6 ms·

I consider it extremely important–perhaps vital, even–to spend time engaging others intelligently who have diverging views from one’s own. I think that this is

I consider it extremely important–perhaps vital, even–to spend time engaging others intelligently who have diverging views from one’s own. I think that this is, on the whole, one of the most valuable uses of one’s time that exists. Very interesting insight. If you're not doing things that are transformative -- that change your habits and the way you have of looking at the world, you're wasting your time. And I don't mean that in a philosophical or political sense. It applies to everything -- coding, marketing, time management. If you spend 3 hours on HN today and leave with basically the same opinions, habits, and immediately useful pieces of knowledge that you started with? Not good for you. HN has always discouraged deeply nested discussions, seeing them as just so much noise. I've always thought that was whacked. Yes, many times you are in a flame war and nothing is accomplished, but the entire point of interacting with other people is to learn. So you'd think that a long conversation about, I dunno, pointer arithmetic, would have a transformative effect on both the participants and the community. I think the issue here is whether you view users as intelligent folks who are trying to understand each other, or cranks and trolls who solely exist to get some emotional thrill from flaming (yes, Gresham's Law comes into play here, but everything is a trade-off) As it is, what's happened is this kind of lightweight, superficial herd mentality, with folks striking out fairly deep responses and then nothing ever gets settled. Lots of generalizations and high-level talk, nothing past an initial exchange or three. I've even questioned some longtime members about various topics and was told "I'm not posting to discuss, I'm posting to cut you off" more or less. Once I realized that HN was idle geek chitchat and not the watercooler for entrepreneurs I wanted it to be, it changed my opinion of the place. I still like it, no place like it, but it also has this terrible time-wasting underbelly that we rarely talk about enough.

