I used to think posting on my blog was "thinking in public" but no one read my posts so it was pretty private really.
Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
131–140 of 176 posts
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#132Thinking in public is a paradoxical thing in that you should only do it if you genuinely don’t care what most people think and are okay with 95% of the feedback on your work being negative and useless criticism. That remaining 5%, though, will be very insightful.
In other words, if you can’t handle random anonymous tweets and comments being dismissive or hostile, don’t think in public. Because unfortunately that is the default behavior of most readers.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#133I post on LinkedIn, Stack Exchange, and this site using my real name. The benefit of doing so is that I have to keep myself in check and really think before I write - yes, there are edits and deletions - and overall the effect has been very positive for me. Being active on the chemistry SE site has actually proven to be of value in getting jobs related to chemistry - at least 3 employers have said it was useful to se…
there might come a day when I have to do some reputation control should someone impersonate me Why would anyone need to have the same name as you to impersonate you? They just have to say "I am toddm!", and the internet will generally accept it.
The point is that since there's ~nobody with his first/last name combo people will assume it was him. Whereas if there were many people with his first/last name combo he'd have a default defense (it wasn't me). In fact he wouldn't have to defend at all since whoever does a background check would immediately see that there are multiple people by that name.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#134I'll specifically go into the pros of private thinking, as that's where you seem to be getting the least feedback. 1. Intent is preserved. When you write something publicly, your output are words that you constructed from your ideas and your intent. As others read it, they will have wildly different interpretations of the text, even if you write well. Thus, your original intent does not translate perfectly. You don't…
> Intent is preserved
I think this can work both ways.
I keep notes as I'm working (just plans for the day, typing up stuff that I'm doing for a vague timesheet, snippets of code so I can easily copy/paste them and thoughts I have as I'm working on stuff). And I've found that, often, when I revisit those ideas, in the intervening weeks and months they've morphed into something quite different from my original thoughts. Obviously my notes are private, but putting it out there in public means you have to acknowledge the divergence, rather than just sweeping it under the carpet.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but getting a lot of angry feedback from what you consider to be axiomatic truths seems like a useful benefit to thinking in public. Lots of topics might attract the occasional troll or disagreement from certain corners, but when your thinking regularly draws the kind of widespread condemnation I suspect you're talking about, a reasonable person might consider how "probably true"…
> posting that he thought women were genetically inferior as software engineers. I recall that it was mostly about predisposition and preference, not ability. It was certainly spun in the way you describe, but I'm surprised to see that take here. The memo was thoroughly dissected on HN.
One could argue about the nuances between predisposition and ability of a population (half of the population). But saying that you don't expect a certain understanding of a topic on HN seems to imply that you think HN is an echochamber.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#136I'll specifically go into the pros of private thinking, as that's where you seem to be getting the least feedback. 1. Intent is preserved. When you write something publicly, your output are words that you constructed from your ideas and your intent. As others read it, they will have wildly different interpretations of the text, even if you write well. Thus, your original intent does not translate perfectly. You don't…
>No self-censorship. You don't have to cater to anybody's liking of whatever your thoughts are. You don't need to win anybody's approval, and this allows for the brewing of fresh and pure thoughts.
This one is not true. There are internal mechanisms that filter thoughts, for example, what Freud called the Superego. People limit their inner thoughts in a variety of ways, for example, by developing morality, by which they judge their own thoughts too. They can dissociate, repress or project thoughts, both of which lead to some kind of self-censorship.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#137There are quite a few things that are probably true, but you can't say publicly without attracting a lot of unwanted angry attention. If your line of thinking approaches any of these topics, it makes it difficult to think through the issue in public.
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but getting a lot of angry feedback from what you consider to be axiomatic truths seems like a useful benefit to thinking in public. Lots of topics might attract the occasional troll or disagreement from certain corners, but when your thinking regularly draws the kind of widespread condemnation I suspect you're talking about, a reasonable person might consider how "probably true"…
Way to dismiss and mischaracterize that moment. Not only did he not claim any such inferiority, his post was in the context of discussions going on inside a private company that seemed to encourage such reflections, until they turned on him.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
That engineer wasn't wrong though, he just said the wrongthink out loud. Just because there is blowback to some opinion you hold has zero bearing on whether or not it is correct. The evolution of fashionable opinion through history should be enough to disabuse even the casual observer of such silliness.
I think you are falling into the same problem as Damore did. You are thinking people are digesting the whole article like a research paper rather than considering small bits, just the title, or even second-hand summaries. Saying "women make bad engineers" is inflammatory and incorrect. That's the sentiment people quickly parse because basically "tl;dr". Saying "the educational system and society in general sets the s…
You didn't even read his paper, got him wrong, and yet you dismiss him. You're exhibiting the very trait that caused the injustice against him. After having studied that paper, look in the mirror and ask whether what he wrote was so unconscionable to require the wrath he endured.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, you aren't obligated to explain anything to anyone. If you want your opinion/idea/statements to be taken seriously however, you have to back them up and can't just speak absolutes into a void.
This is in no way true, and you can see how untrue it is by observing any popular "alt" speaker for a short period of time. In fact, explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility to large swaths of people, as you'll have become boring and confusing.
It is true, just incomplete. Preaching to the converted doesn't require this evidence and argument, but _in general_ you need that capability. If you want popularity you have to customize your pitch to the audience.
Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, you aren't obligated to explain anything to anyone. If you want your opinion/idea/statements to be taken seriously however, you have to back them up and can't just speak absolutes into a void.
This is in no way true, and you can see how untrue it is by observing any popular "alt" speaker for a short period of time. In fact, explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility to large swaths of people, as you'll have become boring and confusing.
I think you and the person you're replying to just have different ideas of what you mean by "people". I think they'd be right in saying you can't speak absolutes and get away with it in a group of curious and non-impressionable people who will challenge what you have to say and will try to understand your POV too, but you're also right in saying there's groups of people where the same strategy will backfire.