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

221–230 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#221

Post by throwawaymaroon »

pain wrote: post #162
bengali3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the avoiding negativity, but can you elaborate on an example of avoiding "emotional developments to feel positively correct"

Sometimes it hurts to make sense and that is okay. An example being voted from hell to heaven and back and forth again and again is making your question triggering, meaning being nice is just a command and control like with linux top. I rarely resolve my (social(emotional)) system issues by just id removing and killing task. (Intergenerational traumas as much and as well as intergenerative gramma(r) traumma [sic]. Ae…

What the heck is a fluidic writer doing in this haunt of logic? Wonderful to stumble across your ologies; keep churning, spurning, turning the logos as you see fit, my friend.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#222

Post by JoshTriplett »

tptacek wrote: post #203
webwanderings wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. I read this somewhere, something along the lines ... that when you disagree with someone, you should first make sure to repeat and restate the arguments of the opponent you disagreeing with, in your own words, before making any of your own arguments.

I also like the (related) idea of an Ideological Turing Test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test

That's a really good idea; you shouldn't just be able to restate the opposing argument as a devil's advocate, you should be able to understand all the arguments well enough to make them as effectively as any advocate. And you shouldn't sound like a caricature of that position unless all advocates of that position sound equally ridiculous.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#223

Post by dang »

nostrademons wrote: post #214
tptacek wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger project than HN that has put a lot of time into the norm we're talking about today is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

That actually came from the original C2 Wiki, although it's been refactored (across sites apparently...it's now on MeatBall) significantly since I first came across it c. 2003: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AssumeGoodFaith I suspect it's a much older idea than that, probably dating back to the Enlightenment. It's closely related to the Principle of Charity, which was coined in 1958 but again, refers to a much older principl…

> That actually came from the original C2 Wiki

That's fascinating! Has anyone traced it to its precise origin there? I'd love to see that.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#224

Post by tptacek »

EdSharkey wrote: post #201

Must comments be soothing and agreeable to be appreciated at all? Is it okay to be caustic if you're also making a good point? For example, I often say intentionally chaotic things in relation to Microsoft stories because we have a history and this reflects my current impression of that company. That said, I find a lot of their recent changes, open source contributions, and future plans very agreeable and sometimes a…

No, they merely need to be substantive.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#225

Post by [deleted] »

cpncrunch wrote: post #138
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…

A related issue is people downvoting comments that they haven't properly comprehended. Instead of asking "why do you think x" or "do you mean x" they just downvote the comment. Sometimes it happens with controversial comments, even when the controversial comment is based on facts. Sometimes going against HN groupthink (e.g. saying something bad about libertarianism) results in downvotes. EDIT: I'm surprised that I go…

[deleted]

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#226

Post by InclinedPlane »

Some tips:

If you write a response, before sending it go back through and edit it, think about removing unneeded negativity now that you have a fully fleshed post.

If your post starts with "No." or "You're wrong." consider removing those and just letting your argument stand on its own.

Consider using softer and more charitable words like "mistaken" instead of "wrong". Usually that's what is meant in most cases anyway.

Avoid the backdoor route to building a strawman, don't add unspecified details or intensity to a post that isn't there. Doing so makes it easier to get on a high horse, but usually that isn't warranted. Get used to having a genial exchange of views with a slight difference of opinion, it's not necessary for every "argument" to be a fight to the death.

Try to read posts by others more charitably, and take the time to apologize for mistakes you've made or times you've let your emotions get the better of your reason.

Upvote comments you disagree with that are well made and lead to a good discussion.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#227

Post by calibraxis »

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.

Generous interpretations raise discourse. Because they're attempts to find strong versions of positions.

However, it takes two to tango; worthwhile discussion is a cooperative venture. There's systematic reasons why a forum is incapable of reaching a certain level. Take Twitter and misogyny. (Or HN for that matter; Twitter's rampant death threats shouldn't lower expectations when evaluating other forums.)

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#229

Post by tptacek »

zk00006 wrote: post #50

Given the fact that people get points for their answers, there is already bias towards positive and encouraging comments in hacker news. Notice how the comments start positive and later slowly add the information just to be "safe". Of course not in all cases. From my experience: if I give shallow positive comment I am more likely to get positive points, but strict negative and often deeper comment is down voted. This…

That sounds like a good thing.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#230

Post by svachalek »

kolbe wrote: post #94

> Negativity isn't the problem--gratuitous negativity is. Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative? Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I hear people make statement like that one, they are usually weaseling into some businessey doublespeak that roughly translates into "people like me can be negative, people like you cannot, but…

> Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative?

That is gratuitously negative because you are not contributing anything to the conversation except your opinion. While everyone tends to think their own opinion is an incredibly valuable gift to the world, the world rarely receives it as such.

> Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I hear people make statement like that one, they are usually weaseling into some businessey doublespeak that roughly translates into "people like me can be negative, people like you cannot, but I refuse to say that outright."

You've taken a simple sentence of a few words, expanded it into a nebulous category of "statement[s] like that one", inferred motivation, and taken it as an assault on "people like you".

That's "critical thinking" if you use the definition of critical meaning "negative" but not the more valuable sort of criticism based on empirical evidence and carefully considered logic.

Now, if you'd presented examples of how previous arguments have been called "gratuitous" but in fact contained substantial contributions in terms of facts and logic, or vice versa, because of the status of the individuals involved, then you would have a real argument rather than just a vague expression of cynicism, and I for one would not call that "gratuitous negativity".

Post reply on HN