but I'd be happy to hear a
| better alternative". I don't think anyone ever offered one.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| the #1 thought-terminating cliche I see amongst reasonably
| intelligent people: conspiracy theory
|
| it's amazing how this phrase will shut down critical thought in
| otherwise smart folks
| ryandrake wrote:
| Critical thought requires falsifiability and evidence, but
| conspiracy theory only requires belief.
| still_grokking wrote:
| And here we go again...
|
| What you're talking about is actually the cliche of a
| "conspiracy theory".
|
| A lot of things that are called like that aren't anything one
| could call "a theory" at all. The point is: Any random BS
| claim isn't a conspiracy theory.
|
| A conspiracy theory is nothing more than speculating that
| some parties are working or worked together in secret
| (conspired) to achieve something. That's all. Such a theory
| can usually be falsified. (At least in theory).
|
| But there is this framing that "conspiracy theory" means some
| arbitrary BS. That's actually why labeling something as
| "conspiracy theory" immediately shouts down critical thought
| in a lot of folks. Just call something "conspiracy theory"
| and the cliche kicks in and people will dismiss that
| something as BS.
|
| By the way: The English version of the Wikipedia disagrees.
| But only the English version. I've also looked at Boarisch,
| Deutsch, Espanol, Francais, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski,
| Russkii. Only the English version adds that a conspiracy
| theory "is an explanation for an event or situation [...]
| when other explanations are more probable. The term has a
| negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a
| conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence."
| Should we proceed to construct a conspiracy theory form that
| observation? Someone got obviously their framing into
| Wikipedia!
| the_af wrote:
| I disagree that many conspiracy theories can be falsified.
| How often believers, when confronted with evidence, find it
| convincing and dismiss the conspiracy?
| still_grokking wrote:
| If you can present evidence you can prove or falsify it,
| right?
|
| So it's falsifiable. Otherwise you couldn't ever present
| any evidence.
|
| Whether someone is willing to believe in some evidence
| shown doesn't change anything about the fallibility
| property.
| the_af wrote:
| But a conspiracy theory is a social construct not subject
| to rational thought. The notion of falsifiability only
| makes sense in the context of a conversation between
| actors willing to accept this.
|
| The context of conspiracy theories is different. It's
| emotional. Goalposts get shifted, evidence is made up, no
| rational discourse possible.
|
| So they cannot be falsified.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| The topic isn't what your own personal definition of a
| "conspiracy theory" is.
|
| Rather it is whether the term "conspiracy theory" can be
| introduced into a conversation and terminate thinking.
| the_af wrote:
| The claim that calling something a conspiracy theory is
| _always_ done in order to shut down inconvenient or
| provocative conversations is, itself, a thought terminating
| cliche.
|
| "Someone called my rant a conspiracy theory, therefore I'm
| on to something!"
| inter_netuser wrote:
| Every scientific hypothesis starts without evidence.
|
| So it must be treated as "conspiracy", and not critical
| thought, according to you?
| coaksford wrote:
| Not being falsifiable and not having evidence aren't the
| same thing. Conspiracy theories are usually centrally
| dependent upon something that is both outlandish and
| impossible to disprove, or some reasoning that is
| constructed so that it cannot be disproved, as any effort
| to disprove it is undertaken by "them" by definition and is
| suspect because they're all in on it the conspiracy.
|
| There can be no evidence yet, it becomes a problem when
| unfalsifiability makes evidence irrelevant.
| rspeele wrote:
| Example of unfalsifiability:
|
| Alice: Trump won Georgia, but the Dominion voting
| machines flipped it. Look at how many votes came in for
| Biden late at night.
|
| Bob: It took a long time to finish counting the mail in
| ballots, and precincts report their results in large
| batches. Anyway, there was a hand recount of all the
| paper ballots that were scanned by the machines. If the
| machines had flipped votes, the paper ballots would still
| show the originals.
