Paul Graham: Six Principles for Making New Things

I think the six-principles approach is great, and it really shows why the initial reaction will always be contemptuous and therefore doesn't mean anything.

Of course, not everyone can easily copy the approach, you need to be an original thinker in order to not overlook overlooked problems.

I don't understand the last part of the essay about reddit as a classic example. "Tell people what was new", was that an overlooked problem? News agencies have been around for a long time. "Stay out of the way" was only possible because of the user-submission-and-voting system, which seems to me a clever and non-obvious idea. What I like most about this idea is the voting part, it tells me what's interesting, I don't care about whether it's new.

I enjoyed the article, as I enjoy most of Paul's articles.

But, I'm coming to the tech world after having worked in the health care industry for 15 years. And, I studied art for 6-7 years, thinking that I could make a career out of it. So, I guess that I have a different perspective on the geek/hacker culture. And, something about hacker culture that never really set well with me was this--the nastiness.

Paul referenced it in his article, referring to the trolls. I just don't understand why people troll like they do. I didn't understand why people were so up in arms about Paul's trying to write a new language and offer it up for public consumption. I don't understand why people have been so quick to criticize Y Combinator. I don't understand the hating that goes on in language flame wars, or OS flame wars.

I understand that people are passionate about technology, and passionate about their language of choice, or OS of choice, but... really. Do people really need to get nasty about it? Why aren't people able to have a discussion about the merits of a language, or strengths and weaknesses without getting personal or mean about it. I just don't understand.

A great doctor that I worked with, was explaining to me why he got out of teaching at a medical school. What he said struck a chord with me: The reason that there's so much back-biting and politicking in academic medicine is very simple--it's because the stakes are so low.

Which leads me to ask the question--Are the stakes really so low in the technology world, that people are so nasty? I have a hunch that for many trolls, that's really true.

I know that shortly after reddit got purchased the trolls made camp and set up a small troll swamp. There are a few cool sub-reddits, though. Why did that happen? Because the stakes became so low.

Interesting angle, but I really don't believe nastiness has much to do with it.

We hackers are just dying to let others know how smart we are. It's what makes us tick.

So we come here (and other forums and blogs) because most of us have trouble finding peers who even understand what we're talking about. Add in a lack of writing style and the anonymity of the internet, and our puffing and strutting APPEARS to be nastiness.

Put us in a room together to discuss the same subjects and I'm sure it would be much more civil.

Honestly ask yourself. Whenever you heard someone else getting a compliment for being smart, (Alan made the Dean's list!), (Joe is a great chess player!), (Fred wrote the best program I ever saw!), don't you get JUST A LITTLE BIT JEALOUS. You almost want to scream out, "Hey! What about me? I'm smarter than that!" We hold back in person because we're polite. But we don't hold back here, because most of us understand. Sometimes I think that if you DON'T think like that, maybe you shouldn't be a hacker.

Reminds me of an old story that Rabbi Harold Kushner told about a young man trying to temper his competitiveness, so he joined an ashram in Japan. He wrote to his father, "Dad, this environment has helped me evolve to the point of enlightenment where I no longer have to compete with others to achieve my bliss. The meditation has done it. I'm one of the top 5 meditators here, and hopefully, by next year, I'll be Number One."

[UPDATE: I just read the comments about this pg essay on Reddit, and realize that it's different over there. They ARE nasty. What's happened to Reddit? Whatever it is, I sure hope it never happens here.]

> Interesting angle, but I really don't believe nastiness has much to do with it.

My experience is that this is a limitation of communication without subtext, inflection, etc. I don't have a whole lot of time right now for details, but I have noticed a few tendencies that exacerbate emotions in online discussions:

- Deprecating humor seems especially biting without the wink and smile, and the inevitable response from others then appears like an attack

- Posters lump all critics together, and tend to forget who made which argument (but are especially sensitive to having their points glossed over, misinterpreted)

- Often those within technical circles don't realize that different people weigh evidence differently (i.e., two parties may reach separate conclusions simply because they have differing views of which facts are important). Unlike in the math world, discussions and conclusions cannot be reduced to a few simple axioms--there's always the experience of the observer necessary to interpret data.

- There's a tendency to skim critics posts and respond to individual sentences/words (rather than the sum of what was actually written).

Maybe they vote because they want the story to stay on top a while, either to convince others (Ron Paul) or because they want to see the discussion. Reddit is like a reality show. You might vote for the candidate you liked best, but you might also vote for a troublemaker to ensure a good show.