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

Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

thingist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#61

Post by SoftwareMaven »

skrebbel wrote: post #32

Seriously, America is going to drown in shoulder-patting and hooray cheering. This taboo on negative opinions is ridiculous. We're teaching entire generations that we cannot fail as long as we try hard enough, and that it's the attempt that counts. Seriously, screw that. It is a vital skill to be able to filter through feedback, take the useful parts to heart, and shrug about low, nasty, useless comments. To learn fr…

I think this is a false dichotomy. You can refuse to accept sub-par performance without being an asshole. You can help a person get better at something without making sure they know how much better/smarter/awesomer you are than they are. You can be critical while still having empathy.

And that, IMO, is the problem. Whatever it is that draws us to computers seems to select very well for poor empathy. I've spent 20 years actively trying to be more empathetic, and I still suck at it. For people who don't care, you wind up with the kind of behavior TFA talks about (and that I see echoed in your response).

Every excuse I've ever seen comes down to "I didn't care enough about the other person's feelings to put any extra effort into my communication." We aren't robots. Feelings matter.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#62

Post by potatolicious »

skrebbel wrote: post #32

Seriously, America is going to drown in shoulder-patting and hooray cheering. This taboo on negative opinions is ridiculous. We're teaching entire generations that we cannot fail as long as we try hard enough, and that it's the attempt that counts. Seriously, screw that. It is a vital skill to be able to filter through feedback, take the useful parts to heart, and shrug about low, nasty, useless comments. To learn fr…

This isn't the sort of thing author is talking about.

We're talking about the nasty, mean-spirited, no-holds-barred evisceration of each other by hiding behind the guise of criticism.

Take a few days ago:

"GitHub Gracious Helps Female Programmers Cower in Fear"[1]

Nobody is saying you have to agree with everything GitHub does re: sexism, or that they are above criticism. Nobody is saying you should be patting everyone on the back and giving gold stars for effort.

But what is that, really? You couldn't just say "this is wrong and doesn't help" or "your solution makes the problem worse"? No, author in this case had to go with the most needlessly inflammatory, mean-spirited, and downright asshole-ish comment possible.

Presentation matters. Criticism wrapped in vitriol becomes just vitriol, and vitriol wrapped in criticism still doesn't become good criticism.

Disagree away, but the way the geek community behaves it's clear many members take a perverse glee in eviscerating each other via "criticism". We revel in others being wrong, and we positively wet ourselves at the opportunity to point out this wrongness with gusto and vitriol. This perversity is what the author was railing against, not your ability to disagree in general.

[1] http://www.thepowerbase.com/2013/04/github-graciously-helps-...

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#63

Post by at-fates-hands »

The first place I worked at had this same issue of developers discrediting other people's code. It was an incredible "alpha-male" syndrome to witness. Then this same group of developers would brag about all the stuff they were working on outside of work. The ongoing pissing contest almost made me quit my job as a developer.

Don't kid yourself, Nerds and Geeks are just as competitive and nasty as jocks are.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#64

Post by pnathan »

There is a lot of stupid out there. It needs to be called out. On the other hand, things can appear stupid due to internal logic and constraints not obvious to the uninitiated.

It's good to bear that in mind when reading things.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#65

Post by tiredofcareer »

michaelochurch wrote: post #54

First of all, I don't think constructive criticism and frank incivility belong in the same bucket. One is a good thing about us. The other is a negative. However, if we want to restore our tribal integrity, we can't let management play us against each other so easily. There are so many conflicts that look technical but are actually cases where management deliberately played tech people against each other (usually, to…

When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about. I interviewed at Google recently and asked my interviewers about you, Michael, based on the threads you start here that talk about the management vs. engineers culture at Google. Rather than go "oh, Michael, you're so wrong," I gave you a chance and brought it up as a valid concern to each of my five interviewers. The resounding sentiment from every single engineer who interviewed me (two of them with more than 8 years at Google) was how badly you misrepresent and malign Google and how half of engineering wishes they could correct you, but legality and common sense prevents them from doing so. (It goes without saying that it's really interesting that all five knew who you were, since I interviewed on the warm coast and you worked in NY.)

I didn't just get that from people putting on a game face to interview me. I know five current Googlers from all walks of life and corporate structure, including someone who worked near you during your tenure, and they all hate what you do in public. It's an effective technique, really, because you know that you win if they go toe to toe with you.

Given that you're discussing slitting throats for more equity in other parts of this thread, and previously you've compared Google management to the terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center, I implore you to seek help. Please. Way too many people feed in to your reality distortion who haven't been around the block in the valley and Hacker News, and it's disgusting to watch.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#66

Post by SoftwareMaven »

wrs wrote: post #56

I agree with the premise of not being gratuitously nasty. But I wish he hadn't made it sound like all programming is as consequence-free as skateboarding. If you're programming as a hobby, it doesn't affect anyone but yourself. I totally support your using Arduinos until you figure out you can build one yourself in 5 minutes on a breadboard. If you're programming professionally, the rules change. It's not all about s…

Nobody is saying "don't do a good job" or even "accept sub-standard work". They're saying act more like a mentor than a critic. Mentors don't tear their pupils down, because you can't teach in that environment. Help people become better; don't stroke your ego at others' expense.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#67

Post by tene »

Udo wrote: post #30

The worst thing that can happen to a Show HN post is people totally ignoring it. When I post something of my own here, I expect a certain amount of honesty and criticism, as long as it is constructive. Being "constructive" does not mean being congratulatory, shoulder-patting, praising, or anything like that. It means that the feedback itself should provide some kind of value, preferably for the benefit of the project…

> "What's the points of this? I've been doing the same thing since the 80s by piping four shell commands together?!?" - is not really constructive.

