I am very real • Hacker News Board

Re: I am very real

#141

Post by kalid » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 10:37 AM UTC

andywood wrote: post #107

reason wrote: post #31

This submission could not have come at a better time. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been contemplating making a submission urging HNers to be human , and to recognize that everyone else who comments here is also a human , and that stories about startups and notable figures are essentially about humans - humans who all have families, friends, ambitions, desires, flaws, struggles. All too often I see people here…

I agree with you, and there is a specific type of pedantry I find especially grating. I'm talking about the constant insistence on citations and double-blind studies, even when it isn't appropriate - even when someone obviously means only to share their own experience. There's an aggressive form ("Citation Needed") and a passive-aggressive form ("Say, friend, that's a bold claim! I sure am interested in this. Do you…

Thanks for eloquently stating a problem I've noticed for a while. I think there's a fear of not coming off as a hard-nosed, logical thinker, so the constant need for citation is a proxy for "I believed XYZ because some authority said it was true. If I'm wrong, it's not me, it's because I was mislead."

The world is full of single data points. If you see an anecdote, see it as a data point, but more importantly, see it as a metaphor which could apply to your situation.

Sometimes I think some people wouldn't hug their kids until a study said it was ok (hrm, weren't there studies in the 50s saying you should do the opposite?). I'd like to think I'm rational, but sometimes you need to move beyond the cover-your-ass safety net of "the study says" and do what feels right. Citation? Here's a meta-study that most medical research studies are false (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/).

Re: I am very real

#142

Post by sausagefeet » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 10:43 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #98

reason wrote: post #31

This submission could not have come at a better time. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been contemplating making a submission urging HNers to be human , and to recognize that everyone else who comments here is also a human , and that stories about startups and notable figures are essentially about humans - humans who all have families, friends, ambitions, desires, flaws, struggles. All too often I see people here…

I ran into this problem myself in the 90s when I first got into the whole internet forum thing. This is something that has worked for me, though YMMV: I re-read every post I write in my head, and pretend I'm saying it to the other person IRL who is sitting across the table from me. Would I use the same words? The same tone? The internet is, in its current form, dehumanizing, you have to take care to maintain your own…

If a post gets me emotionally fired up, I often type up my response. Read it. Then delete it. Then type it up again. I find just getting the emotional response out helps.

Re: I am very real

#143

Post by kalid » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 10:50 AM UTC

didgeoridoo wrote: post #70

partisan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with your suggestion for dealing with Customer Service, I don't agree with Mr. Wallace's proposed remedy. Why should I have to imagine someone in a piteous position in order to be able to empathize with them? Can't we just accept people for who they are and empathize because they are just like us?

You might as well ask, "why can't we just make ourselves smarter?" Our brains don't always work in the way we want them to work; what's wrong with proposing a brain hack that results in a desired emotional output? Wallace's hack is particularly cool because it uses the prefrontal cortex (over which you have at least some level of conscious control) to create stories that trick your limbic brain into generating the pr…

Thanks for that explanation. I've seen the "riding the elephant" analogy before and it's quite fitting. Usually the rider can't do much, but this trick seems to work.

Re: I am very real

#144

Post by EvilTerran » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 11:49 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #98

reason wrote: post #31

This submission could not have come at a better time. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been contemplating making a submission urging HNers to be human , and to recognize that everyone else who comments here is also a human , and that stories about startups and notable figures are essentially about humans - humans who all have families, friends, ambitions, desires, flaws, struggles. All too often I see people here…

I ran into this problem myself in the 90s when I first got into the whole internet forum thing. This is something that has worked for me, though YMMV: I re-read every post I write in my head, and pretend I'm saying it to the other person IRL who is sitting across the table from me. Would I use the same words? The same tone? The internet is, in its current form, dehumanizing, you have to take care to maintain your own…

Relevant xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/438/

(I like this one. It's a lot more poetic than the "someone is WRONG on the INTERNET" one.)

Re: I am very real

#145

Post by justincormack » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 12:38 PM UTC

tesseractive wrote: post #52

peacemaker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't understand this logic. Did he think the internet was some magical place that created all his games and apps and so on? How did he think about manufacturing then? Or artwork? Or movies? How does someone get so far in such a technology based society without knowing that there are people behind all these things?

There are people involved in the manufacturing of Oreos and iPods and office cubicles, but if you compare it with shopping at a farmer's market or a craft fair and meeting the person who made the thing you are buying, it can all seem so abstract and distant. Someone might rail against "all the preprocessed crap" that you can buy in a grocery store (and people do, all the time), with only the barest awareness that the…

Maybe we should sell software at craft fairs? Personalized perhaps...

Re: I am very real

#146

Post by mosburger » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 1:17 PM UTC

SatvikBeri wrote: post #80

mosburger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do something similar when I see a crazy driver in traffic... I imagine that he or she might be on their way to an emergency room to care for a loved one (or is perhaps a doctor). I try to feel sorry for them for being in a position where they are trying to hurry. I actually read to do this in some silly self-help book ( Don't Sweat The Small Stuff , perhaps?) years ago. It's helped a lot.

