Haters • Hacker News Board

Re: Haters

#191

Post by aguyfromnb » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

phoe-krk wrote: post #125

aguyfromnb wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what is "genuine criticism" and what is "hate"? To the person receiving criticism, everything is hate. Look at pg's twitter on Tesla: doesn't understand the hate. Has he read the criticism and refuted it? No, he dismisses it.

> To the person receiving criticism, everything is hate. That's some immature criticism-receiver that you are describing here. You have just implied that it is impossible to receive criticism without thinking of it as hate, which I find to be false.

I agree, it's immature. But I'm not the one who wrote an article calling critics haters and losers.

I mean, the article literally says the calling card of a hater is the use of the word "fraud". Meanwhile, we see actual fraud in Silicon Valley (and beyond, of course) all the time. God forbid it gets called out.

I'm old enough to remember the flak people took on these very forums for calling Theranos a fraud: thoughtful people obviously did due diligence on the company, critics (losers?) couldn't stand seeing a woman be so successful.

Re: Haters

#192

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

ac2u wrote: post #178

zemo wrote: post #166

> haters are just fanboys with the sign bit flipped makes it much easier to deal with them. ... The most important [technique] is simply not to think much about them. this reads like a justification for ignoring criticism by attributing the criticizing party to being a hater.

I think that's a stretch. There was a clarification earlier in the article about the difference between a one-off piece of criticism and a pattern of obsessively negative commenting on everything you do. A critic might respond to every Tesla mention on Elon Musk's twitter with a negative response because they think (rightly or wrongly) that the company is overhyped. A hater would do the above but also respond negativ…

"There was a clarification earlier in the article about the difference between a one-off piece of criticism and a pattern of obsessively negative commenting on everything you do."

Yes: the former are trolls while the latter are haters.

Re: Haters

#193

Post by gizmo » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

Defenestresque wrote: post #186

rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

I disagree. The people you refer to did not hate Holmes/Enron/etc unilaterally because of a vague feeling that their talents were overestimated. They had, to use PG's term in the article, a dispute with them over a particular issue that they had picked up on, often as a result of having domain-specific knowledge that allowed them insight into their operations (i.e. that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enr…

But that's also true for those who call Elon Musk a fraud. Disputes such as "funding secured" (securities fraud), "full self driving coming later this year" (false advertising), booking warranty expenses as goodwill (accounting fraud), Musk's claim he had "recused himself" from the SolarCity acquisition when he hadn't (securities fraud).

These accusations of fraud are all truth-claims about the world. They are provable, or they may turn out to be false. But what cannot be disputed is that these are claims of substance.

pg argues that accusations of fraud are simply playground style insults lobbed towards those who are too successful by spiteful and bitter haters, who are mediocre and unaccomplished, and therefore not worth paying any attention to. I think that's way too dismissive.

Re: Haters

#194

Post by rjdagost » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

Defenestresque wrote: post #186

rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

I disagree. The people you refer to did not hate Holmes/Enron/etc unilaterally because of a vague feeling that their talents were overestimated. They had, to use PG's term in the article, a dispute with them over a particular issue that they had picked up on, often as a result of having domain-specific knowledge that allowed them insight into their operations (i.e. that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enr…

Did you ever read about the obsessive determination with which Harry Markopolos worked to expose Bernie Madoff? He had a visceral obsession with Madoff, working for almost a decade to expose Madoff's scam. John Carreyrou likewise had a longterm fixation on exposing the Theranos scam. These weren't mere "disputes" over technicalities- they were all-consuming endeavors that became core to the identifies of the whistleblowers. They were most definitely "haters".

Re: Haters

#195

Post by gist » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #158

I'm surprised at the harsh negativity in this article. Not that the inquiry into why people become 'haters' isn't intriguing, but to explore it so shallowly and to boil it down to "Well, they are losers", and call in the image of "basement dwellers" frankly, makes pg sound like he is falling into the same trap he is trying to write about - generic hating on others. Despite that, his other points have merit. Haters an…

> I'm not a fanboy of pg

Predictably there are many fanboys of PG. Very generally a negative comment about PG that is not packaged correctly and with care will get a certain amount of backlash on HN vs. the same about an unknown or lesser known person. It's as if the 'fanboys' feel it is their duty to defend the person (PG or otherwise). And (per my comment elsewhere) it's that love that drives the haters. It feels (to the hater) undeserved.