> Letting people know you are unlikely to use the code/product/gizmo is also constructive, especially if you can manage to tell why.

By my reading, these two statements contradict each other. The quote you claim is not constructive seems to me to be saying the author sees no value in the hypothetical contribution, as it offers no additional power and less convenience than what he already uses, and therefore he won't be using it. Isn't that exactly what say is constructive in the second statement I quoted? If I'm misunderstanding you here, can you explain what I'm missing?

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#68

Post by Udo »

tene wrote: post #67
Udo wrote: post #30

The worst thing that can happen to a Show HN post is people totally ignoring it. When I post something of my own here, I expect a certain amount of honesty and criticism, as long as it is constructive. Being "constructive" does not mean being congratulatory, shoulder-patting, praising, or anything like that. It means that the feedback itself should provide some kind of value, preferably for the benefit of the project…

> "What's the points of this? I've been doing the same thing since the 80s by piping four shell commands together?!?" - is not really constructive. > Letting people know you are unlikely to use the code/product/gizmo is also constructive, especially if you can manage to tell why. By my reading, these two statements contradict each other. The quote you claim is not constructive seems to me to be saying the author sees…

That first example was from a specific thread that actually happened when someone made a command-line tool, and the whole discussion was incredibly unproductive and full of "look at me, I solved this eons ago, this developer sucks" messages. You're probably right there is a fine line between those two, but they are not identical. It's the difference between saying why you wouldn't necessarily use something on the one hand, and showing off while berating someone on the other.

Asserting that a project's existence is unjustified is a bold and unfriendly claim. Saying that it's simly not for you is another matter entirely.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#69

Post by michaelochurch »

tiredofcareer wrote: post #65
michaelochurch wrote: post #54

First of all, I don't think constructive criticism and frank incivility belong in the same bucket. One is a good thing about us. The other is a negative. However, if we want to restore our tribal integrity, we can't let management play us against each other so easily. There are so many conflicts that look technical but are actually cases where management deliberately played tech people against each other (usually, to…

When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about. I interviewed at Google recently and asked my interviewers about you, Michael, based on the threads you start here that talk about the management vs. engineers culture at Google. Rather than go "oh, Michael, you're so wrong," I gave you a chance and brought it up as a valid concern to each of my five interviewers. The resounding sentime…

When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about.

I wasn't talking about Google. Not for that specific case. That happened at another company, where I didn't work, but I know the story. Lots of companies use PIPs and performance reviews.

The resounding sentiment from every single engineer who interviewed me (two of them with more than 8 years at Google) was how badly you misrepresent and malign Google and how half of engineering wishes they could correct you, but legality and common sense prevents them from doing so.

If they want to defend their company's practices, they should. Who knows? Perhaps the company improved massively after I left. Perhaps calibration scores were abolished last year. I'd have no way of knowing and, if that's the case, the public should know.

I'm better known for that than I'd like to be. However, I'd say that my support is about 25/25/50. 50 percent of Googlers see me as Emmanuel Goldstein and would probably never want to talk to me, that's true. I don't like that I have potentially thousands of enemies, but sometimes a person like me has to do the right thing, even at the cost of unpopularity. 25 percent are just completely indifferent. 25 percent view me positively because they want to see Google improve and think it takes someone like me to draw executive attention to problems.

Oddly enough, I'm probably doing more good for Google engineers than anyone realizes, because upper management is now aware of abuses in the middle and, at least, has a chance to correct them. I haven't probed (I don't care) but the company could be fixing itself, thanks to something I started. Of course, the perverse irony is that if Google management fixes their culture, I'll probably still be the villain (as a guy who worked there at the nadir and gave it a negative reputation) rather than the catalyst.

The best thing for my personal reputation is for Google not to improve itself, because then I'm still right. Still, it's better for the world for Google to heed my advice and fix itself in order to make all the things I've said wrong.

I know five current Googlers from all walks of life and corporate structure, including someone who worked near you during your tenure, and they all hate what you do in public.

I've said a lot of positive things about Google. They have great engineers. I've also criticized the place. Whoever came up with "calibration scores" needs to stop using his employer as a nursing home and start using an actual nursing home as a nursing home.

If Google's upper management indicates will to resolve its cultural problems (and hell, I'll work with them on this, and at a cut rate) then I will shut up.

I am already willing to admit that my information is a year and a half out of date. So there.

Re: Nerds, we need to have a talk (2011)

#70

Post by Millennium »

methehack wrote: post #7
daurnimator wrote: post #5

I like it to a degree, the 'geek' culture (how I hate typing that) cuts through bullshit faster than others. I don't mind being insulted if it comes with a helpful suggestion. I LOVE IRC channels where you get the answers: "You're shit for asking that question, but the answer is X".

In general, I find that if the conversation stays civil, the topic retains the spotlight and is not overshadowed by personalities and hurt feelings. In other words, IME, you can 'cut through the bullshit' w/o being a dick and you'll achieve better outcomes. Plus, you won't be a dick.

That works sometimes, even many times. However, it assumes good-faith, rational, and informed discussion: three qualifications that do not always apply. When they don't, civil discourse breaks down into precisely the sort of thing that needs to be cut through.

It can easily be argued that nerd culture takes this too far, reaching for the metaphorical cutting blade long before it is truly necessary. I'd agree with that statement, in fact. But nerd culture's refusal to treat it as a non-option is one of the major reasons we've proven so effective at getting things done and, in so doing, effecting change. Is this dickish? Sometimes, yes; even often. That doesn't mean it's never appropriate.

Post reply on HN