
Let’s insulate ourselves from the delusional masses by forming coalitions - dennis_jeeves
(Obviously) Since you are reading this you probably know what I’m getting at. People who are grounded in reality ( according to my definition of course) are rare and may often be lost among the sea of the deluded masses. So this post of mine is an attempt to gather people who are like-minded.( people who I deem to be grounded in reality through my own colored lens of the world). The idea is to form mutually beneficial alliances in this insane world. Right now this process of forming alliances is somewhat unplanned and subject to chance events(you meet&#x2F;know someone reasonable at school, work etc.). I&#x27;m hoping to cast the net wide by leveraging the internet. As to what exactly should the alliance be, or what it hopes to achieve is something to be discussed (though I have some concrete preliminary thoughts).<p>How to start: Email me your core beliefs ( though I personally prefer a voice chat with on Skype, google hangouts etc.), especially the beliefs where you think you differ fundamentally from the vast majority of people. I will quiz you on various subjects ( and so can you) to see if our beliefs align. Overall my beliefs can be loosely labeled as: generally anarchist (i.e a live and let live approach), generally anti-authoritarian ( meaning I believe govt&#x2F;authorities do not protect your interests), largely capitalist( i.e vehemently opposed to coercive co-operation, put forth by typical socialism) etc. Perhaps at the bare minimum we have to share a meta belief that it is necessary to reach out and cooperate with other like minded individuals as it is virtually impossible to &#x27;de-delude&#x27; the idiotic masses though arguments&#x2F;dialogs etc. My email address can be found on my profile. In my profile you will also find a link to some webpages that outline my beliefs.<p>After this step, if we think our beliefs align, I will add you to an an online forum ( zero people as of now) , where you can interact with other people that I will be screening.<p>Caveats:<p>-It often takes a very long time ( months to years) to form mutually beneficial alliances. ( more so when individuals are geographically isolated from each other.) This is not a quick fix for your immediate problems, or for people without perseverance.<p>-The online forum is not to rant against the world, or a place to discuss your core beliefs. This is more of a place for doers not ivory tower thinkers.<p>Side note: It’s really hard to for me to believe that someone else is not doing this ( i.e what I’m attempting in this post) already somewhere. Let me know if you are aware of similar efforts, I would be eager to join.
======
hilbert42
I agree with you and your idea makes much sense. I've been thinking about how
beneficial alliances could be implemented in a number of fields for some years
and have wondered why it hasn't happened on a big scale before this.

That said, I would love to chat, form alliances etc. with you and others but I
would not do it on Skype or on any Google platform/medium and or Facebook etc.
for the very reasons that you are talking about. For starters, I no longer use
Skype and I don't even have a Google account let alone use any of their
services.

Communications would have to be on Tox or some other peer-to-peer
communications system that cannot be corrupted by these new owners of the
internet. Using any of their services would only aid and abet the problems
we're having or trying to solve. In my opinion an independent communications
framework must be prerequisite and in place before any proper dialog can take
place.

Incidentally, I'm one of those people who use rooted smartphones _without_
Google Play Services or any other Google service installed; that's to say I
practice what I preach.

~~~
dennis_jeeves
>I've been thinking about how beneficial alliances could be implemented in a
number of fields for some years and have wondered why it hasn't happened on a
big scale before this.

Well I think there are a number of factors at play here. For one, most
reasonable ( and who are grounded in reality) people actually think they can
have a dialog with people who are delusional. They do not recognize that low
IQ is a formidable barrier. They confuse not having a dialog with being the
hardline right-wing types. They confuse low IQ with merely being ignorant.
Essentially they squander their efforts in trying to 'convince' ordinary
people. ( not saying there is no value to it, after all that is what marketing
is)

As to why it has not happens on large scale - well consider my post for
example - that also requires some thick skin to put it out there.

>Communications would have to be on Tox or some other peer-to-peer
communications system that cannot be corrupted by these new owners of the
internet.

Ok, give me links and ids. I've never used Tox( Ofcourse I will do a search
for Tox right after I type this post this message)

>Using any of their services would only aid and abet the problems we're having
or trying to solve. In my opinion an independent communications framework must
be prerequisite and in place before any proper dialog can take place.

Agreed.

