Live data from Hacker News

My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

thingist.com

91–100 of 249 posts

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#91

It's nice to see someone stand up and say whoa. I mean my first youtube post of an arduino project I did - someone had to explain my miss-pronucenation of a word and paid no attention to the project itself. User comment boxes are not always as helpful as it might seem.

As someone who occasionally finds myself nitpicking things (mispronunciation, you're/your, etc), I don't do it out of malice. In fact, I often like and agree with what the person was saying, I was just bothered by that minor issue.

Just pointing out a nitpick by itself sounds harsh, though. Instead of just posting "It's 'you're' for the contraction of 'you are'. It's easier to remember if you think of it as just replacing the 'a' with and apostrophe.", I always try to add my positive thoughts as well, even if I feel they add very little. For example, 'Great post, I know exactly what you mean when you say some people are just overly critical for no reason. One thing, though...".

Obviously, this will still make me sound like a nitpicking asshole at times, so I try to avoid the the truly small corrections (you're/your, its/it's, grammar/mispellings in general). The key is to point out that you aren't dismissing or ignoring the rest of the work, and that the nitpicks you had were really the only part you disagreed with.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#92
post #44

What would we think of an American who walked into an Egyptian coffeehouse or a Japanese board room and interpreted all the behavior he saw there as if he were seeing it in a church in Iowa? It's fine to demand that geeks develop some social sophistication, but it's also fine to expect that non-geeks will have enough social sophistication not to rush to judgment about behavior in an unfamiliar cultural context. Cultu…

This sounds like a good argument until you realize that the people the geeks most love are all level-headed and good-natured, people who promote the good of all. Often these are men/women who inspired the geeks to be geeks to start with. Example: Carl Sagan.

So for all the geeks who were inspired to become geeks by Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Spock, etc., to fall so short of their ideal... clearly there is insecurity and childishness at work.

Refusal to learn how to treat others well is not cultural, it's immature. Perhaps most importantly, it's total sour grapes compared to one's original inspiration for geekhood.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#93

I would direct anyone who thinks geeks are harsh now to read chapter 10 of "Dealers of Lightning," about the early days of Xerox PARC. They had a weekly meeting called DEALER, where the boffins would present their ideas to the group at large. A quote: "But the argument had best be carefully thought out. Anyone trying to slip an unsound concept past this group was sure to be stopped short by an explosive "Bullshit!" f…

It's not that geeks are harsh; it's that assholes are harsh.

You'd see the same kind of dressing down of a sales guy in front of his peers by his asshole boss, who just happens to be a damn good salesman, which makes his attacks all the more withering.

Knowledge dost not the better man make.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#94
post #59
post #36

Condescending feedback says more about the speaker than the listener. It is almost invariably about their own insecurity. This is true is almost all fields of endeavor, not just programming. Just a few examples of my own: Insecure bridge player: The queen of spades was a stupid play. What's wrong with you? Excellent bridge player: The queen of spades would have been a great play against a 4/2 split. But since you had…

Can someone please explain the logic behind "condescending feedback = insecurity"? And I mean that sincerely. I have been thinking about this for a long time now, and I just cannot come up with any supporting evidence to explain the corelation. It might sound like a stupid request, but I think it is a hard argument to make totally water proof.

It's because feeling that one is better than other people, and feeling worse than other people, are two sides of the same coin. Once you accept the ego's lie that anyone is better than anyone else, you are stuck with both sides of the coin.

Mind you, I don't think one should feel any pity for people who are condescending. I think one should challenge them on their tone and attitude. The fact that they are also insecure may help explain their behavior, but doesn't excuse it.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#95
post #4

still, i think hipsters are wannabes, and clothes don't make the man

To further my attempt at inserting George Orwell's Politics and the English Language into every conversation, I think this quote applies. :-)

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. - George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm)

I think "hipster" is generally one of those meaningless words in a lot of cases. Often times it's not pointing at what should truly be denouncing IMO (doing things for "irony", hating on popular things for no reason, being elitist, etc), but simply as a way of just generally denouncing people.

"Oh you listen to bands I haven't heard of? You fucking hipster." as if there's no way the person in question truly likes that band regardless of their popularity.

That's just an example from the cases where there's a specific objection other than "hipster". It's just become a popular nebulous term to hate on, and I've gotten tired of seeing it everywhere. I luckily rarely come across "hipsters" so I'm not too annoyed by them, but "hipster-haters" are constantly bitching about whatever "hipsters" do.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#96
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have experienced much better anger reduction when actually chatting amiably Great for you, but not everyone is you; some people need to vent to feel better.

I seem to recall that there are studies showing that venting isn't an effective tool to make you feel better, despite the popular "catharsis" meme. I can't find them right now, but here's a quote: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/a-few-more-things-pop-psychology-h... In any case, if somebody feels the need to vent, I hope they don't do it where I end up reading them. ^^

There was an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit that pretty much says the same.

If you have Netflix streaming, it's Episode 10 here: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Penn_Teller_Bullsh_t_Seaso...

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#99
post #36

Condescending feedback says more about the speaker than the listener. It is almost invariably about their own insecurity. This is true is almost all fields of endeavor, not just programming. Just a few examples of my own: Insecure bridge player: The queen of spades was a stupid play. What's wrong with you? Excellent bridge player: The queen of spades would have been a great play against a 4/2 split. But since you had…

Condescending feedback says more about the speaker than the listener.

I'd take this even further: feedback, period, says more about the person offering it than the person it's about. Hell, anything anyone does, whether about or in response to someone else or not, is about the person doing it.

If I say something and you lambaste me for it, that's about you; I'm just a convenient excuse for you to manifest your dick-nature. If I do something and you give me props for it, that's about you; I'm just an opportunity for you to share another aspect of yourself. Love someone or hate someone, what you say or do has nothing whatsoever to do with that person. It's all about you, all the time, every time. Full stop.

Life gets a lot easier when you remember that other people's behavior is about them acting out their individual dramas, in whatever form that happens to take. Sure, some kinds of responses feel better than others; everyone loves to be praised, and probably doesn't much like being excoriated. That's exactly the point, though: how you feel about what someone else does — and how you respond to it — are about you, not that person, and not what they said or did. That person, and what they say or do, are just excuses (or opportunities) for you to manifest your baser or higher nature.

We've all been pricks, and we've all been saints; we always have a choice in how we behave. So stand up and take responsibility for yourself. That doesn't mean you have to stop being a raging asshole, if that's what you want to be. But you made that choice, and re-make it every time you're rude to someone, denigrate them, or talk shit about them. Own it. And if someone's an asshole to you, instead of being an asshole back, think about how much it must suck to be a person who feels the need to go around being an asshole at other people.

Re: My fellow geeks, we need to have a talk.

#100
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Then there are the people who are dicks and want to crush people who they disagree with." The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushing them is often a necessity. When you're in a situation where there is a lot of potential for damage and the other person isn't willing to have an intellectually honest debate about th…

That comment: "The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushing them is often a necessity." Is exactly the type of thing that comes from the hive mind, and is why it's impossible to be a dissenter. It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes hom…

The "hive mind" works both ways though. You can find examples of posts with a correct position being bullied and forced out by a mass of self-confirming, yet incorrect posts. "Geeks", who often can't let inaccurate statements stand unchallenged for fear of it self perpetuating in this manner, will fight back in kind. Public forums are often very democratic, in that the majority wins even when the majority is ill-informed. (I'm not justifying the behavior, just proposing a theory as to why this seems perfectly acceptable to many "geeks")
Post reply on HN