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

Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 99 posts

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#2

Post by ColinWright »

This was mentioned in the thread:

"HN is Becoming 2005 Slashdot"

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6157485)

It makes for an interesting read concerning speculation as to why HN is becoming less and less technical over time, and more about politics.

Technical issues and articles take time to read, digest, and understand. It takes a minimum level of expertise to be able to comment usefully on technical issues, so by the time a technical submission has been read properly, it's too late for it to reach the HN front page.

An interesting dilemma.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#4

Post by fnl »

Seems Paul "rediscovered" what Buddhism teaches us: You need to loose your ego to achieve Nirvana. With the difference that the Buddhists also tell you a method for going about this... :)

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#6

Post by arihelgason »

This also applies to professional growth. People often have a hard time receiving negative feedback because they experience it as an attack on their identity/ego rather than as an opportunity to learn.

The ability to take feedback constructively is probably one of the most important traits to hire for.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#7

Post by lazyjones »

Should this "identity" definition also include possible (conscious) vested interests in the subjects of these discussions? E.g. when people defend various corporations against their better knowledge, simply because they own a few shares or their business depends on them. I suspect this to be the case frequently when, for example, Google's wrongdoings lead to heated discussions here on HN and elsewhere.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#8

Post by veidr »

> "Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion."

I agree that this is how people tend to see it. But it isn't really true. Like JavaScript or auto mechanics or animal husbandry, there is indeed a threshold of expertise for expressing a meaningful opinion.

The value of somebody else's commentary on political issues is pretty much directly proportional to their understanding of the political system and their command of objective facts. This is true even if they subscribe to political ideals diametrically opposed to your own.

Personally speaking, this is why I have been so sad about the political discussion on HN since SOPA and Snowden. I thought it might be one of those rare forums where empirical facts and "evidence-based" thinking prevailed -- but it really hasn't. People still seem mostly trapped in their private little jihads, just like they are in the youtube comments section.

To me that's disappointing because government is something so fundamentally amenable to hacking, and the stakes are so incredibly high. The state of the art is so so sad and primitive, with so much low-hanging fruit. (The state of the art in governance, that is, at least if you accept at face value the objective of representing the interests of the electorate; the state of the art of getting elected is actually incredibly advanced, but rarely publicly talked about in earnest.)

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#9

Post by dasil003 »

ColinWright wrote: post #2

This was mentioned in the thread: "HN is Becoming 2005 Slashdot" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6157485 ) It makes for an interesting read concerning speculation as to why HN is becoming less and less technical over time, and more about politics. Technical issues and articles take time to read, digest, and understand. It takes a minimum level of expertise to be able to comment usefully on technical issues, so…

Definitely interesting. I'd say if we want to actively fight the entropy of the social news mechanic (ie. the feedback loop of popularity winning and slight dumbing down of anything increasing popularity), then perhaps we should glance quickly at an article and then jump back and upvote it based a snap judgement of its technical depth.

Of course we run the risk of upvoting well-dressed crackpot nonsense, but that's probably a lesser risk than becoming reddit.

Re: Keep Your Identity Small (2009)

#10

Post by ColinWright »

veidr wrote: post #8

> "Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion." I agree that this is how people tend to see it. But it isn't really true. Like JavaScript or auto mechanics or animal husbandry, there is indeed a threshold of expertise for expressing a meaningful opinion. The value of somebody else's commentary on political issues is pretty much directly proportional to their…

    >> "Politics, like religion, is a topic where
    >> there's no threshold of expertise for expressing
    >> an opinion."

    > I agree that this is how people tend to see it.
    > But it isn't really true. Like JavaScript or auto
    > mechanics or animal husbandry, there is indeed a
    > threshold of expertise for expressing a *meaningful*
    > opinion.
But that's the entire point. Lots and lots of people feel that they have something to say, and they say it, whereas very few actually have a meaningful opinion, and they get drowned out.

Although you say "it isn't really true" you have, in fact, agreed entirely.

Post reply on HN