|
| Alice: Then the hand recount was faked.
|
| Bob: But observers from both parties were present for the
| recount. By this time the machine flip theory was
| widespread, so the Republican observers would be on high
| alert to make sure the recount is right.
|
| Alice: Those might not be real Republicans. Like the
| Secretary of State, they are probably RINOs. Plus the
| paper ballots themselves were fraudulent. The signatures
| were faked.
|
| Bob: So do you still think the Dominion machines did
| something wrong, or did they accurately scan the
| fraudulent paper ballots? Anyway, the state bureau of
| investigation did a signature audit in Cobb county and
| found no intentional fraud and only a couple of mistakes
| where somebody signed for their partner or something.
|
| Alice: The GBI is in on it. The fraud was really in
| Fulton county, so that's where they should've done the
| signature audit. Didn't you see that batch of secret
| ballots they hid under a table and pulled out when nobody
| was looking?
|
| Bob: The security camera footage shows that the ballots
| from under the table are the same ones that were opened
| from envelopes while the observers were watching. They
| were just the next batch waiting to be scanned, nothing
| abnormal about them. The state released the whole footage
| online, including the parts Trump's lawyers conveniently
| skipped past.
|
| Alice: I know it was stolen. The details of how they did
| it might never come out, but I can tell Trump really won.
| phaemon wrote:
| That is literally the opposite of how scientific hypotheses
| start.
|
| I'm guessing you're not a scientist.
| pfarrell wrote:
| Exactly. Most scientific hypotheses start after "hmm...
| that's weird."
| user-the-name wrote:
| Or, maybe you just believe in conspiracy theories that aren't
| worthy of anyone's attention.
| tptacek wrote:
| So basically, on message boards, the notion of a "Thought-
| Terminating Cliche" is deployed the same way "Logical
| Fallacies" are, to appeal to the celestial referees for a TKO
| in an argument. And in that sense, "Thought-Terminating Cliche"
| is itself a "Thought-Terminating Cliche", disappearing down its
| own throat uroborotically+. Neat!
|
| + _A term that now exists._
| still_grokking wrote:
| I would go even so far to say a thought-terminating cliche is
| always made up from some logical fallacies.
|
| Hard to think of an example that isn't.
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| I suppose the phrase can reflexive, although I have to admit
| this is the first time I had heard of the concept, and
| "cliche" appears to imply long-and-tired usage.
|
| It doesn't appear to be a common thought terminator,
| certainly not on the level of "conspiracy theory", the
| application of which we have seen, in both extreme and
| humorous terms, with respect to the covid lab-leak
| hypothesis, for example.
| ineptech wrote:
| I don't think this is a good example. If your position is, "We
| should do X because of Y" and I respond "conspiracy theory",
| I'm taking the position that Y is inaccurate. You could respond
| e.g. by citing evidence of it.
|
| If OTOH I respond, "Ah, it is what it is", I'm disagreeing that
| we should do X but without taking any position on Y or
| explaining why I disagree. That's what TFA is discussing - ways
| to weasel out of a discussion without being pinned down to a
| position or an argument.
| [deleted]
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's also amazing (but maybe not really surprising) that
| "conspiracy theory" isn't in the Wikipedia article. I wonder if
| someone tried to add it already.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Maybe "they" removed it...
| ilaksh wrote:
| If you have ever tried to edit something on Wikipedia, you
| will know that other people deleting your edits is not
| uncommon. Or a conspiracy theory. Anyone who uses that word
| might have felt like they needed to delete it from the
| article.
| ilaksh wrote:
| This is a previous version where it was in there.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thought-
| terminati...
|
| And the last entry in Talk is about how it was removed.
| still_grokking wrote:
| I've upvoted the grandparent as I though "nice joke".
| Than I've read your comment...
|
| There seems to be a reframing of the term "conspiracy
| theory" going on right now. I've noticed also something
| odd:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28251945
| dang wrote:
| The examples they do give are all bland and unprovocative.
