5 ms·

I'm not commenting about whether these people are right or wrong, that's not my point. I'm saying that HN has a vocal population who are so very sure of themse

I'm not commenting about whether these people are right or wrong, that's not my point. I'm saying that HN has a vocal population who are so very sure of themselves and their own opinions that they'll rapidly post messages here declaring that innards of a large, complicated piece of software are so obviously wrong and that they know what the right way is. They seem to live in a world of utter certainty, never a doubt that they might not know all the considerations that could weigh in on the design of some inner working of a complex system. HN would be a better place if these people could entertain some humility, perhaps a little bit of self-doubt, perhaps an inkling that other people may know something they don't, and that the world is not always the black/white, yes/no certainty that they seem to experience. Or we can just drown in the continual "This is stupid! they should do X" style comments.

Danihan 10y ago
It's easier when people make claims, rather than just being wishy-washy, since specific claims can be disputed / falsified.
lmm 10y ago
> HN would be a better place if these people could entertain some humility, perhaps a little bit of self-doubt, perhaps an inkling that other people may know something they don't, and that the world is not always the black/white, yes/no certainty that they seem to experience. Or we can just drown in the continual "This is stupid! they should do X" style comments. I disagree with this one. The best, most productive discussions I've seen on HN are those where people have been clear about their views and expressed them succinctly without the hedging and careful politeness that's expected these days.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mwcampbell 10y ago
  > careful politeness that's expected these days. I've more often heard, or gotten the impression, that discourse is getting more polarized and vitriolic these days. So which is it?
  - lmm 10y ago
    HN in the dang era (post-2015) is a lot more polite, if only superficially, than previously.
derefr 10y ago
I don't do it myself any more (because I don't like having my posts downvoted to the point that nobody replies to them) but I used to be exactly the type of person you're referring to. The thing was, I didn't actually have any certainty about anything. I just thought that the best way to talk about an issue was to pick a "side" (often at random), and let other people pick their "side", and then defend your "side" every time it gets rebutted, gradually researching the issue from the perspective of your side in order to best steel-man your own position, while assuming others are doing the same in reaction to your own arguments. In other words, basically pretending internet comments are a debate club, or a court-room, where you're not seeking truth in an Aumann's-agreement-theorem "both people gradually converge onto the truth" way, but rather an adversarial discovery system where the truth comes out for the audience in the compilation of evidence presented by both sides, whether those sides see it themselves or not. I don't know, it was fun at the time. Maybe I was a teenager with a lot of testosterone.
- lmm 10y ago
  I think it works. I mean there's a reason we use this approach for courts and elections, the cases where getting the truth is the most important for society.
  - derefr 10y ago
    Sure it works, sometimes; the problem is more that it's a particular social game that people (like my younger self) would decide to just start up in the middle of an otherwise not-debate-oriented discussion, without giving any context to what they were doing. I'd just assert a bald-faced claim of something I knew shit-all about, wait for a rebuttal to show up, and then do quick, angry research in order to parry said rebuttal. Until you see such a thread go four or five levels deep, it's not really clear that that's what's happening, and so you might want to join such a thread as a sane, calm individual, only to have your own argument taken apart "by the seams" in response (e.g. asserting that due to errors in your deduction, you didn't prove your point, even if you may be right) without engaging with its content. Good for lawyering, bad for truth-seeking. If you then are willing to get baited into playing the game in response, honing your own attack to be bulletproof like a lawyer would, then the truth might eventually find its way out. But if you didn't want to play this game, you'll probably just quit when you realize what's happening, maybe with a petulant "you kno what? Screw this." at the guy who just can't seem to get your words through their head (when they never even believed in their chosen position, so there's no convincing to be done.) If you explicitly indicate that you want to play this game, it could be great fun for all parties. But I know from experience that the other side of this—being baited into playing without knowing the game is afoot—is painful, and can burn people out on a forum community.

Danihan 10y ago

It's easier when people make claims, rather than just being wishy-washy, since specific claims can be disputed / falsified.

lmm 10y ago

> HN would be a better place if these people could entertain some humility, perhaps a little bit of self-doubt, perhaps an inkling that other people may know something they don't, and that the world is not always the black/white, yes/no certainty that they seem to experience. Or we can just drown in the continual "This is stupid! they should do X" style comments. I disagree with this one. The best, most productive discussions I've seen on HN are those where people have been clear about their views and expressed them succinctly without the hedging and careful politeness that's expected these days.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mwcampbell 10y ago
> careful politeness that's expected these days. I've more often heard, or gotten the impression, that discourse is getting more polarized and vitriolic these days. So which is it?
- lmm 10y ago
  HN in the dang era (post-2015) is a lot more polite, if only superficially, than previously.

derefr 10y ago

I don't do it myself any more (because I don't like having my posts downvoted to the point that nobody replies to them) but I used to be exactly the type of person you're referring to. The thing was, I didn't actually have any certainty about anything. I just thought that the best way to talk about an issue was to pick a "side" (often at random), and let other people pick their "side", and then defend your "side" every time it gets rebutted, gradually researching the issue from the perspective of your side in order to best steel-man your own position, while assuming others are doing the same in reaction to your own arguments. In other words, basically pretending internet comments are a debate club, or a court-room, where you're not seeking truth in an Aumann's-agreement-theorem "both people gradually converge onto the truth" way, but rather an adversarial discovery system where the truth comes out for the audience in the compilation of evidence presented by both sides, whether those sides see it themselves or not. I don't know, it was fun at the time. Maybe I was a teenager with a lot of testosterone.

lmm 10y ago
I think it works. I mean there's a reason we use this approach for courts and elections, the cases where getting the truth is the most important for society.
- derefr 10y ago
  Sure it works, sometimes; the problem is more that it's a particular social game that people (like my younger self) would decide to just start up in the middle of an otherwise not-debate-oriented discussion, without giving any context to what they were doing. I'd just assert a bald-faced claim of something I knew shit-all about, wait for a rebuttal to show up, and then do quick, angry research in order to parry said rebuttal. Until you see such a thread go four or five levels deep, it's not really clear that that's what's happening, and so you might want to join such a thread as a sane, calm individual, only to have your own argument taken apart "by the seams" in response (e.g. asserting that due to errors in your deduction, you didn't prove your point, even if you may be right) without engaging with its content. Good for lawyering, bad for truth-seeking. If you then are willing to get baited into playing the game in response, honing your own attack to be bulletproof like a lawyer would, then the truth might eventually find its way out. But if you didn't want to play this game, you'll probably just quit when you realize what's happening, maybe with a petulant "you kno what? Screw this." at the guy who just can't seem to get your words through their head (when they never even believed in their chosen position, so there's no convincing to be done.) If you explicitly indicate that you want to play this game, it could be great fun for all parties. But I know from experience that the other side of this—being baited into playing without knowing the game is afoot—is painful, and can burn people out on a forum community.