思考与写作paulgraham.com编辑精选
你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
2014 — 2022，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。他提出一个自测：如果你没有任何不敢在同伴面前表达的想法，很可能你只是在随大流；并建议像时间旅行者一样，留意当下哪些观点会被未来视为禁忌。文章还讨论了如何寻找这类'异端'思想，以及独立思考的价值。
为什么经久不衰：它把'独立思考'变成可操作的自检方法，跨越近二十年仍被反复讨论，每次舆论环境变化都会被重新翻出对照。
HN 评论精选
用'地图防伪错误'的类比说明：观点与主流完全一致往往意味着随大流而非独立思考。
先做个测试：你有没有在同龄人面前不愿表达的观点？如果答案是没有，你该停下来想想——如果你相信的一切都是'你应该相信的'，这会是巧合吗？地图绘制者会故意在地图上留下小错误以识别抄袭者；如果你的观点和当下'正确答案'完全一致，很可能你只是在照搬。当然也存在另一种可能：你独立思考后恰好得出和主流相同的结论，但这不太可能，因为那意味着你也得犯同样的错误。
mef查看英文原文
Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers? If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think whatever you're told. The other alternative would be that you independently considered every question and came up with the exact same answers that are now considered acceptable. That seems unlikely, because you'd also have to make the same mistakes. Mapmakers deliberately put slight mistakes in their maps so they can tell when someone copies them. If another map has the same mistake, that's very convincing evidence. Is it a possibility that someone has controversial opinions but could be unafraid of expressing them to a group of peers?
反驳文章：正统观念有协调价值，多数异端确实错误，不应为标新立异而异端。
15 年后重读，详尽定义'异端'这个老话题显得乏味了。大多数对异端的颂扬忽略了一点：正统有其价值——协调。多数'异端'其实是真的错了；为异端而异端，而非结合求真与同理心，这些年来纵容了不少恶棍和骗子。科技文化需要对此有更细致的看法。真正有影响力的异端会做艰苦的工作，帮助正统世界适应他们的发现。
evrydayhustling查看英文原文
I'd like to think that, like opening paragraph brings up, this piece is an old snapshot that brings some embarrassment today. At the time it was posted I would have been excited about it. 15 years later, indulgently and exhaustively defining the well worn subject of heresy feels pretty dull. Like most celebrations of heresy, this skips the fact that orthodoxy has its own value: coordination. Parents teach their kids to avoid bad words so that they can coordinate with others. This is not a bad thing. A better thing still is for kids to understand that words aren't inherently bad but that being conscious of how others feel about them is good. The impactful heretics do the hard work of helping the orthodox world adapt to what they have discovered. And meanwhile, the vast majority of heresies are authentically wrong. Celebrating being heretical for its own sake, rather than a combination of truth seeking and empathy, had enabled all manner of jerks and frauds over the years. Tech culture needs a more nuanced view of this topic.
按文章思路列举自己预测的'未来禁忌'：监狱、吃肉、禁止安乐死。
我认为未来社会会谴责我们的事：1. 监狱——现代刑罚重惩罚轻改造，随着对大脑的理解加深，暴力行为的成因或可治愈，惩罚将显得残忍；2. 吃肉——大多数动物能像我们一样感受痛苦，廉价人造肉可能是改变的先决条件；3. 禁止老人和绝症患者的安乐死。这三件事可能共享同一个根源。
ggreer查看英文原文
Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty animals can suffer just as much as we can. They have desires and kin. Some even mourn the passing of their brethren. But few eyes are batted when our microencephalized cousins are abused and killed by the billions. Cheap in-vitro meat is probably a prerequisite for this change. 3. Banning assisted suicide for the elderly and terminally ill. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/ I doubt I'll be right on all of these, but I'm hopeful. Now for something I really can't say: I think all three of these atrocities share a root cause. Some of you will probably guess what I'm getting at.
引用波普尔'宽容悖论'，对文章的立场提出经典制衡。
引用波普尔《开放社会及其敌人》(1945)：无限宽容必然导致宽容的消失。如果我们对不宽容者也无限宽容，宽容的社会将被摧毁。但只要还能用理性论证对抗他们，就不应压制；只是必须保留在必要时压制的权利——因为对方可能拒绝理性辩论，而教唆追随者用拳头和手枪回答问题。
kaens查看英文原文
> Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. > In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. - Karl Popper, Open Society and it's Enemies, 1945
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选Fast：那些被做得极快的事物
Fast
Patrick Collison 整理的 Fast 清单，罗列历史上在极短时间内完成的大型项目与成就，包括阿拉斯加公路、阿波罗计划、JavaScript 原型等。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2019–2025patrickcollison.com编辑精选