> Not really, It would serve no purpose, only the people who agree with it will agree with the system that outputs "their truth".
Does this not assume that people's minds cannot be changed? I understand the generalization you're making and very much agree with it, but I suspect we differ greatly on the underlying causality.
> I dont think the goal should be such a system because I think is will be flawed no matter what...
Is "perfect is the enemy of good" relevant here, and perhaps also "perception is reality", and some others?
> and also because I think people should be triggered to think and not feed with simplified "facts".
100% agree. A proper system would have numerous goals and features, I imagine you can think of many that I overlook (despite how much more time I've spent thinking about this problem).
> People would also do better if they stop caring about a lot of "garbage" facts they get feed every day if they would actually need to think and build an opinion on something.
This is a fine idea - how might one cause (force) such ideas to manifest in physical reality?
> Instead they get a opinion presented and either take it or reject it based on bias mostly.
Under the current system, agreed.
> This is not useful.
That depends on one's perspective, goals, etc - it is immensely useful to some people.
> It would be better if a person who's not sufficiently interested in the topic simply does not have an opinion on it. At least if at a later point he gets interested he would then not be preoccupied by past "copied/rejected opinions". Many people today have very strong opinion on very irrelevant topics and can hardly reason their stance because it dint "grew" in them it was mostly planted/absorbed from media.
Agree again - so, what can be done to alter this state of affairs? What is the most efficient approach that can be devised and implemented (and, how might one go about that)?
The lack of systems & logical thinking on HN when it comes to certain topics is an extremely interesting phenomenon to me, what do you think?
Does this not assume that people's minds cannot be changed? I understand the generalization you're making and very much agree with it, but I suspect we differ greatly on the underlying causality.
> I dont think the goal should be such a system because I think is will be flawed no matter what...
Is "perfect is the enemy of good" relevant here, and perhaps also "perception is reality", and some others?
> and also because I think people should be triggered to think and not feed with simplified "facts".
100% agree. A proper system would have numerous goals and features, I imagine you can think of many that I overlook (despite how much more time I've spent thinking about this problem).
> People would also do better if they stop caring about a lot of "garbage" facts they get feed every day if they would actually need to think and build an opinion on something.
This is a fine idea - how might one cause (force) such ideas to manifest in physical reality?
> Instead they get a opinion presented and either take it or reject it based on bias mostly.
Under the current system, agreed.
> This is not useful.
That depends on one's perspective, goals, etc - it is immensely useful to some people.
> It would be better if a person who's not sufficiently interested in the topic simply does not have an opinion on it. At least if at a later point he gets interested he would then not be preoccupied by past "copied/rejected opinions". Many people today have very strong opinion on very irrelevant topics and can hardly reason their stance because it dint "grew" in them it was mostly planted/absorbed from media.
Agree again - so, what can be done to alter this state of affairs? What is the most efficient approach that can be devised and implemented (and, how might one go about that)?
The lack of systems & logical thinking on HN when it comes to certain topics is an extremely interesting phenomenon to me, what do you think?