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

91–100 of 176 posts

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

#91

Post by madamelic »

toddm wrote: post #22

I 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…

I see value in both.

This name is pseudo-anonymous. I use it everywhere and am still careful not to 'pop off' too much on it. I also own the username for my real name both here and other places. If someone wanted to track down my real identity, it wouldn't be hard. On Reddit, for instance, I use multiple anonymous usernames alongside my pseudo-anonymous and real name accounts.

How honest and close to my instinctual response depends on my level of anonymity. I think there is some value to saying quick & honest ideas so you can be checked rather than having to worry you will look dumb on your real name and never have those ideas checked. Using anonymous usernames also cuts down on potential stalking or doxxing if someone disagrees.

With that said, I try to be nice and not too inflammatory even on my anonymous accounts. I haven't always succeeded but try to avoid raising my blood pressure over internet arguments that gain nothing.

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

#92

Post by madamelic »

patrick451 wrote: post #90
rainsford wrote: post #80

Earlier 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"…

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 stage for women on average to not succeed in science fields as well as men" is far more correct, most women in science would agree, and not exactly flashy as "we don't employ women because women are bad at science and math". If the reader gets even that far, a lot of people are going to write off anything further.

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 sentiment is pretty insane and ignores the huge effect of socialization on who we become. There have been no conclusive studies that female and male brains are structurally different. What that leaves, in my opinion, is a difference in socialization and what women tend to be told they are good at or pushed towards.

Sorry, not trying to start an argument at all. I am always a little baffled by science-y types ignoring that most people aren't interested in reading dissertations randomly handed off to them. People, in my opinion, are going to read 3 sentences then make up their minds whether they agree with your premise.

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

#93

Post by mmaunder »

I did a lot of public thinking as a budding entrepreneur, mostly on my blog, and I got a lot of traction thanks to this community. I found it helped test my assumptions, made me hold my thinking to a far higher standard, forced me to research my ideas and bring compelling accurate data to the expression of the thought, and gave me a strong and accurate indication on which of my ideas and how I express them resonate with others.

I stopped blogging years ago and have since built a successful business with 40 employees and 4 million customers. I continue to write here to get the same feedback I describe above. It helps keep the knife sharp and avoids me getting my head stuck too far up my ass.

Unless you have a co-founder or collaborators who are willing and able to call bullshit, if you’re developing ideas in private that are hard to test (you can test engineering designs, for example) then you risk spending a lot of time on something misguided, futile, irrational, or where you simply haven’t considered a problem because you don’t have critical information.

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

#94

Post by smsm42 »

Why not both? Think about something privately, then put it out, see how it stands, think a bit more about it, rinse, repeat.

The cons of public engagement is certain percent of people are assholes, and certain additional percent sometimes prefer to play ones online. Normally it's a low level threat, but if you happen to live in the US and tour thinking is particularly divergent from the mainstream with regard to certain set of subjects, it becomes an extremely high-risk activity, which may involve a possibility of financial ruin and/or physical harm. I hope one day we can grow out of this predicament somehow, but currently it is what it is.

The other con of course is that you may find out your thinking is not as good as you thought, and feel bad about it. I think it's better to know, but people may disagree on that.

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

#95

Post by RootKitBeerCat »

Question is flawed; thought occurs in the mind: the moment you share that thought you are portentously sharing ramblings of your mond you havent really thought through fully…

(TLDR: if you have a point; make it- thinking out loud sometimes is useful, but rarely in the online forum, unless you’re in DMs or something…)

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

#97

Post by spondyl »

A fairly interesting paper is "Transparency is Surveillance" which argues that transparency is not inherently good and that for expertise to flourish, it needs some level of privacy.

The author presented the same findings as a talk which you can watch at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcEJY61FKIc

It's a bit abstract in some places but hopefully it'll give you some stuff to think about

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

#98

Post by 100721 »

sandkoan wrote: post #79
xwkd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve found this to be profoundly true. I’m embarrassed by the number of times I’ve been taught by a dream what I fail to express in words.

There might be a reason for that: https://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/the-kekul-problem .

Your link didn't work for me (Chrome on Android). This one does: https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/

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

#99

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

nicbou wrote: post #68
andirk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you criticise someone for liking Joe Rogan, you have to explain why and convince them. You can’t dunk on them and get cheered by your side automatically. You have to deal with the other person’s perception of you, and listen to their rebuttal. This makes people a lot less intense.

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

Conversely, others have no obligation to respect your opinions.

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

#100

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

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.

The truth of something is not always the most impactful part of that thing.

Some truths need to be handled with care, and indelicate handling will cause unwanted angry attention, not the truth itself.

Funny though, how so many people confuse this point. It's easier to feel indignancy over attracting vitriol over "a truth" than it is to play victim for brutish behavior.

Post reply on HN