"IMO, this is what appeals to many about HN....the desire to find share-worthy things that will help cement their image as the smart person within their social group."
Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.
> Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.
This is why I hate being around a good deal of "smart" people (or atleast, people who have smartness attached to their identity, which seems to be rarely the same group). Every statement, every conversation, every fact is just another opportunity for them to put something down or puff themselves up.
Ah yes. Let's all stay positive. It's not like anyone ever died from not wanting to criticize something, right?
Only, things ranging from people going on doomed escapades and startups, via mountaineering accidents up to and including the Eschede train disaster can be at least partially attributed to people being afraid of expressing criticism. Of course there is a valid criticism of how many people express said criticism, but that's another matter.
In fact, what I do see, is a lot of people who are so attached to their own opinion, that even after an amount of statements intended discern between the opinion and person expressing it, they still become angry when facing criticism.
One of the actual reasons I come to HN is to read dissenting views. I may disagree with them, but without them this site would be useless.
You sound like you're snarkily disagreeing with d23, yet the core of your disagreement is based on something that he/she didn't say. No one is saying criticism is bad; obviously if anyone had a default position of never expressing criticism or disagreement, nothing would ever improve, right? But there is absolutely a personality type that thrives on thinking of one's self as being smarter than everyone else, and constantly trying to prove that via relentless negativity or contrarianism. If you rely on such people for insight, you will generally end up being less informed than if you hadn't listened to them at all, because their views are based on boosting their own ego by trying to appear smarter than everyone else rather than from an intellectually honest attempt to get at the truth.
At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
The one good quality such people might have is as a continual Devil's Advocate, in the sense that by disagreeing with all conventional wisdom they might make you take a second look at your own beliefs. But I really feel like it's everyone's responsibility to be their own Devil's Advocate; relying on other people to fill that role isn't constructive.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that there's no shortage of negativity or contrariness out there, and contrariness without insight is no better than agreement without insight. In fact, it can easily lead you astray if you're not careful.
> You sound like you're snarkily disagreeing with d23, yet the core of your disagreement is based on something that he/she didn't say. No one is saying criticism is bad; obviously if anyone had a default position of never expressing criticism or disagreement, nothing would ever improve, right?
Well, I did get sick of it after yet another discussion on HN went into the 'stop raining on the parade' comments.
> At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
I've met many people who dismiss any criticism with complaints of negativism. I've even seen that happen when I complained about how they were dissing others, as if me suggesting they should be more understanding was negative.
In fact, I see a lot of negativity with insight, and a lot of yes-men attitude without any reflection. It's a far more common disease.
I think I'd still rather be around people who argue with statistics and logic than people who don't. Step into a Yahoo news comment section with any article that mentions the US gov't or Obamacare. There's so much bullshit and stupidity thrown around it makes you lose faith in humanity.
I'd rather be around smart people putting someone down or puffing themselves over things they are right about than be around dumb people putting someone down or puffing themselves up over things they are wrong about. Internet arguing, Politics, Sports, Rap battles, etc. same shit, different group, different MO's
What you've described is normal human behavior irrespective of their level of intelligence.
For the record, although I consider myself smart, I usually like to get substantive feedback (whether agreeing with me or not) to battle test my views, learn more and refine my presentation. I intuitively find this to be valuable for me and I seem to be addicted to debating with people of different points of view on topics I care about. I don't care about an echo chamber beyond once in a while reinforcing that random reasonable people agree with me. But I quickly want to move the conversation to stuff I am still battle testing. The thing that frustrates me the most are people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know. Usually they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious and ignore the main arguments. It makes me waste a lot of time.
I took a plane ride to Wisconsin for instance, for a three day conference of Christian apologists because they are hard to get a hold of online, and I had serious questiona.
I enjoy having my views continually challenged -- but I have begun to draw a line between those with whom I disagree and those who make me angry. I have less time for those who make me angry -- but I say that without judgement. I can't say they're arguments are empty if I refuse to engage them -- the most I can say is that it's not beneficial for me to engage them.
In terms of "people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know ... they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious", I would counsel toward assuming good faith on their part, and just not engaging them. If you'd like to benefit from what they know, it's fair that you should try to hear their arguments charitably and even entertain that what you consider "logically obvious" may be more cultural than logical.
Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.