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

Negative comments

hackerschool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Negative comments

#71

Post by A_COMPUTER »

placebo wrote: post #49

How can one start to criticise such an article without proving it right? :) >So next time you read something, try this: Instead of looking for the parts you can prove are false, try to find pieces you can learn from. Who says the two are mutually exclusive? If you seek the truth of something, then as a reader you should do both, and as the writer you should welcome constructive criticism. If I were to write something…

I agree :-) But I suspect the (correct) distinction you made between the two different motivations for criticism are irrelevant to Hacker School because criticism of any kind is seen as an impediment because some groups find criticism intimidating, and a primary goal of Hacker School is inclusivity and diversity. That is why the conclusion of the essay was to stop being so critical rather than be more judicious about what you criticize. I totally agree with them that there is too much worthless criticism, but what works for them can't be a universal prescription. But maybe I'm reading to much into it.

Re: Negative comments

#72

Post by kazagistar »

drcomputer wrote: post #16
furyofantares wrote: post #11

The negativity of the internet bothers me as well. Somewhat amusingly, I find it is often difficult to express agreement with someone without confusing them, there seems to be an assumption that if you are replying to someone you are probably disagreeing with them. Despite feeling this way, any time I go back and read my own recent comment history, I am shocked to find that most of my comments are still corrections/d…

I am in the habit of persistently deleting comments. Sometimes my disagreements are just one half of a conversation I should be having in my head, alone.

"Essay writing" is a nice habit to help with this. Sometimes, my brain is too small to store the extent of a conversation, so I pull up a text editor, and write comments there, respond to them, and so on.

Re: Negative comments

#73

Post by ThomPete »

mwfunk wrote: post #70
ThomPete wrote: post #3

Critical thinking is overrated, constructive thinking is underrated. Too many turn into critics rather than creators because saying to the world "this is what I stand for, this is what I created" is so much harder than to simply tear someone elses down. The US is actually much better than Europe but unfortunately academic disciplines and craftmanship are mostly separated in the education system when they should never…

I think you're confusing the term "critical thinking" with criticism or negativity- it just means trying to be as objective as possible when reasoning about something. Critical thinking is more about rooting out your own biases than picking apart things said by other people (I would consider that to be just having an argumentative nature). Someone who has a hair trigger for jumping on other people when they say thing…

No I am well aware of what critical thinking is and I still stand by that I find it overrated. That does not mean it's not important it is but it's getting way more credit than it deserves.

As I said another place this extends into corporate world where it's actually seen as providing value if you are able to point out problems with what others are suggesting.

Critical thinking has it's place but it's unfortunately often mistaken for creation and there comes a point where it's useless.

Re: Negative comments

#74

Post by mwfunk »

alecco wrote: post #59

As a writer of critical comments of "hacker" school, I think this is typical of the times. If you call out somebody you are dismissed as a debbie-downer, cynical asshat, or other things like that. This comes from a culture now dominated by PR/marketing/sales, getting crazier by the growing viral marketing and astroturfing craze. I strongly recommend you to watch Smile or Die, a talk by Barbara Ehrenreich. https://www…

Generally speaking, "calling someone out" is being a debbie-downer and/or cynical asshat. If you're calling someone out, then by definition you are not voicing a disagreement with a particular perspective, you are attacking an individual.

Whenever I disagree with someone, I try really hard to come across as "the thing that you are saying is wrong" instead of "you are wrong". The former is a statement about a belief, the latter is a statement about a person. It's human nature to have a reflexive, defensive reaction to someone if you think they're attacking you rather than something you said.

Re: Negative comments

#75

Post by vacri »

ThomPete wrote: post #68
vacri wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Frequently the top comment on HN is continuing the conversation. Often that involves some disagreement, but that's not the same as shitting on the article. Looking at the first ten articles on the front page right now: Streem: "I am glad that someone is working on a new stream processing language, it is a very interesting paradigm. " Margaret Hamilton: "What a truly inspiring human being. I can only dream…

This discussion is not just about HN.

Are you aware of the irony of this comment as well?

Re: Negative comments

#76

Post by guscost »

Tossrock wrote: post #8
ThomPete wrote: post #3

Critical thinking is overrated, constructive thinking is underrated. Too many turn into critics rather than creators because saying to the world "this is what I stand for, this is what I created" is so much harder than to simply tear someone elses down. The US is actually much better than Europe but unfortunately academic disciplines and craftmanship are mostly separated in the education system when they should never…

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the d…

From Ratatouille:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..." - Anton Ego

Re: Negative comments

#77

Post by drdaeman »

Animats wrote: post #30

The Internet is a medium full of ads and self-promotion. A sizable number of articles on blogs, including this one, are of the form "why X is great", by someone selling X. We have plenty of boosterism on line already. Some negativity is useful. This is a big problem on Wikipedia. In the old days, five years ago, most of the self-promotion on Wikipedia was by bands and DJs. Now it's companies and rich people. There ar…

Real names (as opposed to anonymity and pseudonymity) are double-edged sword, too. In a less civilized countries you can get physically hurt if someone didn't agree with your writings, no matter whenever they're valid and constructive or not. Maybe on civilized ones too, since a joke about punching on s face over TCP/IP didn't happened out of nowhere.

Re: Negative comments

#78

Post by [deleted] »

illicium wrote: post #64
mkramlich wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish you kids would use "summary:" instead of "tl;dr" though kudos for putting it at the beginning rather than the end. I mean this in a friendly constructive way, and realize you may not be a kid. But while there's lots of positive innovation happening in culture and esp related to the Internet, I feel strongly that "tl;dr" is not one of them, its a step backward. It's typically placed in the worst possible locati…

> you kids DH1. Ad hominem

[deleted]

Re: Negative comments

#80

Post by seanmcdirmid »

drdaeman wrote: post #77
Animats wrote: post #30

The Internet is a medium full of ads and self-promotion. A sizable number of articles on blogs, including this one, are of the form "why X is great", by someone selling X. We have plenty of boosterism on line already. Some negativity is useful. This is a big problem on Wikipedia. In the old days, five years ago, most of the self-promotion on Wikipedia was by bands and DJs. Now it's companies and rich people. There ar…

Real names (as opposed to anonymity and pseudonymity) are double-edged sword, too. In a less civilized countries you can get physically hurt if someone didn't agree with your writings, no matter whenever they're valid and constructive or not. Maybe on civilized ones too, since a joke about punching on s face over TCP/IP didn't happened out of nowhere.

Real names keeps unintentional trolling down. Besides, I live too far away for anyone to punch me.
Post reply on HN