Live data from Hacker News

Negative comments

hackerschool.com

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Negative comments

#81
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

There is value in pointing out problems - if you aren't assessing the given pros/cons of a proposal, you're throwing knives blindfolded on a circus wheel...and I don't want to be the one pinned to the wheel with someone doing that. There are too many examples of where this type of thinking sinks everything it pollutes, including startups.

Critical thinking is not given enough value in our society - a lot of people are not successful because they lack it. Spend a prolonged amount of time around many less fortunate people, and you will see this in abundance. Critical thinking is not the only important thing, but it is the fundamental baseline that is most lacking. There are more than enough creators - there are not enough people laying down foundation for creators to proliferate in.

The ability to analyze and assess, and craft a beautiful solution based on the detailed analysis, cannot be possible without the first step of top level understanding. People forget this, and want to jump to the crafting part. The lack of understanding of fundamentals will prevent such people from succeeding, unless it is in spite of themselves. One cannot hope to come up with a beautiful proof of one of the Millennial Prize problems without an understanding of the basics of mathematics. One cannot hope to craft a beautiful composition of music or improvisation without having an intuitive understanding of how certain sounds/patterns move people. One cannot create a fine work of art without a similar understanding of how colors, combinations of colors, and texture affect the total perception.

There cannot be enough stress on the importance of the foundation that is critical thinking. Each of those examples I cited above are examples of critical thinking in action, each in different forms. Critical thinking is not just the formal realm of abstract thought - it is about how we as humans think on a basic level, and how we derive at our conclusions. Certain applications of it involve tapping into previous experiences and quickly determining what should be the next path to take. Others involve carefully reasoned thought.

Re: Negative comments

#82
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure it's all meta. That doesn't change that we aren't talking about HN only though :)

The irony I saw is that I was responding to a point made by kansface, rebutting a misconception that really isn't true. In doing so, I provided evidence to that, pulling in quotes and citing my methods. I created content. Yes, it's not a prize essay, but it took some minor effort, and more importantly it added information to the conversation. It also wasn't derogatory - I didn't imply kansface was a fool, I only discussed the misconception itself.

Then, despite your earlier protestations of people tearing down instead of creating, you just dismissed what I did out of hand with a mere "we're not talking about that". You added nothing to the conversation with that comment, and tried to stifle a conversation branch in process.

While the greater conversation is about more than HN, a specific point on HN was made, and the same specific point was rebutted. Cutting off that conversation is doing exactly what you were complaining about originally.

Re: Negative comments

#83
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

There is value in pointing out problems - if you aren't assessing the given pros/cons of a proposal, you're throwing knives blindfolded on a circus wheel...and I don't want to be the one pinned to the wheel with someone doing that. There are too many examples of where this type of thinking sinks everything it pollutes, including startups. Critical thinking is not given enough value in our society - a lot of people ar…

Yes there is value in pointing out problem. I pointed out a problem with critical thinking being applied too much in too many situations at the cost of actually creating something.

Thats why I called it overrated and not useless.

You are wrong about critical thinking being a requirement for creation it's not and has never been. It can be used, sometimes with success but many times it's being mis-used to represent constructive thinking when it's really just playing devils advocate.

Re: Negative comments

#84
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it's all meta. That doesn't change that we aren't talking about HN only though :)

The irony I saw is that I was responding to a point made by kansface, rebutting a misconception that really isn't true. In doing so, I provided evidence to that, pulling in quotes and citing my methods. I created content . Yes, it's not a prize essay, but it took some minor effort, and more importantly it added information to the conversation. It also wasn't derogatory - I didn't imply kansface was a fool, I only dis…

And now you continue the irony!

As I said. It's all meta :)

Re: Negative comments

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if you agree entirely with someone's point, then a comment saying so is not typically very worthwhile. That's what the upvote is for! (And yes, I'm aware of the irony in making a comment agreeing with someone that just agreeing with someone is typically not worth a comment.)

You are using the valid use of a positive comment: Not just agreeing, but also expanding on the idea.

Interesting, so could one say being negative is easier, but expanding/adding to an idea is harder? I personally find that somewhat true.

The issue is people look at upvotes but read comments. An upvote doesn't say as much as a comment does (quite literally).

Re: Negative comments

#86
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is value in pointing out problems - if you aren't assessing the given pros/cons of a proposal, you're throwing knives blindfolded on a circus wheel...and I don't want to be the one pinned to the wheel with someone doing that. There are too many examples of where this type of thinking sinks everything it pollutes, including startups. Critical thinking is not given enough value in our society - a lot of people ar…

Yes there is value in pointing out problem. I pointed out a problem with critical thinking being applied too much in too many situations at the cost of actually creating something. Thats why I called it overrated and not useless. You are wrong about critical thinking being a requirement for creation it's not and has never been. It can be used, sometimes with success but many times it's being mis-used to represent con…

"Yes there is value in pointing out problem. I pointed out a problem with critical thinking being applied too much in too many situations at the cost of actually creating something."

That critical thinking - critical thinking would take that into account. What you are complaining about is overthinking, not critical thinking - abusing the term is dishonest.

"You are wrong about critical thinking being a requirement for creation it's not and has never been. It can be used, sometimes with success but many times it's being mis-used to represent constructive thinking when it's really just playing devils advocate."

That's a very weak argument with no substance.

Re: Negative comments

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using the valid use of a positive comment: Not just agreeing, but also expanding on the idea.

Interesting, so could one say being negative is easier, but expanding/adding to an idea is harder? I personally find that somewhat true. The issue is people look at upvotes but read comments. An upvote doesn't say as much as a comment does (quite literally).

I agree that adding to an idea or expanding on one is harder. The first thing I think of is a college class, when none of the students will explain an answer or add to discussion.

Re: Negative comments

#89
Is the author trying to say only people who agree should write comments? The whole point of a discourse is to discuss various sides of an issue. Life would be boring if everyone agreed

Re: Negative comments

#90

This is pretty subjective, but I honestly enjoy a certain amount of negative comments. When I click a link on hacker news and end up on a project page, it’s generally all positive. You go to some new kickstarter and you don’t see “This product I want to build is alright .” You see “This new thing I’ve got is AMAZING!”. Every startup landing page tells you, at length, why it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Most g…

I agree.

What I would like to add is that the author seems to neglect, that it's actually the negative comments through which you are able to learn new things about a specific topic - for the exact reasons that you mention.

Post reply on HN