Live data from Hacker News

Haters

paulgraham.com

181–190 of 308 posts

Re: Haters

#181

I'm surprised at the harsh negativity in this article. Not that the inquiry into why people become 'haters' isn't intriguing, but to explore it so shallowly and to boil it down to "Well, they are losers", and call in the image of "basement dwellers" frankly, makes pg sound like he is falling into the same trap he is trying to write about - generic hating on others. Despite that, his other points have merit. Haters an…

> I'm not a fanboy of pg, just a reader, so I'm not going to act like he has let us down by penning a weaker article.

I really appreciate this sentiment. A weaker article is just that, weaker, not indicative of anything else.

Re: Haters

#183

For people who don’t understand what he’s talking about, this is a reference to Lambda School. In the last few weeks, folks have been coming out of the woodwork with stories of illegal, negligent, and abusive behavior. https://twitter.com/brokenimageheap/status/12132089537542021...

If this allegation about the intent of Graham's article is correct, then that article comes across as disingenuous and passive-aggressive, regardless of its validity with respect to haters in general.

Re: Haters

#184

For people who don’t understand what he’s talking about, this is a reference to Lambda School. In the last few weeks, folks have been coming out of the woodwork with stories of illegal, negligent, and abusive behavior. https://twitter.com/brokenimageheap/status/12132089537542021...

If this allegation about the intent of Graham's article is correct, then that article comes across as disingenuous and passive-aggressive, regardless of its validity with respect to haters in general.

The CEO of Lambda School is one of the reviewers of this article.

Re: Haters

#185
post #122

Silicon Valley is simply preparing itself for the immense blowback it will receive when this whole operation unravels financially...again.

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What is "unsubstantive"? Valuations have sky rocketed, frauds are being uncovered slowly, investments are looking shaky. So,the VC world has to start the PR circuit. "Don't listen to the haters, they are unsuccessful losers. We thoughtful people dont mess up" fits right in, no?

How someone who lives and works in the tech world can't see the cracks is astonishing. This is how economic cycles work.

Re: Haters

#186

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

I disagree. The people you refer to did not hate Holmes/Enron/etc unilaterally because of a vague feeling that their talents were overestimated. They had, to use PG's term in the article, a dispute with them over a particular issue that they had picked up on, often as a result of having domain-specific knowledge that allowed them insight into their operations (i.e. that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enron or that Holmes's promised device would require significant breakthroughs in analysis that they thought she did not achieve given her evasiveness on technical questions).

Re: Haters

#187
post #106

Silicon Valley is simply preparing itself for the immense blowback it will receive when this whole operation unravels financially...again.

Which operation?

Well, to choose one, how about the surveillance state it built?

Or maybe the "sharing economy"? Blood money from Saudi Arabia and China? Union busting? Destroying viable businesses thanks to VC subsidization? Insane wealth inequality? Technocracy? All of this enabled by SV. Eventually the plebes will put it in the same boat as Wall Street. There's time to fix that, of course, but I'm not sure people in the ecosystem are self aware enough.

Re: Haters

#188
"A hater is obsessive and uncritical. Disliking you becomes part of their identity, and they create an image of you in their own head that is much worse than reality. Everything you do is bad, because you do it. If you do something good, they find a way to see it as bad. And their dislike for you is not, usually, a quiet, private one. They want everyone to know how awful you are."

Note also that not all who disagree with you are haters or trolls.

Re: Haters

#189

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

Journalism has shown to be a biased trade. The entire media industry is a fraud. Integrity is not tightly coupled with smarts. Many "thoughtful" people in on the take.

Re: Haters

#190
Core reasons perhaps people are haters?

1) The person who they hate to them (the hater) appears to have more luck than talent. There are others with the same or more talent (maybe even the hater or someone they know) who get no attention at all and toil in obscurity.

Of course luck is a sliding scale (there is always luck) but someone in theory would be less likely to hate someone who ran a race and was the fastest (low on the luck scale high on the skill scale) but more likely to hate a startup founder or a singer or actor who had fame but it didn't appear related as much to talent but to luck. Someone can imagine 'I could do that' but not 'I can beat that person in a marathon' (easy to quantify).

2) There are fanboys and that enhances the annoyance by the hater. So it's the constant attention (which they feel is undeserved and quite frankly it probably is) that drives the hater. Not the person themselves. The media attention the fawning articles the fawning comments.

3) They get attention for things that the same activity would not get attention by a non famous person. Example is PG wrote this essay and everyone here (including me) are feasting on it.

4) They are unapproachable. They wouldn't give you the time of day (because of course they don't have time to give everyone attention). If you wrote to them they might write back a quick reply but they would never engage in a discussion or invite you to go out or be their friend. They would give you some trivial brush off (if they replied at all). You are not important to them and they know that. That bugs people even if they know there is a legit reason for the brush off. People react negatively to lack of courtesy and to have it in their face that they are not important even if rationally they understand why it's happening to them.

So at the core it's not the actual famous person that is hated so much as the attention that is given to the famous person that drives the hate. The hater feels it's undeserved and over the top.

And it is 'over the top' when it just becomes to much in the mind of the hater.

Post reply on HN