Friends keep pointing out to me that they regularly come across my comments on social media such as LinkedIn, which they would like to read because of their “spice”. By spice, they mean my responses that take some posters to task or critically, sometimes even sacrilegiously, examine their claims.

I’m sure not everyone likes my comments, and sarcasm isn’t always the best form of response, but there is a certain system behind my reactions. There are certain types of comments that trigger me.

Those who know me know that I am quite open to many new technologies. First of all, I try to understand how they work and what opportunities and possibilities they offer. This is a very difficult task that the best minds cannot predict exactly. Even Steve Jobs, when he introduced the iPhone in 2007, didn’t demonstrate anything significantly new. Reading emails, taking a photo, reading a New York Times article, deleting a contact, answering a call. No Tinder, no Google Maps, no restaurant review on Yelp, no video game, no jogging app or operating a drone.

It is quite difficult to identify these possibilities. However, it is much easier to find the fly in the ointment. All the possible dangers and risks, even if they never materialized in hindsight. I don’t want to minimize the sense of some technologies (for me, for example, everything that revolves around cryptocurrencies) and risks, because nobody wants to be harmed. But, as Jony Ive said, an idea is so fragile to begin with that you have to protect it.

What types of contributions on technologies and their effects trigger me to write “spicy” comments? There are three general criteria that must occur in this combination and serve as a basis for me:

• Arrogance
• Ignorance
• Egoismus

Here is an incomplete list of different types:

Type 1: Absolute Assertions

There are people who are so sure of their knowledge that they make absolute assertions. 2+2=4. That is certain knowledge. But what about knowledge that is not certain, especially knowledge that is not in the past or present? We know that predictions are difficult, especially when it comes to the future. That’s why I often take a dim view of claims about technologies that shine with absolute certainty about their future development. Especially when similar claims are handed down from history, which then very quickly turn out to be just as absolutely wrong.

Here is a first example:

None of the people reading this will ever be able to drive any distance in their “autonomous” vehicle in their lifetime. – Michael Feiten

On the one hand, this assertion came, as is often the case, without being backed up by factual arguments. It was not enumerated what the reasons for this are. On the other hand, this assertion comes with a certainty that leaves no doubt about this result. No cautious “I believe that…” or “I am skeptical, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise”.

Another example was given to me at the Technical University of Munich when I spoke about autonomous cars there in 2019. A TU Munich physics graduate said,

I own a hut in the Bavarian Alps. There is 10 kilometers of snow there in winter. An autonomous car will never be able to drive this distance.

Mind you, this was in 2019, the year in which we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the moon landing and the year in which the Voyager 2 probe became the second probe to enter interstellar space. But an autonomous car will never be able to drive 10 kilometers in the snow.

Absolute assertions about what a machine can or should, or cannot or should not, come in all shades. As here in this example:

Moreover, in my opinion, nursing is a highly skilled job that no machine can or should do.

Comments that generalize so-called anecdotal evidence, which in many cases is false or greatly exaggerated, are no better.

A friend drove an electric car and has since developed testicular cancer due to the electric field.

There are many absolute claims from history, some of which very quickly turned out to be false, like this one:

• On October 9, 1903, an editorial in the New York Times claimed that flying machines would not exist for another one to 10 million years. On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers made the first flight in Kitty Hawk.
• In February 2023, GPT 3.5 failed the Bavarian high school graduation. In May 2023, GPT 4.0 passed the Bavarian high school graduation with flying colors.
• Until recently, everyone thought that driverless cars would only exist in 10 or 20 years or never. In the meantime, I have ridden more than 200 times in driverless cars in San Francisco. There are also driverless cars in Phoenix, Austin, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, etc.

Type 2: Everything Used to be Better

A study from 1997 showed that unpleasant memories fade more quickly over time than pleasant ones. The researchers explain this with a self-protection mechanism that prevents us from getting too stuck in negative memories. This nostalgia for the past is often in stark contrast to the reality of the present.

Here is an example of how this argument is made by biomedical scientist Hannah Samira Schmidt in a LinkedIn post:

Organic food didn’t used to be called “organic”.
It was just food.
Free-range eggs and poultry didn’t used to be called free-range.
They were just eggs and poultry.
[…] Can we please let nature do its thing again?
– Hannah Samira Schmidt

I wrote a longer reply to this specific post – which triggered me because of the lack of historical factual knowledge – which reveals the absurdity of this wish.

Type 3: Regulars’ Table Knowledge

“Prejudices are practical because they help us to quickly categorize people or experiences,” they say.

The unknown evokes fear and anxiety, or at least caution. Because that helped us as humans to survive. Those who tasted new things or approached new things without knowing the dangers were more likely to die. Genetically, the fear of new things was therefore passed on to us.

No wonder that such “knowledge” is passed on at the regulars’ table.

• You freeze to death in electric cars in winter traffic jams (see myths)
• “Infrasound” from wind turbines causes damage
• Lithium mining requires too much water (see myths)
• Cell phone masts spread COVID

This type of argument has not just been around since today. Here are examples from the past

• Railroads: People cannot survive at speeds higher than 35 km/h
• Elevator: you fall ill when going up and down (“elevator sickness”)
• Bicycle: the “bicycle face” as a new, disfiguring disease
• Airplane: the “aeroplane face” as a new, disfiguring disease
• Anesthesia: epidural anesthesia at birth is against religion (Genesis 3:16)
• Telegraphy: telegraph wires spread disease

Type 4: Innocence by Association

In this form, the commentator refers to an oppressed or hated group from whose environment they themselves supposedly know someone and are therefore not racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic or anti-gay and anti-life.

By associating yourself with these people via an alleged acquaintance, you want to signal that the accusation or the following sentence shows that you are not like them. Or that members of this group are of the same opinion as you and that it is therefore OK. One example is using the N-word just because you have a dark-skinned friend who would also use the word and agree with it.

