I’ve seen this problem in my “Three Wishes” threads in IMHO. Rather than accept the very simple hypotheticals, some have tried to change them to fit the hypothetical they want to answer, some keep looking for “Monkey’s Paw” type tricks(although I have stated that there are no secret bad effects to any of the wishes), and some have chimed in just to say that they didn’t intent to participate.
A hypothetical so tight that it pretty much shuts out all but one possible response may be rightly denounced for that, as well.
Heh, yes. Unable to believe a hypothetical was formulated in good faith.
Of course, if faced with an actual genie or with Satan wielding a pen and a dotted line, you would be wise to try and figure out what’s the catch…
I don’t think this is perfectly valid, though. Or it depends, at least. A hypothetical, even an implausible one, can be a good thought experiment if it’s to isolate a particular aspect of a circumstance to see how it might shine a light on some nuance not possible outside the hypothetical.
For example, “Would a madman like Hitler use the A-bomb if there was no other possible option for victory?” Or, if you accept that as a given, to explore what the impact would have been had he utilized it, would such a powerful weapon be impossible to counter–i.e., “What would have been the outcome of Hitler using the A-bomb if his scientific community had delivered a limited nuclear option on [pick a key date]?”
I’m not saying either are particularly interesting hypotheticals. But I am saying a response that points out that Hitler’s guys could not and did not produce A-bombs, and they would not have been able to without a whole of of historical changes, is kind of a “no shit” contribution. I don’t see how it’s different than saying, “Nobody can change the whole world’s skin color to the exact same shade of blue.” Duh.
In a recent GD hypothetical I put forth that everyone in the world suddenly acquired line-of-sight single person on demand telepathy…and someone posted that they couldn’t go with the scenario because it was impossible for everybody to have this telepathy, because it would just be another sense and there’s always somebody who would be lacking in one of the senses. I of course pointed out the the greater impossibility would be the telepathy itself, but this poster just couldn’t play with the hypothetical as it was put forth.
They’re attempting to show everyone that they’re smarter than the OP and his/her silly hypothetical (and yet not smart enough to ignore the silly hypothetical and just not post anything).
Suppose there was a universe where there were no hypotheticals. How would the discussion happen then?
Regards,
Shodan
Easy-It wouldn’t happen at all.
Don’t resist.
Regards,
Shodan
Are you accusing me of thread-shitting or doing something that wasn’t appropriate for that thread?
When it was clear you didn’t want to delve into the possibility that I offered up, I didn’t return. Because I didn’t want to be accused of hijacking. Was bailing out bad form too? It seems like you just wanted people to say “yeah, universal telepathy would be horrible, dude!” and you designed a hypothetical that would ensure this response. But that makes for a pretty boring discussion, IMHO.
I fail to see why my two posts in your thread would even merit a raise of an eyebrow, let alone a whiny mention in another thread.
I don’t mind hypotheticals. But I hate hypotheticals that are so contrived that their conclusions are self-evident. Real-world scenarios are rarely so black-and-white. There’s always going to be an exception to a rule…and it is often the exception that ends up being important in the end. For instance, if someone creates a hypothetical world where there is a race of humans that tends to skew low on intelligence and then asks if discrimination against them is justified, it’s going to be a pretty boring discussion if the OP doesn’t allow for some “extreme” cases at the upper end–members of Dumb Race whose intelligence is indistinguishable from the mainstream. If they rule out this possibility, then they’re basically making the problem they pose not a problem at all. You can’t have a good debate if you don’t have a problem. You just have navel-gazing.
So to answer the OP, a person may rebel against the conditions of a hypothetical when they feel like those conditions impede an intelligent discussion, and yet they don’t want to ignore the thread because they are still interested in the basic premise.
No-I am saying that you couldn’t handle the hypothetical as written.
What you read into it just wasn’t there, and the conversation is going just fine. In fact, I have disagreed with a couple of responses that promised “doom and gloom” because they didn’t follow the OP.
It got mentioned because it was a good example of what the topic of this thread is about. Your name didn’t get mentioned because it wasn’t a major thing.
Exactly. This happens with a lot of hypotheticals around here. Sure, you could make a moderately reasonable case for “B” or “C,” but they’re usually so tightly constructed that the only correct answer has to be “A.” Or, someone puts forward “B” or “C” and the OP comes back and changes the hypothetical, making “A” the only reasonable answer.
For examples, check out a lot of Skald’s hypotheticals. Especially his recent one about the close siblings, the jerkish husband, and the lottery win.
[Jack Nicholson]YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE HYPOTHETICAL![/Jack Nicholson]
But seriously, that’s a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Telepathy itself is an impossible idea, but if you want to have an interesting discussion about it, it’s helpful to pare away as many impossibilities as you can. If everyone became telepathic, there would presumably be a biological explanation for it, and if there’s a biological explanation for it, there’s going to be some percentage of humans for whom the biology doesn’t work right. Introducing the idea of a disabled minority who is not telepathic is not fighting the hypothetical, it’s elaborating on it. It’s taking a vague concept, and adding finer detail to it.
Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
I think that particular thread went pretty well without the (in my opinion) unneeded variables that others tried to insert.
Yes, but it could have gone better.