Haters

It’s often a hard call, and we should certainly not uncritically accept a claim that everyone who disagrees with me is a hater. But I don’t think that’s what he’s doing here. More importantly, it’s a call we have to be willing to make, because some people really are just bullies setting out to drag others down.

What if the reason haters are using the word "fraud" is not because of sour grape chewing about the random vagaries of chance, but because the company (at the behest of their leadership) has been lying to their customers about such things as:

1. Their employee list (not updating it quickly after major staffing changes)

2. Legal status: misrepresenting to the public and to customers that the company is licensed to operate in that capacity or is proceeding illegally?

3. Pressuring it's subscription customers to publish positive stories about the product and reportedly even threatening their access to it.

I ask because this article comes out days after a Business Insider article about a high profile YC company. Its author uses the words "fraud" on their twitter and "cult" in the article, and makes some of the accusations that I've listed above. It's difficult not to suspect the two events are linked.

Private communities promote bubbles where people become entrenched in their preconceived beliefs. Much like genetics, you need variety, and the strongest beliefs/traits will survive in the long run. I think a healthy mix of public and private communities is the “right” way forward. I will concede there is the ever present problem that toxic people are more likely to speak their mind, which leads to moderates thinking the extremes are the norm. Smaller communities might solve this problem, but I’m not sure moving to all private communities is a good thing. /2cents

I. An alternative theory of fandom:

A. Hypothesis:

The person you laud is a target of your psychological projection.

B. Evidence:

Let's take Apple. It had a lot of fanbois, especially 1990-2010. If one thing can be said for it, its ads were true: it thought different. In a world of computers for businesses and penny pinchers, Apple catered to artists and perfectionists.

My first computer was a Macintosh. So that's another thing: nostalgia.

Steve Jobs said and did things that I wish I had the courage to say and do.

C. Conclusions:

When I think of the fanbois of Apple, I think of people who feel (1) underrepresented, and now have found (2) representation.

Therefore to them, Apple is, in a way, them. Apple is me, Steve Jobs is my avatar. I am not famous, so I rely upon Steve Jobs to go out in the world and speak on my behalf. When I see him make a mistake, I explain it away, the way I explain away my own shortcomings. When people attack him, I feel attacked, and so I speak up in his defense.

---

II. Paul Graham suggests that fanbois and haters are two sides of the same coin. So let me put haters under the same light.

A. Hypothesis:

The person you cast aspersions upon is a target of your psychological projection.

B. Evidence:

Scant evidence, because I don't talk to haters much about their hating. I did have a friend though who was normally cheerful but surprised me one day with his hatred for Ben Affleck. Now that I revisit the memory, I wonder if Ben Affleck reminded him of an old classmate.

People have an unusual hatred for celebrities who seem nice like Taylor Swift. Maybe she reminds them of an old girlfriend who hurt their feelings.

C. Conclusions:

As I walk these streets, I seem to be surrounded by nice, well-adjusted people. Most of them are polite and quiet. But as I get to know people, and as I read the news, I keep finding out that emotional abuse is rampant. I think everyone is hurting, but they're usually stuffing it, and then it escapes in unexpected directions, like at Ben Affleck.

Therefore Ben Affleck or Taylor Swift is, in a way, the person who hurt them. Ben becomes the avatar of a certain enemy (or perhaps one's own repressed shame, maybe he reminds you of you).

Such is psychological projection. I didn't make it up. I read about it. It's usually about projecting onto not-famous people, just people around you. For example, a father might project his own faults onto his son. But now I am thinking of it specifically for people in the spotlight. It makes sense that people who have your attention could become the target of your thoughts.

---

Coda:

A nice side of this theory is that it explains sports fans too. Why do you care about this group of people throwing a ball around in this field down below? Why are you yelling and screaming? Well, because for whatever reason you have decided that they represent you. Maybe it's as simple as the team is from Cincinnati, and you live in Cincinnati. Or in the case of college sports, that you went to that college, or your mother did. (I admit I'm not into sports, and many people root for teams that seem to have nothing to do with them, so this explanation may be incomplete.)

---

Epilogue:

Paul Graham did not treat this possibility, but his conclusion rings true: When people love or hate you unreasonably, it's not about you, it's about them.

Regarding the link, you can kind of get around that semantically: I'd view Jobs' attention as a "grudge". He's not bashing microsoft out of a generic sense that "microsoft is bad", he's mad at Gates for what he views as specific bad actions taken against him specifically. So he wants to hurt him back.

It seems reasonable to me that that's a different kind of psychology than the fundamentally impersonal "fanboy/hater" ideas in the essay.