I think this is a product of how humans think in general. A topic may remind someone of a related topic and then that gets brought up. Someone may say something that isn’t quite right and it gets pointed out that’s wrong. But then there will be some nuance to that point and now you’re discussing the nuance.
A great example of this is the fact that when I read your post I was reminded of my biggest complaint about HN and was about to write what that is. It’s very hard to stay on point. Here’s an example of a type of interaction that illustrates this.
There are a number of times that I’ve responded to someone to point out what I think is an error. People will then assume what my opinion on the topic is and comment. My comment, logically speaking, didn’t imply any beliefs on my part. I just pointed out something that is wrong. But we sometimes tend to make assumptions on what someone says about that person based on past interactions or media influence. And then things start to deviate.
I don’t think anything can be done about this. I think it would make HN too sterile if something were done about it. This phenomenon is part of us being social beings.
> I think this is a product of how humans think in general.
Yes, that's exactly what I am questioning. Why does it have to be exactly the same when we are online, as opposed to being in person?
A submitted article, opinion piece (or news, etc, anywhere) is almost always on a particular topic or main idea. Who would consistently and daily read an author who goes all over in his/her thinking on any given article? There is almost always a "point" of any given article and the submitted story. Why then the comment stream goes all over?
> I don’t think anything can be done about this.
Well I don't know if I agree entirely. If nothing else, people can stay silent if they don't necessarily have anything in particular to say about the topic at hand (expert or somewhat expert opinion or additional info). Staying silent wouldn't necessarily lead things to 'too sterile'. This can possibly be achieved by being cognizant and conscious.
A great example of this is the fact that when I read your post I was reminded of my biggest complaint about HN and was about to write what that is. It’s very hard to stay on point. Here’s an example of a type of interaction that illustrates this.
There are a number of times that I’ve responded to someone to point out what I think is an error. People will then assume what my opinion on the topic is and comment. My comment, logically speaking, didn’t imply any beliefs on my part. I just pointed out something that is wrong. But we sometimes tend to make assumptions on what someone says about that person based on past interactions or media influence. And then things start to deviate.
I don’t think anything can be done about this. I think it would make HN too sterile if something were done about it. This phenomenon is part of us being social beings.