~~~
hilbert42
1\. Give me a while to think about it. I don't use Tox much but I could easily
resurrect it (it's installed on this PC but I'd likely create another user
account first specifically for the purpose). Tox was only my passing
suggestion, other peer-to-peer services may be better or have better software
(and Tox isn't updated much although it seems to work reasonably well).
Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what others have to recommend.

2\. Re comment about IQ etc. I cannot paraphrase this or give an adequate
reply here without sounding pompous and elitist (which I reckon I'm not); to
do so would take me many pages to ensure anything I said wasn't misinterpreted
or could be easily taken out of context. Nevertheless, at the risk of using a
now overly hackneyed reference together with insufficient supporting argument,
what I will say is that for many who I've encountered the Dunning-Kruger
effect is very evident.

I've some quite intelligent friends and acquaintances with whom I just cannot
discuss certain subjects because their views and beliefs about them are so
locked-in that they consider them inviolate—even though their views about said
matters are clearly wrong. Discussing these matters with them is clearly a
waste of time. These days, the tragedy is that so few are taught argument and
formal logic when they're young enough so as to get into the habit of
regularly questioning and testing their beliefs with others and against
external evidence. If anything, I'm too much the opposite, I overly question
my stance or beliefs on too many things and that too can be a hindrance.

Excluding people from a discussion because their views are wrong or they're
cognitively inflexible is both a delicate and complex problem, especially so
if one believes that everyone deserves a fair hearing (which is essentially
what I believe). One of the problems that we have these days is that many
believe they are not listened to by elites/governments etc. and I reckon this
is true. The trouble is that the internet and social media have made matters
worse so how one develops channels of communication among like-minded people
and not be seen as elitist, thus exacerbating the matter is a delicate
problem, and I'm not sure I've an answer that's better than anyone else.

What I've said above is somewhat clumsy, which is what happens when one tries
to oversimplify an argument, nevertheless you'll get the gist of what I mean.

3\. For various reasons, I've not much time to devote to such things nor am I
all that regular as a correspondent but that could also be said about many.
It's why discussions groups should be as wide and flexible as is practicable
but still be kept strictly on topic. That's why a good but fair moderator is
needed.

~~~
dennis_jeeves
>Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what others have to recommend.

If by 'others', you mean people who might chime into this post, I can be
fairly certain that not many are going to respond. ( I will be repeating this
post over several months, even one person vaguely interested in about 10
repeat postings will be an excellent hit rate). Personally my suggestion would
be to go with some ordinary forum and then switch to a more secure one once
the topic is deemed too sensitive.

>These days, the tragedy is that so few are taught argument and formal logic
when they're young enough so as to get into the habit of regularly questioning
and testing their beliefs with others and against external evidence.

For most part you cannot teach ( most) people to be questioning of their
beliefs for the very simple reason that they cannot take on that additional
cognitive load. It's is significantly easier for most people to navigate life
with a set predetermined of beliefs on autopilot

>I overly question my stance or beliefs on too many things and that too can be
a hindrance.

Precisely. If you a guy with an above average IQ has a problem ( Yes I read
through your past posts ), what can you expect ordinary people to do?

> It's why discussions groups should be as wide and flexible as is practicable
> but still be kept strictly on topic. That's why a good but fair moderator is
> needed.

My guess is that with most 'well' functioning groups even a moderator is not
often needed. What I have noticed that when there are calls for banning a
person, the person is usually way off topic/rambling incoherently and is a
prolific poster. Of course the people who oppose the ban are very pro-freedom
of speech and this is where the contention comes in. But there are ways of
solving it. ( It's going to be too long a post if I attempt to fully address
it)

>What I've said above is somewhat clumsy, which is what happens when one tries
to oversimplify an argument, nevertheless you'll get the gist of what I mean.

I do. You can generally be assured that I will not jump to conclusions, I will
explicitly ask if in doubt. My larger point though is that if you find
yourself worrying about being mis-interpreted then, if possible you should
avoid that individual altogether, or just take a stand of not speaking up. (
like I often do at my work place). Anyway I read through some of your past
posts and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I need not even ask
you about your beliefs, you appear well above the threshold of dealability as
far as I'm concerned. Not saying that there won't be minor differences, but I
don't see fundamental differences either. ( I was pleasantly suprised that you
knew about thalidomide, not may on HN would even have heard of it)

