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

“I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

archive.oreilly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#71

Post by Kiro »

shoo wrote: post #55
Kiro wrote: post #46

I barely know who Kissinger is but the fact that the author admits it's controversial (in contrast to say calling Hitler a war criminal) is enough for me to avoid this guy's books at all cost. If I read a technical book I presume the examples are objective. If I would have read it without knowing anything beforehand I would take it literally and all of a sudden become a Kissinger hater without realizing it's actually…

I think perhaps you may be conflating "non-controversial" opinions with "objective" opinions. As the author writes: > The Hidden and Prevailing Ideology > I believe that just about every technical book comes with a body of politics, an ideology that governs and usually restricts its example set. We don't notice the political slant because it reflects the dominant viewpoint in our society and is thus invisible. Or mor…

You are right. However, know I made a choice and I have no problem admitting that I think Hitler is a more obvious war criminal than Kissinger, even if it's possible it's all just a construct by the mainstream establishment. Call me a sheep if you want.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#72

Post by ndh2 »

Kiro wrote: post #46

I barely know who Kissinger is but the fact that the author admits it's controversial (in contrast to say calling Hitler a war criminal) is enough for me to avoid this guy's books at all cost. If I read a technical book I presume the examples are objective. If I would have read it without knowing anything beforehand I would take it literally and all of a sudden become a Kissinger hater without realizing it's actually…

Really? You become a "Kissinger hater" from reading an insert statement in a textbook?

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#73

Post by beobab »

realityking wrote: post #5

The question I’d pose to the author is, what would he think of a book using examples he disagrees with? Let’s say for advocating for arming every American or against gay marriage. The vast majority arguing like the author are not ok with this - it’s only good if the content fits their world view.

I would suggest that the author is attempting to use the "thinking past the sale" strategy to influence people, and it's causing cognitive dissonance in the readers who disagree with his position.

The typical reader's mind is actively open to learning PL/SQL. To do so, and to follow the examples as is, their mind has to at least provisionally accept the author's viewpoint in order to understand the concept that the example was designed to teach.

When the "false" belief is rejected (for whatever reason), there is a reasonable chance that the example, which was visually and mentally tied that belief, will be rejected, or only provisionally accepted, which could leave the reader feeling like they haven't got their money's worth.

Bland and vague things are accepted as true and assimilated into worldviews much more easily than controversial things, which might be why most examples are boring.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#74

Post by alien_at_work »

Kiro wrote: post #71
shoo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think perhaps you may be conflating "non-controversial" opinions with "objective" opinions. As the author writes: > The Hidden and Prevailing Ideology > I believe that just about every technical book comes with a body of politics, an ideology that governs and usually restricts its example set. We don't notice the political slant because it reflects the dominant viewpoint in our society and is thus invisible. Or mor…

You are right. However, know I made a choice and I have no problem admitting that I think Hitler is a more obvious war criminal than Kissinger, even if it's possible it's all just a construct by the mainstream establishment. Call me a sheep if you want.

Both are very obviously war criminals. Hitler's actions were obviously more egregious but war criminal is just a person who commits one or more war crimes (regarless of scope), which they both (amoung many, many others) did.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#75

Post by gaius »

realityking wrote: post #5

The question I’d pose to the author is, what would he think of a book using examples he disagrees with? Let’s say for advocating for arming every American or against gay marriage. The vast majority arguing like the author are not ok with this - it’s only good if the content fits their world view.

Consider that at the time Eich made his controversial donation, it was the majority opinion - Prop 8 passed. That didn't age well, and ended up costing him dearly.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#76

Post by mtpn »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #45
happyrock wrote: post #6

I realize this is from 2000 but why would anyone think this person's trite and wholly conventional political opinions are in any way interesting or noteworthy? Strange psychology this guy has, like he's just trying to rattle off as many "controversial" "issues" as he can name, with no regard for his readership... the whole thing comes across as juvenile and narcissistic.

> trite and wholly conventional political opinions It's weird that you judge political opinions on whether they're "conventional" or not, as if you're looking for only the most novel, original politics. I'm imagining a stereotypical hipster sipping kombucha, going "Ugh, tax reform used to be cool before all the fucking college kids got into it. I've been into legalizing meth lately--it's so real, y'know?"