Considering that the advice genuinely helped you, why do you refer to the book as silly?

That's a good question.

I think it's been answered pretty well by other people here w.r.t. the mixed reputation of self-help books, with a side of embarrassment for admitting I read one (which is really nothing to be embarrassed about).

Re: I am very real

#147

Post by Spearchucker » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 1:40 PM UTC

patrickk wrote: post #139

stan_rogers wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Psychotic" also works here, but for a different reason. While a psychopath may be able to perceive, but unable to empathize with, a person, someone in the depths of psychotic delusion may be unable to perceive a fellow human being. It is perhaps not nearly as common "in the wild", but it does occur (the killing of Tim McLean by Vince Weiguang Li being the example that comes most easily to mind). In fact, generating…

An article about the reasons infantry fire or not: http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers... I read somewhere (citation needed!) that the percentage of soldiers who deliberately fire their weapon at the enemy has increased from WWI to the Iraq conflict, which some put down to violence in movies and video games. After watching excellent Iraqi conflict documentaries like Restrepo and Armadillo (Da…

You're right about the percentage increase. This is for two reasons - first, because most of the close-range shooting on the ground was done by special forces who're trainined to overcome that resistance. Second, because many of the deaths are from bombs - either shelling from ships at sea, or from aircraft and UAVs. Those last three remove the personal element, and that makes "pushing the button" really easy and guilt-free. We as humans who pride ourselves on empathy can be pretty savage :-(

Re: I am very real

#148

Post by nightpool » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 3:00 PM UTC

andywood wrote: post #107

reason wrote: post #31

This submission could not have come at a better time. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been contemplating making a submission urging HNers to be human , and to recognize that everyone else who comments here is also a human , and that stories about startups and notable figures are essentially about humans - humans who all have families, friends, ambitions, desires, flaws, struggles. All too often I see people here…

I agree with you, and there is a specific type of pedantry I find especially grating. I'm talking about the constant insistence on citations and double-blind studies, even when it isn't appropriate - even when someone obviously means only to share their own experience. There's an aggressive form ("Citation Needed") and a passive-aggressive form ("Say, friend, that's a bold claim! I sure am interested in this. Do you…

You make a lot of good points, but I feel that by lumping in people asking for more information with the "Citation Needed" people you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I, myself, have asked "Do you know anywhere I could read about this a little more" of people, maybe not sharing anecdotal experiences, but definitely anyone discussing a topic I'm interested.

As Wikipedia shows us, assuming good faith is crucial to a civil discussion. There's a fine line on the internet between good faith and passive-aggressive behaviour, and in doubt you should always try to assume that that person asking for more info really is curious.

Re: I am very real

#149

Post by marknutter » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 3:17 PM UTC

andywood wrote: post #107

reason wrote: post #31

This submission could not have come at a better time. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been contemplating making a submission urging HNers to be human , and to recognize that everyone else who comments here is also a human , and that stories about startups and notable figures are essentially about humans - humans who all have families, friends, ambitions, desires, flaws, struggles. All too often I see people here…

I agree with you, and there is a specific type of pedantry I find especially grating. I'm talking about the constant insistence on citations and double-blind studies, even when it isn't appropriate - even when someone obviously means only to share their own experience. There's an aggressive form ("Citation Needed") and a passive-aggressive form ("Say, friend, that's a bold claim! I sure am interested in this. Do you…

Citation needed

Re: I am very real

#150

Post by andywood » Sat, Mar 31, 2012, 3:54 PM UTC

nightpool wrote: post #148

andywood wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, and there is a specific type of pedantry I find especially grating. I'm talking about the constant insistence on citations and double-blind studies, even when it isn't appropriate - even when someone obviously means only to share their own experience. There's an aggressive form ("Citation Needed") and a passive-aggressive form ("Say, friend, that's a bold claim! I sure am interested in this. Do you…

You make a lot of good points, but I feel that by lumping in people asking for more information with the "Citation Needed" people you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I, myself, have asked "Do you know anywhere I could read about this a little more" of people, maybe not sharing anecdotal experiences, but definitely anyone discussing a topic I'm interested. As Wikipedia shows us, assuming good faith is cru…

Let me be more clear. Whether this is a problem is entirely dependent on context. It's not really about the words used. There are times when asking for more information, even citations, is completely reasonable and expected. No objections there.

There are also times when, I believe, a reasonable person knows darn right well that the 'source' is the commenter's personal experience. In those cases, asking for a source looks like rhetorical mischief, only intended to discredit the person's point of view. "That's not science, therefore your comment has no value."

I'm suggesting that as 'citation needed' has become a cultural badge, it seems to be increasingly misused. All I'm hoping is that people will think twice: "Do I really reasonably expect that the information presented is a matter of fact, and sourced somewhere? Or am I using this community-accepted phrasing sardonically, as another way of saying, 'That's like, your opinion, man.'"