lotharbot 16y ago
> the entire point of interacting with other people is to learn. I find the short/shallow discussions on HN very good for this. They give you just a couple of shots to either pose an insightful question or provide an insightful response, which encourages high signal content and enforces a "get to the point" mentality. From discussions elsewhere, I've found the majority of learning comes within those first few serious posts; by the time a single person has posted 5-6 times it's often either repetitive or off-topic. In my experience, it's extremely rare for people to still be providing new insight after 5+ rounds of back and forth. That said, in those rare circumstances, I would like to continue discussions further than HN allows (that's one reason I list my e-mail address in my profile.) I've found that what kills deep discussion on HN is not the lack of deep nesting, but the fast news cycle and lack of a "refresh" mechanic to bring threads with new posts back to the top. If someone responds to a discussion I started 2 days ago, I may never see their response.
- robryan 16y ago
  I will always look at the threads page to see responses to things I have written even if it is days after. The problem I guess though is even if the response is written, once it drops off the front page no-one else will see it. The fast news cycle is artificial in a way in that a lot of the stuff posted which manage to get up voted is stuff we could do to not have in comparison with some of the bigger, more contentious ideas and stories which deserve further discussion. I don't know if this problem is really solvable without the reddit style sub-reddits, with as big a community as we have here different things will interest different people and each one of these things is taking front page space away from other things quicker.
kiba 16y ago
I have the habits of reading opposing viewpoints but only in once in a while that somebody cause a belief system update. However, I learn much more from views that I don't know that others people have. This cause more belief system update and change beliefs that I hold. I also find over-the-top viewpoints are more likely to yield belief system update than the regular old bland viewpoints like liberals versus conservatives. I learn much more from statists versus anarchists or copyright abolitionists versus IP defenders who are actually worth their salt.
mechanical_fish 16y ago
If you're not doing things that are transformative -- that change your habits and the way you have of looking at the world, you're wasting your time. As written, this is a dangerously solipsistic statement. Transforming your mind, body, knowledge, opinions and philosophy is indeed helpful, but it is much less than half the problem: Unless you are content to live and die as a hermit, you must also seek to transform the world, even if it's just the world in your immediate vicinity. Learning is valuable, but teaching is just as valuable, if not more so. Teaching is hard, though. You have to do it in tiny pieces, applied one drop at a time over weeks, months, and years. One of the hardest things to learn is not to lecture. You think -- especially if you have spent years in school -- that you can just tie someone down and tell them the truth over and over until they get it, but it doesn't work that way in real life. Rather, it is both ineffective and rude to grab a piece of someone's attention and then attempt to deliver a big lecture. In face-to-face interaction, people deploy social signals to discourage this; on the web we must take more obvious measures, such as designing venues like HN where lecturing feels awkward and is therefore discouraged. But if you want to read incredibly long-form back-and-forth discussions that go on for pages the rest of the Internet is right there, one click away.
- pvg 16y ago
  As written, this is a dangerously solipsistic statement. Dangerously self-referential statement. As written, of course.
  - philbarr 16y ago
    well, I learned a new word today
    - mechanical_fish 16y ago
      And I have learned something too: I must never use this word again, since apparently I have yet to master all its overtones. ;)
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
karlzt 16y ago
>>but it also has this terrible time-wasting underbelly that we rarely talk about enough. are you sure?
bootload 16y ago
"... what's happened is this kind of lightweight, superficial herd mentality, with folks striking out fairly deep responses and then nothing ever gets settled ..." Clay Shirky has a copy of a speech explaining the mechanics of this phenomena, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" ~ http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
jodrellblank 16y ago
'Nothing ever gets settled' seems a staple of internet discussions, at least in places I've lurked. I rarely, if ever, see it discussed how a particular argument could be settled. Instead, they all branch out into n-ary tree style growths - one core question becomes a couple of supporting points, becomes a mass of key points each with a different importance weighting for each participant, some pick-n-mix arguing for the easier nodes which may or may not include some artillery citations being lobbed around, followed by a hunkering down into fixed positions as the argubattle dies out, tenuous support structures collapsing under the confusion. What sort of shape do you imagine a transformative discussion on pointer arithmetic might take? What transformation might it result in, and in whom? Is the point for one person to learn what another knows, or for both to explore the topic to generate completely new information, or both? How would you declare, in advance, end conditions (would you?)? A serial discussion doesn't seem a great vehicle for arguing or discussing - the more deeply nested it is, the more specific and time consuming each point is, the harder it is to see the wood for the trees. Instead of arguing whether forestry companies should pay more tax due to environmental damage, you end up arguing whether it's right that in Minnesota, under regulation Foo.Bar paragraph baz, any company which owns more than 140 hectares of land more than 80% of which is forest, and employing more than 10 people, and which falls under the definition of a Forestry company as specified by Jones vs. Calson 1884, must submit their year end accounts under Revised Minn. Accounting Regulations instead of New Minn. Accounting Regulations. Then each of those points opens for arguing. It's very fractal - every point of contention is potentially a whole full-sized argument. In short, as a discussion on the internet lengthens, the available conclusions approach 'it depends [on the specific situation]', although Godwin's Law intervenes to prevent this state being reached. Human Nature abhors naked indecision.

lotharbot 16y ago

> the entire point of interacting with other people is to learn. I find the short/shallow discussions on HN very good for this. They give you just a couple of shots to either pose an insightful question or provide an insightful response, which encourages high signal content and enforces a "get to the point" mentality. From discussions elsewhere, I've found the majority of learning comes within those first few serious posts; by the time a single person has posted 5-6 times it's often either repetitive or off-topic. In my experience, it's extremely rare for people to still be providing new insight after 5+ rounds of back and forth. That said, in those rare circumstances, I would like to continue discussions further than HN allows (that's one reason I list my e-mail address in my profile.) I've found that what kills deep discussion on HN is not the lack of deep nesting, but the fast news cycle and lack of a "refresh" mechanic to bring threads with new posts back to the top. If someone responds to a discussion I started 2 days ago, I may never see their response.

robryan 16y ago
I will always look at the threads page to see responses to things I have written even if it is days after. The problem I guess though is even if the response is written, once it drops off the front page no-one else will see it. The fast news cycle is artificial in a way in that a lot of the stuff posted which manage to get up voted is stuff we could do to not have in comparison with some of the bigger, more contentious ideas and stories which deserve further discussion. I don't know if this problem is really solvable without the reddit style sub-reddits, with as big a community as we have here different things will interest different people and each one of these things is taking front page space away from other things quicker.