> I'm imagining a stereotypical hipster sipping kombucha, going "Ugh, tax reform used to be cool before all the fucking college kids got into it. I've been into legalizing meth lately--it's so real, y'know?"

I realize this is a side note to a side note, but I think the attractiveness of this stereotype is a problem. I wonder if your prior judgements/experience lead you to misread the parent post and put them in that readily-available “hipster” box, where you could then safely roll your eyes at them for a point that I don’t think they were actually trying to make.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#77

Post by n8n3k »

Reminds me of ashidakim[1], a website that works adds into Zen Koans:

The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.

On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."

The second pupil was surprised to hear th first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.

"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.

"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil. It can be very difficult for people in Western culture to be silent. This is especially true for any person who talks for a living, such as a Columbus criminal defense attorney. Generally Westerners have a negative view towards silence, where members of Eastern cultures tend to embrace it.

[1]: http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/71learningtobesilent.html

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#78

Post by cafard »

One of very few Amazon reviews I have ever posted was a 5-star of Feuerstein's PL/Sql Best Practices. I might not have done so, but for a one-star review given by somebody unhappy with Feuerstein's dedication of the book to Palestinian women (I think it was). I was not out to endorse (or damn) Feuerstein's views on the Middle East, but I thought that the content of the book should be reviewed on its own terms.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#79

Post by happyrock »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #45
happyrock wrote: post #6

I realize this is from 2000 but why would anyone think this person's trite and wholly conventional political opinions are in any way interesting or noteworthy? Strange psychology this guy has, like he's just trying to rattle off as many "controversial" "issues" as he can name, with no regard for his readership... the whole thing comes across as juvenile and narcissistic.

> trite and wholly conventional political opinions It's weird that you judge political opinions on whether they're "conventional" or not, as if you're looking for only the most novel, original politics. I'm imagining a stereotypical hipster sipping kombucha, going "Ugh, tax reform used to be cool before all the fucking college kids got into it. I've been into legalizing meth lately--it's so real, y'know?"

There's nothing wrong with having conventional political opinions, and I wasn't really critiquing them as such. Again, my point was really about Feuerstein's weird psychology, in that he thought cramming his database programming book with such unremarkable observations was some bold act of defiance. I'm just picturing him at his keyboard, "I'm gonna blow these SHEEPLE'S minds... by opening their eyes to the TRUTH that companies profit from operating prisons."

It reflects an indifference to his reader and a general kind of solipsism about the proper role of political discourse. His subsequent explanation that "everything is political" reflects the possibility of an obsessive, neurotic mind, focused on every possible slight or injustice, restlessly waiting to explode at any instant with unwanted political diatribes. I bet he's a joy to be around.

Re: “I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)

#80

Post by watwut »

aurelian15 wrote: post #63
watwut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The birthday party example makes database look pointless. I can imagine company big enough to need database for employees, birthday party is more practical inside a text file. I strongly prefer those democratic controversies not affecting my work. One reason for keeping it out is so that people who think each others opinions are horrible/unnatural can still produce work together.

I fully agree that my "birthday party" example sucks. I just couldn't think of anything better. Regarding the "no controversies at work" matter, I feel that coming to a situation where you dismiss each others opinions as "horrible" is a problem in the first place. Having worked with people ranging from Christian fundamentalist to extreme left, I always have the feeling that we come to agree that our differences are f…

They don't divide when the topic actually does not matter to you. That is when you can easily be detached. When the outcome of the discussion affects you personally, then it is much different. Speaking about Christian fundamentalist specifically, if the consensus in work ends up being that I was supposed to be more with children anyway or that I should be naturally submissive, then my position and career will be fundamentally different then if the consensus ends up being radical aggressive feminist women-are-always-right stance.

Those debates have consequences and that is why they are heated. Alternatively we can make work about work where impact of these things is minified.

"So, if you don't want to discuss these things at work, why not at least be curious about other people's thoughts and honestly ask them in a non-condescending way about why they think about something in a certain way?"

Because I am here to do the job. I picked up this job because I liked programming and problem solving. If I would be interested that much in someones that was randomly assigned to the same team opinions about my gender, motherhood, health care or tax policy, I would pick up different job.

I also strongly hate when people discuss topics like that for hours, then have to stay late and then frame themselves as hard workers who stay late or demand that I stay late too, because they need my support.

Discuss those things after work, with or without colleges.

Post reply on HN