The ironic part of all of this is survival wise the non fanboy (what PG would call 'hater' but don't agree with that wording but will go with it) is way more likely to engage and interact with others vs. the famous person. For example if someone were to write to you 'codingdave' most likely you would interact, engage or help (and if you didn't my guess is most others similar to you would). The fanboy who has defended the famous person won't get the time of day from that person (or a trivial interaction at best). The fanboy doesn't even exist in the eyes of the famous person.

I've had similar experiences with my own family. At a dinner with relatives they will totally get up in arms over some person who they don't know, that doesn't care about them, that doesn't know they even exist. They will get into a fight (with a person close to them) defending that person. And what they will do is burn a bridge with a person that is of direct relationship (and 'value') that survival wise would make more sense not to 'piss off' (for lack of a better way to put it).

Re: Haters

#196

Post by gist » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #123

> Could a hater be cured if they achieved something impressive? My guess is that it's a moot point, because they never will. Couldn't disagree with this more. There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation. PG is making the fundamental attribution error here. Only the most cursory glance could imply that haters are never successful. If you followed individual haters, you…

Passion often drives success and creativity. It would actually be likely that someone who is a hater is able to use that to their advantage and get ahead vs. someone who has no emotion and is not driven. Anecdote wise have heard stories of people who have achieved things as a result of adversity which is driven by perhaps 'hate' of what others have.

> There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation.

Could also say in a different way that PG has zero data on whether this is true or not. It's an essay and an opinion and is as likely to be correct as my first paragraph.

Re: Haters

#197

Post by aguyfromnb » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

Defenestresque wrote: post #186

rjdagost wrote: post #172

I have to totally disagree with this statement: > There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud. Just…

I disagree. The people you refer to did not hate Holmes/Enron/etc unilaterally because of a vague feeling that their talents were overestimated. They had, to use PG's term in the article, a dispute with them over a particular issue that they had picked up on, often as a result of having domain-specific knowledge that allowed them insight into their operations (i.e. that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enr…

>that financials did not seem to be adding up for Enron or that Holmes's promised device would require significant breakthroughs in analysis that they thought she did not achieve given her evasiveness on technical questions

This is always obvious in hindsight.

But there are companies for which the "haters" are doing this sort of analysis right now, and they are regularly dismissed because "this time it's different" or because "they are on 's payroll".

Re: Haters

#198

Post by srj55 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

Sloppy work in this article. I wonder what drove him to write something like this. It sounds like he's a true hater ...of haters!

haters are just part of life. No need to get worked up on them and make sloppy, weak arguments about them.

> "I've been able to observe for long enough that I'm fairly confident the pattern works both ways: not only do people who do great work never become haters, haters never do great work"

He's a social scientist doing work on human behavior?

Re: Haters

#199

Post by gist » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #128

I never could learn to deal with this. I set up a blog way back when blogs were first a thing, maybe 20 years ago. Started posting articles about internet, culture, tech, anything I found interesting. Almost immediately, I had people dropping by and posting the most vile comments. Whatever I did, I did for bad reasons. I was a bad person and there just wasn't anything I could do or say to fix that. I never learned ho…

I remember growing up old (I think it was) either Car and Driver or Road and Track letters to the editor where they would publish wacky hate letters and then reply in a funny way to the absurdity of the position or thought. So they actually spun that into something of value.

> never joke on the internet, or if you do, be very, very careful it's obvious it's a joke

This is also true with respect to people who have fanboys. For example PG has fanboys and if you say something negative or that appears to be not respectful of PG (or for that matter certain YC companies) you need to package it correctly to appear to be respectful. This is similar to when people IRL will say 'with all due respect' prior to giving some criticism. In 'mafia' movies this was done with 'not to appear subversive but' (negative comment about the boss of the family).

Re: Haters

#200

Post by Fnoord » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #123

> Could a hater be cured if they achieved something impressive? My guess is that it's a moot point, because they never will. Couldn't disagree with this more. There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation. PG is making the fundamental attribution error here. Only the most cursory glance could imply that haters are never successful. If you followed individual haters, you…

Ghostcrawler (former Blizzard developer, currently at Riot Games) had a nice quote about this one:

"Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom."

I believe it is related to de-personification on the Internet (or otherwise written content). In a smaller community, such would not happen.

I also wonder what would happen to the amount of haters if there were no fanboys at all. In a way, they balance each other out.

As for why famous people? Famous means influence. Whenever a non-famous people gets criticized it won't be read much. Doesn't mean it does not happen.