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

New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#301

Post by dman »

cheald wrote: post #251
dman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try saying anything critical about Apple and see if this strategy works out in practice.

Well, I just checked, and my last comment critical of Apple (and not even charitably so) is currently at +97 karma, so I'm not quite sure the argument holds much weight.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. I am afraid it does not address the wider concern I have of which criticquing Apple is a specific example.

On topics where there is a deep skew in the opinion held by the HN readerbase, it is probabilistically likely that going against the widely held view will receive more downvotes. This has a chilling effect on expressing dissent. Of course there will be people who will be able to mitigate this with their gravitas and eloquence. But it would be better if we can come up with a scheme where we lower the burden on people holding a dissenting opinion.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#302

Post by xythian »

Udo wrote: post #8

One of the most negative habits is in my opinion the failure to read a comment charitably (to make an effort to interpret it in the best possible light). Instead, people often tend to misread or miserunderstand what's being said, only to use the opportunity to write a "correction" based on that false impression. A worse flavor of the same problem is a misunderstanding that is then used to justify outrage or personal…

There's a well established social phenomena for what you describe as uncharitable reading the words / actions of other people. It's called the fundamental attribution error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

It has been studied in detail with respect to computer mediated communications as far back as the dawn of email and the tendency of readers to assign a lot more negativity to the emails they receive then their senders ever intended.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#303

Post by Squarel »

mreiland wrote: post #261
cpayne wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(For me) the kicker in your response was: than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect Who then, is worth of your time and/or respect? What is your criteria? Fine by me to have your opinion. But at least be able to back it up with some substance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely. BUT that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL. You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings. There's a cl…

The difference is in how you respond to the person.

So, with the person who has read an article, or heard a soundbite and repeated it incorrectly, consider how you would respond to it in person if they were in front of you.

Gratuitous negativity is being rude, and not addressing the argument. Perhaps they are holding that opinion because it is the only one they have heard.

Did you ever change anyones mind by screaming at them that they were an idiot? Why would it be different online? Present your case for disagreement, with sources, and your experience, then walk away from the discussion if you feel the individual is not going to be taking it on board.

Perhaps your well written, calm, take down of their points will persuade someone else. I always view it as "I do not have to persuade the author of anything, but perhaps someone reads my position and changes their mind" In which case, I would rather not come across as if I was about to burst a blood vessel, or incapable of pointing out flaws in an argument without resorting to "Your thought process is too faulty to trust".

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#304

Post by mreiland »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #272
mreiland wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely. BUT that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL. You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings. There's a cl…

Rather than getting yourself wound up with faulty thinking over something that's clearly wrong, is it not just better to show them the facts? It's quicker than arguing too.

Do you seriously think someone who dismisses people so quickly gets wound up about it? The entire point of dismissing them is to avoid wasting time on them, what in the world gives you the impression I'm getting emotional about it?

To answer your question, I'm 36 years old. I've been online for a quite a while.

It took me a lot of years but I did eventually learn the lesson. On the internet people are never wrong and even citing sources gets you drug into yet another stupid conversation you don't want to be involved in.

I didn't invent the idea of "don't argue with stupid people, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

But I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#305

Post by brudgers »

xienze wrote: post #120
cheald wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience tends to be that if you can hold a dissenting opinion respectfully, and back up your assertions, HN treats it favorably in the long run. Holding a dissenting opinion without being willing to defend it with awareness of your audience's hostility to your ideas rarely goes over well in any forum, though.

I think you're being a bit optimistic here. Downvotes will happen regardless of how well reasoned your argument is, and they'll come in a hurry if you hold an unpopular opinion on a sensitive/political subject. It's definitely my biggest gripe with HN -- there's too much of a political echo chamber here.

Bad threads produce bad behavior. By definition. When I see it happening, I flag the thread. Sometimes despite wishing that there could be a positive discussion of the subject because the subject is relevant and important and intellectually interesting.

I think "Maybe next time it comes up the comments won't devolve."

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#306

Post by Kalium »

panic wrote: post #300
Kalium wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that what is and isn't constructive is not an objective measurement. It's a subjective value judgment. To some, finding bugs in someone's argument is a constructive thing - you are helping them by fixing their argument and showing them how to argue better in the future. Being better able to argue means an increased ability to communicate effectively with others. So my question becomes thus: how do you de…

Maybe a good rule is: the smaller the pedantic, nitpicky detail you address in your feedback, the more you should include other details as well. Instead of "this is wrong because detail X" say something like "this handles detail Y well and I think detail Z is clever, but detail X is wrong".

I think your ideas are good and your intentions are laudible, but I question what purpose is served in asking people to wade through excessive verbiage in order to arrive at what could otherwise be concise and direct criticism.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#308

Post by throwawaymsft »

ohnomrbill wrote: post #84
Udo wrote: post #8

One of the most negative habits is in my opinion the failure to read a comment charitably (to make an effort to interpret it in the best possible light). Instead, people often tend to misread or miserunderstand what's being said, only to use the opportunity to write a "correction" based on that false impression. A worse flavor of the same problem is a misunderstanding that is then used to justify outrage or personal…

Why should I try to interpret comments in the best possible light? I could make an effort to interpret them in the worst possible light, too. I have no reason to believe that internet commenters mean well.

Because if your goal is learn something in a dialogue, not win internet points, you'll want to understand the strongest version of someone's argument -- which isn't necessarily what they wrote verbatim.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#310

Post by tacos »

andrewstuart wrote: post #307

The English would tackle this problem by asking people to be nice. The Americans would tackle this by policing, punishment and penalties. The cold war communists of the 1950s by forcing the community to watch each other and report offenders.

I like you. Let's be friends.
Post reply on HN