Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 176 posts

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#161

Post by cf141q5325 »

sysadm1n wrote: post #5

I used to blog, and to be honest, I am embarrassed of about 90% of my posts. I trimmed 90% of the posts that annoyed me a year later, and the 'cream' or the golden crop remain, the ones I am proud of, and had the most impact on people. My blog is in archive mode now. (BTW: Not linking to it here for privacy reasons). I am thinking of blogging again, only this time I might use a pseudonym so my ideas are not forever t…

>I used to blog, and to be honest, I am embarrassed of about 90% of my posts.

I think that is the beauty of thinking publicly. You actually realize that you are an idiot. If you only think privately you never get any feedback, chance to reflect and cognitive biases are kicking hard. That robs you of the chance to ever improve.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#162

Post by andirk »

dinkleberg wrote: post #108
andirk wrote: post #15

I enjoy thinking/working/reading/writing in public. But please, if you bring your laptop to a coffee shop, tip the baristas $5-10 if you're there for a while! Even make a point like " hold $5 bill because I'm gonna be here a while thanks". It's nothing to you but will add up to something substantial for them watching you type away all day.

They are referring to a different type of public. Blogging and the like. But now I’m curious. Do baristas get upset if people are spending a lot of time there? I’m not a coffee drinker, so I never partake in coffee shop work. But as someone who has worked in the service industry, I can honestly say I would not have had the slightest care if people are spending all day in the shop. As long as they aren’t causing a sce…

The only issue is when all the space is taken so the next person who shows up can't sit down at all.

Blogging and the like is more publishing than "public" in my opinion.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#163

Post by andirk »

SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #155
ponow wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider for a moment how nobody here really has done any amount of evidence providing or really arguing; we’re simply stating things at one another. I posit this is okay, as I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway! Most of the internet makes a lot more sense if you stop thinking of it as a place to argue, and start thinking of it as a place to exchange ideas. You give me an idea, and I’ll mull it over myself…

> You have no obligation to explain yourself to anyone, I have no earthly idea why you think you do.

> explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility

> I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway!

One popular earth reason is people like teaching and learning. We call it knowledge. I'm sure you're fun at parties.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#164

Post by fleddr »

nicbou wrote: post #63
virissimo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No self-censorship. This is a very common belief, but I don't think it's strictly true. Sometimes people inadvertently speak what they're thinking, so an even surer way to prevent being punished for your ideas is to prevent yourself from even thinking them in the first place. It's a kind of defense-in-depth against wrongthink punishment and one I think most people understand intuitively.

You can’t prevent yourself from speaking in your sleep. That’s how they get you.

I'm also quite paranoid about any chips planted in my brain.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#165

Post by fleddr »

virissimo wrote: post #59
fleddr wrote: post #37

I'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. This is a very common belief, but I don't think it's strictly true. Sometimes people inadvertently speak what they're thinking, so an even surer way to prevent being punished for your ideas is to prevent yourself from even thinking them in the first place. It's a kind of defense-in-depth against wrongthink punishment and one I think most people understand intuitively.

It may go even further than that. Some philosophers claim that the idea of a "self" is an illusion. Your brain produces all kinds of thoughts inconsistent with your "stable self" and then "magically" adapts them into something that feels consistent. Leading you to believe that you have an identity. Some type of personality, belief system, what have you.

Your brain is feeding you lies or half-truths all the time. It's job isn't to find objective truth, it's to keep you alive.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#166

Post by seba_dos1 »

Tomte wrote: post #147
seba_dos1 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating article, but I'm surprised at how non-relatable it is to me in some places where it clearly was supposed to be. For example: > We can see this in dreams. Those disturbing dreams which wake us from sleep are purely graphic. No one speaks. Either I'm misunderstanding something, or that's not what I have (ever?) experienced. My dreams (and nightmares) are stories; people talk to me and I talk to people there…

> Can anyone really recall a picture "in its entirety"? It seems many (most?) people can. I cannot, either. Look up "aphantasia".

Aphantasia doesn't seem relatable to me at all. I certainly can imagine mental pictures at will, even pretty detailed ones if I try really hard. What I certainly can't do is to recall a picture I've seen "in its entirety". I can imagine Mona Lisa and somewhat describe how it looks like, but I can't recall many things about it - like the actual background behind her head or the way her hands are placed. I can only make it up based on some clues I remembered (for example: I remember a popular novel describing Mona Lisa's background as being higher on one side and lower on the other, but which one was it?)

Now, if I spent many days studying Mona Lisa with intention to memorize it, I would probably be able to recall it "in its entirety", maybe even sketch it pretty well - but the same would apply to an essay.

Maybe the author actually has hyperphantasia instead?

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#167

Post by ackfoobar »

maxbond wrote: post #158
ponow wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had said: > Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science, that's what I am reading second-hand so might _also_ be filtered through a lens already. That's a confession, or totally misleading. He stuck out his neck only to those who appeared to welcome his supported and honest interpretation of the truth, only for the standards of discussion to change. He didn't post it on the open internet. If real…

> You had said: Apologies, I didn't clarify I am a different person. > He didn't post it on the open internet. I think that's one of the reasons for the strong reaction - he said this stuff in a professional context , which is pretty inappropriate.

The professional context was "a Google diversity program he attended solicited feedback".

Also could you quote where "Damore said that women biologically were inferior at science"?

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#168

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

andirk wrote: post #163
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider for a moment how nobody here really has done any amount of evidence providing or really arguing; we’re simply stating things at one another. I posit this is okay, as I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway! Most of the internet makes a lot more sense if you stop thinking of it as a place to argue, and start thinking of it as a place to exchange ideas. You give me an idea, and I’ll mull it over myself…

> You have no obligation to explain yourself to anyone, I have no earthly idea why you think you do. > explaining things is often a great way to lose credibility > I wouldn’t trust your citation selection anyway! One popular earth reason is people like teaching and learning. We call it knowledge. I'm sure you're fun at parties.

You know who treats Internet discourse as a good way to teach and learn? QAnon.

If your systems can’t prevent you from falling for QAnon, flat eartherism, or the time cube, you are exploitable and are likely already actively exploited.

Believing what you read in an HN comment is a terrible idea.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#169

Post by mlb893 »

stkdump wrote: post #135
crackercrews wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You could certainly see it that way but I think he's saying that it was dissected, meaning thoroughly examined (debated?). That being said I did not read that original thread.

Re: Ask HN: Pros and cons of thinking in public vs. in private?

#170

Post by mlb893 »

andirk wrote: post #43
tlb wrote: post #2

There 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.

This is where a lot of voices on Twitter feel they're being marginalized because their hate speech isn't accepted which is odd to them because in private, it is accepted. Similarly, saying "Joe Rogan" in certain holier-than-thou circles will get you banished. Point is that public discourse is often policed by the most offensive and the most sensitive, but still speak your mind, and always with respect to those in the…

I think that the best way of speaking about these things is not to refer to Joe Rogan but to speak ideas irrespective of who is behind. Some have a certain reaction when AOC is mentioned while others have the same reaction regarding Rogan.

If you are in those circles, speak of ideas, not people.

Post reply on HN