I know enough homosexuals who are fed up with LGBTQ+whatever, who now reject the rainbow flag and can’t do anything with “queer”. They clearly say that this fuss is more harmful to them and that they just want to live in peace.

Ich kenne genug Homosexuelle, die die Schnauze voll haben von LGBTQ+wasauchimmer, die die Regenbogenfahne mittlerweile ablehnen und mit „queer“ gar nichts anfangen können. Die deutlich sagen, dass es ihnen dieses Theater eher schadet und dass sie nur in Ruhe leben wollen. #CSD

— Joana Cotar (@JoanaCotar) July 21, 2024

Anecdotal evidence is transferred to the general public and thus reinterpreted as acceptable.

Type 5: Name Calling

It is easy to put a label on others, because that makes it easy to pigeonhole them and avoids having to deal with the arguments yourself, because these would come from the irrational behavior of the opponents in the discussion.

One such term is “Tesla fanboys”, which is always thrown in when talking about electric cars. Uncritical supporters who belong to a cult and therefore can no longer think rationally.

Type 6: Something is a Hype

Christof Kerkmann, editor at Handelsblatt, uses this word in an article on AI and is also proud of the upset reactions.

I always find the use of the term “hype” a problem. It implies that something is just a fad that will soon be over. The signal that journalists/media send to companies and the public, or managers to their employees, or commentators to other readers, is that it is therefore not worth bothering with this trend. It would be a waste of time and a poor use of resources.

Now this may be true for many trends, but if our companies, our employees and our society don’t deal with them because of an alleged hype, then we will fall behind as a country, as a society. Once again.

After all, how often have we heard that electric cars, for example, are just hype? That the internet is just hype? That hyped company Tesla would soon go bankrupt anyway?

In the same breath, the same media and commentators complain that our economy is lagging behind these developments and that we have no companies and technologies that are at the forefront of the most important developments?

If we look at the major technological developments of recent years, such as the internet, mobile devices, the cloud, electric cars, AI or autonomous driving, and ask ourselves which German companies play an influential role in these areas, we quickly realize that there is not a single one of them, and in most cases not even a European company.

Probably because we call everything hype and feel extremely clever because we are the only ones who recognize it. And thus let the others go first, who actively try to understand a technology’s potential and are therefore several iterations ahead of us and can then immediately seize any opportunities that arise.

That’s why my suggestion is to remove the word “hype” from your vocabulary and deal with all technology trends as best you can. Incidentally, I also advise against this in my book Foresight Mindset, where I deal with methods for predicting the future.

Type 7: Antipathie

An astonishing number of people are driven by their antipathy towards certain people, but often overlook those who are really hurting the world. So it’s easy to hate SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk – and he has only himself to blame – while belittling his work on more environmentally friendly products than people who are actively harming the environment and humanity. The Koch brothers or CEOs of oil and weapons companies don’t polarize them like that and therefore don’t cross their minds.

This is hypocrisy in a way, because if people really cared about these issues, they would choose the more appropriate targets of their antipathy.

Type 8: Disproportionality

Recently, I have also noticed more and more that disproportionate measures are being demanded or threatened. For example, the climate campaigners (after the Friday4Future activists) seem to have become the target of civic anger. see the following Twitter thread:

Obacht Klima-Aktivisten: wer die Luftfahrt behindert wird ziemlich hart bestraft. Das ist kein Verwaltungsdelikt mehr, sondern da drohen schon beim ersten Mal jahrelange Haft. pic.twitter.com/FjeFBAF61Q

— Florian Klenk (@florianklenk) July 26, 2024

First, there is an implicit threat to use the legal options, only for one of the commentators to then go on to attack the mostly young activists and try to dictate what is more important. As if humanity can only tackle one problem at a time.

These climate chaotic people believe they have eaten wisdom! And as long as wars are being waged, climate change is a minor problem for many people!

These arguments are also encouraged by a lack of historical knowledge. After all, compared to the RAF terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s who carried out attacks, robbed banks, exploded explosive devices and kidnapped and killed people, the climate change activists are very harmless. And yet people want to lock them up for decades and threaten them with the harshest measures.

Type 9: We must first…

Time and again, people argue that – especially if they don’t like the person doing the work – we should first solve hunger/poverty/war/etc. before we fly into space or tackle climate change.

There are several arguments against this. First of all, humanity is perfectly capable of tackling several problems at the same time. If we could only tackle one, and if we really took the call seriously, then all professions and activities that do not directly support it would have to cease. A designer friend who is outraged by Elon Musk’s rocket program would then no longer be allowed to go to concerts and practice his profession, because this does not contribute at all to solving the most important problem according to him.

Incidentally, this raises several other questions:

• Who actually decides which is the most important problem at the moment?
• Who decides when it is really solved?
• Can we ever solve a problem completely, or will there still be hunger or poverty, no matter how few people are affected?

And what gets you triggered? Write it in the comments!

Bonus

How do people react to these comments?

Nobody likes to hear that they are wrong. When making historical comparisons, people like to point out that things are very different this time and that the situation cannot be compared. Because this time it is developing much more quickly, is more dangerous, or the framework conditions would intensify the negative effect.

When do you know that the original poster can no longer make factual arguments?

The moment the conversation turns to flimsy points. A popular trick is to point out that you have never offered to use the “you” word (I always use the “you” word on LinkedIn).

Another method is the snotty reply that you can google it yourself because you don’t have the time. Yes, you can tell, because otherwise the person would have researched better facts and arguments.

Book Tip

Some of these techniques used in discussions can be found in my book Killer Phrases for Beginners. It contains many examples with a tongue-in-cheek look at them.