Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Do You Believe That No One Else Here Does?
Peter Thiel is well-known for asking this question in interviews:
PETER THIEL: The intellectual question that I ask at the start of my book is, “Tell me something that’s true that very few people agree with you on.” This is a terrific interview question. Even when people can read on the Internet that you’re going to ask this question to everybody you interview, they still find it really hard to answer. And it’s hard to answer not because people don’t have any ideas. Everyone has ideas. Everyone has things they believe to be true that other people won’t agree with you on. But they’re not things you want to say.
He himself was unforthcoming when asked the question, though:
TYLER COWEN: Peter, tell me something that’s true that everyone agrees with you on.
PETER THIEL: Well there are lots of things that are true that everyone agrees with me on. I think for example even this idea that the university system is somewhat screwed up and somewhat broken at this point. This is not even a heterodox or a very controversial idea anymore. There was an article in TechCrunch where the writer starts with “this is going to be super controversial” and then you look through the comments — there were about 350 comments — they were about 70 percent in my favor. So the idea that the education system is badly broken is not even controversial. You know, the ideas that are really controversial are the ones I don’t even want to tell you. I want to be more careful than that.
So what do you believe that puts you at odds with everyone else? What do you believe that puts you at odds with Ricochet, in particular?
Published in General
We should have nuked Moscow after Japan surrendered in 1945.
Not baiting, but I won’t go into detail either. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about the gays.
I think conventional weapons would have sufficed, but I don’t know force strength of the Soviet army at that point well enough to say it with confidence.
Why would a first-century chronicler mention Jesus? Unless he was a Christian believer, he would think Jesus was just the founder of just another cult among a multitude of cults. It’s remarkable that he would receive any attention from pagans and atheists before Christianity became common enough to attract the attention of Roman rulers.
Thanks, but my concerns extend beyond my own safety.
Why would a 20th century chronicler mention L. Ron Hubbard?
Josephus was of Jewish origin, writing a history of the Jews, and Jesus was a recent phenomenon among the Jews at the time he wrote. Why wouldn’t he mention him?
I completely agree. The world would be a better place if everyone had to do what I say.
I believe that all forms of welfare can be adequately and reliably provided through non-government organizations and cultural mores. That includes medical care, assistance for the unemployed, education, and retirement assistance, among others.
It’s in passing. You’d be shocked how many minor events are recorded by historians.
Do you define rational behavior as people acting like people?
Here is an example: following the herd is a very common human shortcut. So is valuing risk much more than reward. Both are irrational, though useful rules of thumb.
Human nature always trends, in the absence of an imposed legal system, toward Might Makes Right. Human nature does not, naturally, ever consider other people to be as important as oneself.
Let’s keep this thread light and fun, Senik. No need for blasphemy.
Cato, Jesus was one of many supposed blasphemers and false prophets of that age. Maybe you’re right that He would attract special attention from Josephus, but I don’t think that’s a certainty.
But I am not well versed in those early histories.
That’s is most definitely *NOT* what I said…
Can I change my Ricochet name to Neo?
On a more serious note — how could we distinguish between a universe that is a “computer simulation” and a universe that is an expression of the mind of God? Frank Herbert’s Destination: Void series addresses this.
Well, there you go. I’m at odds with this statement!
I’m not sure what you’re asking. You said people are irrational. Unless you know what is rational, you cannot know people are irrational. But if you yourself are people, so to speak, then being rational is part of human things, as is being irrational. That raises questions, don’t it?
Would you say your rationality is proof that you’re unnatural or would you say rationality is part of human nature?
To explain why I say I did not understand your question–what do you mean these kinds of doings are irrational?
There’s an obvious counter-example: Mothers sacrificing for their children.
I haven’t read the entire text either, but I do understand that his mention of Jesus was a cursory one — enough to provide evidence that Jesus was a real person but not enough to suggest that Josephus thought he was a big deal. Given the scope of Josephus’ undertaking, and the recency of Jesus’s public life and execution at the time of his writing, that doesn’t seem out of place to me.
I believe that God, Satan, angels, and demons are active in the world on a daily basis. I believe that miracles occur every day.
More exceptionally, I believe that miracles are not unnatural suspensions of God’s design. God is omniscient and eternal (beyond the constraints of time), and thus is not surprised by human choices or events. Miracles are part of the design. The “laws” of nature describe the regular but not necessary relationships among God’s creations.
Should probably be its own thread.
Good idea for a post. This would interest many Ricochetti.
I believe that the FDA has been made unnecessary by modern communication technologies and services.
It is now possible to research any product, company, or person across state and even national boundaries. Modern citizens have the tools to make informed decisions.
Therefore, the FDA should be eliminated… or at least reduced to an advisory role without the authority to ban anything.
Yes
Sports, like most of life, benefits from comparative advantage. If every ninth batter is going to be someone with a .165 batting average, I’d just assume we pick someone at random out of the stands.
Not at all.
A person will pick up a dollar he drops, but usually won’t pick up the same money that he finds. Both are the SAME economic decision, but people “value” the loss of $1 more than the gain of the same sum. This is not logical.
Engineers always minimize risk (look at risk matrices). They rarely, if ever, do the same for reward.
Expected Value, which is purely logical, is almost never actually practiced. Why? People make decisions for other reasons besides their oft-stated goal of gain.
I am not necessarily more rational than others. My claim is that I am at least mildly self-aware of ways in which I choose not to behave logically. But it makes a huge difference.
Great changes that way lie-
At the moment, the Phillies have the lowest team batting average. How about, when the Phillies play the Padres, we sub in Toronto to make the game more interesting?
What was that you were saying about reeducation camps?
And how many important ones are ignored.
I guess that puts you on the side of hard-working pimps everywhere. ;)
NASA should be eliminated or privatized.
Our military needs a space program. Its goals might even include defense against meteors. But space exploration can and should be funded privately.
While we’re at it, most funding of research should be privatized. Patronage works… and introduces no more bias than government funding.