kiba 16y ago

I have the habits of reading opposing viewpoints but only in once in a while that somebody cause a belief system update. However, I learn much more from views that I don't know that others people have. This cause more belief system update and change beliefs that I hold. I also find over-the-top viewpoints are more likely to yield belief system update than the regular old bland viewpoints like liberals versus conservatives. I learn much more from statists versus anarchists or copyright abolitionists versus IP defenders who are actually worth their salt.

mechanical_fish 16y ago

If you're not doing things that are transformative -- that change your habits and the way you have of looking at the world, you're wasting your time. As written, this is a dangerously solipsistic statement. Transforming your mind, body, knowledge, opinions and philosophy is indeed helpful, but it is much less than half the problem: Unless you are content to live and die as a hermit, you must also seek to transform the world, even if it's just the world in your immediate vicinity. Learning is valuable, but teaching is just as valuable, if not more so. Teaching is hard, though. You have to do it in tiny pieces, applied one drop at a time over weeks, months, and years. One of the hardest things to learn is not to lecture. You think -- especially if you have spent years in school -- that you can just tie someone down and tell them the truth over and over until they get it, but it doesn't work that way in real life. Rather, it is both ineffective and rude to grab a piece of someone's attention and then attempt to deliver a big lecture. In face-to-face interaction, people deploy social signals to discourage this; on the web we must take more obvious measures, such as designing venues like HN where lecturing feels awkward and is therefore discouraged. But if you want to read incredibly long-form back-and-forth discussions that go on for pages the rest of the Internet is right there, one click away.

pvg 16y ago
As written, this is a dangerously solipsistic statement. Dangerously self-referential statement. As written, of course.
- philbarr 16y ago
  well, I learned a new word today
  - mechanical_fish 16y ago
    And I have learned something too: I must never use this word again, since apparently I have yet to master all its overtones. ;)
DanielBMarkham 16y ago

karlzt 16y ago

>>but it also has this terrible time-wasting underbelly that we rarely talk about enough. are you sure?

bootload 16y ago

"... what's happened is this kind of lightweight, superficial herd mentality, with folks striking out fairly deep responses and then nothing ever gets settled ..." Clay Shirky has a copy of a speech explaining the mechanics of this phenomena, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" ~ http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

jodrellblank 16y ago

'Nothing ever gets settled' seems a staple of internet discussions, at least in places I've lurked. I rarely, if ever, see it discussed how a particular argument could be settled. Instead, they all branch out into n-ary tree style growths - one core question becomes a couple of supporting points, becomes a mass of key points each with a different importance weighting for each participant, some pick-n-mix arguing for the easier nodes which may or may not include some artillery citations being lobbed around, followed by a hunkering down into fixed positions as the argubattle dies out, tenuous support structures collapsing under the confusion. What sort of shape do you imagine a transformative discussion on pointer arithmetic might take? What transformation might it result in, and in whom? Is the point for one person to learn what another knows, or for both to explore the topic to generate completely new information, or both? How would you declare, in advance, end conditions (would you?)? A serial discussion doesn't seem a great vehicle for arguing or discussing - the more deeply nested it is, the more specific and time consuming each point is, the harder it is to see the wood for the trees. Instead of arguing whether forestry companies should pay more tax due to environmental damage, you end up arguing whether it's right that in Minnesota, under regulation Foo.Bar paragraph baz, any company which owns more than 140 hectares of land more than 80% of which is forest, and employing more than 10 people, and which falls under the definition of a Forestry company as specified by Jones vs. Calson 1884, must submit their year end accounts under Revised Minn. Accounting Regulations instead of New Minn. Accounting Regulations. Then each of those points opens for arguing. It's very fractal - every point of contention is potentially a whole full-sized argument. In short, as a discussion on the internet lengthens, the available conclusions approach 'it depends [on the specific situation]', although Godwin's Law intervenes to prevent this state being reached. Human Nature abhors naked indecision.