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

Everything's Blub All Over Again

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#31

Post by gruseom »

xlnt wrote: post #28
pchristensen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that there are no two people in a community with opposite viewpoints. If someone has the opposite viewpoint of you and you start writing stuff to please them, then they'll just hate you for pandering. Plus, the people that agreed with you will call you a traitor and a sellout. Fun times!

My premise is more that there is a truth of the matter. Even if people start with opposite view points, that won't last when sufficiently good/true things are said (plus enough help seeing why this new view is better, and how to change, and how that will improve their life, etc).

You're assuming that people want to hear the truth. That is not at all what most people want. And if you insist on offering it to them against their desires they will eat you like (dare I say) a caged lion. :)

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#32

Post by petercooper »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #4

I've wondered if one could arrive at a good decision using no evidence or facts , but only based on how the different sides debate the issue. The idea is you could determine which party is right based solely on how they say things, rather than how strong the evidence is. You look at how different parties debate. You then compare their styles or types of arguments with debates from the past that have since been settle…

I like the idea, but if it were applied, I bet Scientologists would win the debate against the over emotional "in your face" techniques used by their opponents.

For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#33

Post by xlnt »

gruseom wrote: post #31
xlnt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My premise is more that there is a truth of the matter. Even if people start with opposite view points, that won't last when sufficiently good/true things are said (plus enough help seeing why this new view is better, and how to change, and how that will improve their life, etc).

You're assuming that people want to hear the truth. That is not at all what most people want. And if you insist on offering it to them against their desires they will eat you like (dare I say) a caged lion. :)

They might not want the truth now, but they could be shown why it's good to want it, and shown how much nicer that lifestyle is, and helped to change. Hard but certainly possible.

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#34

Post by xlnt »

gruseom wrote: post #29
xlnt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am serious. What do you think could possibly prevent this from working (other than insufficient skill to say good enough things)? You say it's a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt. But it's not a strategy. It's just a fact. The strategy of attempting to get everyone to like you in this way is something different. That's hard and I didn't recommend it, I only said it is possible.

What do you think could possibly prevent this from working The people you're trying to please have contradictory opinions and desires. What you say to please Group A will strike Group B as an outrage! And if you try to remove everything potentially offensive to anybody, well, that will turn you into such a pandering namby-pamb that the whole world will find you annoying and want to poke you with a stick. Edit: Just t…

Pleasing two groups that start with contradictory opinions requires persuading at least one group to change it's mind. That's definitely possible because if they contradict then at least one of them is mistaken and would benefit from changing its mind.

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#35

Post by 0x44 »

xlnt wrote: post #34
gruseom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think could possibly prevent this from working The people you're trying to please have contradictory opinions and desires. What you say to please Group A will strike Group B as an outrage! And if you try to remove everything potentially offensive to anybody, well, that will turn you into such a pandering namby-pamb that the whole world will find you annoying and want to poke you with a stick. Edit: Just t…

Pleasing two groups that start with contradictory opinions requires persuading at least one group to change it's mind. That's definitely possible because if they contradict then at least one of them is mistaken and would benefit from changing its mind.

Let's assume there exist two groups of people. The members of group A think that some improved product is better because it tastes great. The members of group B, on the other hand, believe that the same product is better because it's now less filling. Keeping in mind that the product is better because it both tastes great, and is less filling. Which group is mistaken? Which group would benefit from changing their minds?

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#36

Post by xlnt »

0x44 wrote: post #35
xlnt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pleasing two groups that start with contradictory opinions requires persuading at least one group to change it's mind. That's definitely possible because if they contradict then at least one of them is mistaken and would benefit from changing its mind.

Let's assume there exist two groups of people. The members of group A think that some improved product is better because it tastes great. The members of group B, on the other hand, believe that the same product is better because it's now less filling. Keeping in mind that the product is better because it both tastes great, and is less filling. Which group is mistaken? Which group would benefit from changing their min…

Their ideas don't really contradict. But they think they do because, apparently, both sides have the mistaken view that a product has to be better for exactly one reason.

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#37

Post by cstejerean »

shiranaihito wrote: post #18

> All this no-restraint bashing of an interesting article ("you shouldn't have used the 'lions in cages' metaphor! Now I feel terrible! Bghwaaa-waaa-waaa") is really getting on my nerves. Yes, I think Jeff overreacted too :) Anyone would love to get (really) rich, and founders have a lot better chance of that happening than employees do. So people are upset about not having that chance (at least while they're employe…

not everyone would love to get rich. Certain people want to get rich and some of them work in startups. But even within startups not everyone is trying to get rich. I'm pretty sure Paul didn't start FriendFeed just to make even more money, but I could be wrong.

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#39

Post by leppie »

pg wrote: post #15
Xichekolas wrote: post #3

I'm just sick of hearing about it. This is like the OJ Simpson trial of hacker news. Or I should say Reddit. The responses here were fairly normal until someone pointed out that reddit-ers were freaking out about it. I really hate to beat the old 'reddit is teh dumb' dead horse, but it kind of seems like it sometimes. I think someone read into that essay what he wanted in a search for controversy, and then a lot of p…

The situation with reddit is a unique one. I think I'm the only person who both writes a lot and started a news site. Not surprisingly, people who like what I write tended to switch to that news site. The switch was particularly extreme in the case of reddit, because News.YC is in a sense an offshoot of reddit: most people who switched from another site to this one came from there. The result is that practically anyo…

moo?

That's how the idiots sound to me, ignore them, you are right, they are wrong.

Re: Everything's Blub All Over Again

#40

Post by DougBTX »

xlnt wrote: post #26
gruseom wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you say good enough things everyone will like you Oh my goodness. You're not serious, are you? This is a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt... and deserving it!

I am serious. What do you think could possibly prevent this from working (other than insufficient skill to say good enough things)? You say it's a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt. But it's not a strategy. It's just a fact. The strategy of attempting to get everyone to like you in this way is something different. That's hard and I didn't recommend it, I only said it is possible.

> What do you think could possibly prevent this from working?

One possibility springs to mind. What if someone was to comment on an article by PG, but without reading the article itself? Someone could say bad things about you without listening to what you have to say, you'd have no chance to change their mind.

Post reply on HN