| There are many more, of course.
| bitwize wrote:
| This is because Wikipedia itself uses "conspiracy theory" to
| flag ideas its editorship deems should not be taken
| seriously.
| hume_annoyed wrote:
| FYI "You're overthinking this" is given as if in advice, but it
| only means 'I am bored, not committed, and/or no longer
| listening'.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I think it's quite a rude and disrespectful phrase.
| [deleted]
| d883kd8 wrote:
| "you're underthinking it"
|
| "no, I'm thinking the right amount"
| okareaman wrote:
| One I see a lot of these days is "An X would say that" as in "a
| MAGA Trump supporter would say that" or "a far left liberal would
| say that" implying that whatever was said was made up dogma with
| no basis in reality.
| [deleted]
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| My all time favorite: "you'll understand when you will be X"
|
| At the beginning, I really took it at face value, and patiently
| waited until I was X. Older. In a relationship. Having my own
| business.
|
| I was very naive, I though people shared experience and knew
| something about life. Every time I ended up being disappointed
| when reaching the point X actually prove the other side was full
| of crap.
|
| I didn't understand that it was only a way to stop the
| conversation. It had nothing to do with logic, it's a matter of
| saving face, getting out of a boring interaction, or about power.
|
| A lot of human interactions are like that: if you think people
| means what they say, you are misunderstanding the communication.
| I used to take so many things literally, I though people chose
| their words for their dictionary sense. Turns out only a small
| part of communication is actually about the literal sense of
| words, like technical documentation or giving direction to reach
| the bakery, which I'm good at.
|
| It's also a fact that is obvious to most humans, although they
| are mostly oblivious to their own fluency, since it's as
| transparent as walking to them. People on the autistic spectrum,
| however, need to figure it out.
|
| But don't worry, you'll understand it all when you will be Z.
| jka wrote:
| If threads of conversation were series of git commits, then the
| way to avoid these would be to stop, apply revert(s), and then
| resume from the previous good-faith, high-value commit.
|
| Sadly that's not particularly applicable to linear time-based
| human conversation, and people exploit that in meetings and other
| environments to sidetrack, limit and shut down discussion (while
| it's also true that some tangents are _introduced_ to achieve
| similar ends).
|
| Are there good strategies to 'roll back' while maintaining
| composure and context during important conversations? Or is it
| necessary to move the conversations to other (threaded, for
| example) mediums?
| ilaksh wrote:
| Good point. My impression is that it comes down to things like
| hierarchy, tact, charisma, political acumen. And if someone is
| deliberately derailing, there might not be an indirect strategy
| that's effective. You may simply have to bring it up again
| explicitly.
|
| And personally I think that if it's clear someone is
| interfering then it may be necessary and advisable to call them
| out on it depending on the urgency. But it's not a minor issue.
| Something like that can absolutely kill a project or your
| career.
|
| My belief is that they only way to really be free of that is to
| have the ability to fire people who do too much politicking or
| whatever. Such as being the boss.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > You may simply have to bring it up again explicitly.
|
| Depending on the circumstances, it might be possible to bring
| up the issue later via email or a group chat, saying
| something like "One idea from the meeting which I think
| wasn't fully explored was...".
|
| For in-person meetings, though, I think that we can probably
| learn a lot from the rules of order used in places like
| parliaments and courts, where discussions are deliberately
| arranged to be turn-based, with an ostensibly neutral party
| (the speaker or the judge) who guides proceedings but isn't
| an active participant in the flow of dialogue.
| darkerside wrote:
| I don't know about strategies, but I think the key principle is
| not to take it personally. It can be difficult when someone is
| dismissive of something you think is important, but hanlon's
| razor suggests that you take it as me ignorance. Recognize that
| this conversation is your opportunity to open their eyes to why
| something you care about is important.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-20 23:01 UTC)