4 ms·

This has already gone meta-meta, in that there is a thread in every comment section on a post by Stephen Wolfram that complains about his self-obsession, and al

This has already gone meta-meta, in that there is a thread in every comment section on a post by Stephen Wolfram that complains about his self-obsession, and also one that complains about the complaints. Basically, there is an HN gentlemen's agreement to collectively ignore Wolfram's self-praise, so that discussions about the worthwhile nuggets of insight in his blog posts are not drowned out.

lqet 8y ago
I was not aware of that, but am now. Thanks!
jjoonathan 8y ago
That strikes me as a bad idea. Silence = implicit approval. Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't.
- rongenre 8y ago
  I'm reasonably sure that the self-aggrandizement that he does is probably why Mathematica is pretty much a niche product, even compared to Matlab, and certainly numpy/pandas.
- viscanti 8y ago
  > Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't. That's fair, but I'm not sure that a comment thread on HN is going to change him. He might be stuck in his ways at this point and may not even care about what some of the posts here say about his narcissism. I'm also not sure that we need to convince anyone here that he is a narcissist, as that part doesn't seem contentious. So maybe focusing on the other areas is better.
- comboy 8y ago
  Well if you don't like him just ignore him, that's the biggest weapon in today's world. There are so many more interesting things to discuss than the author's personal traits. As Eric Weinstein put it, we are standing on shoulders of jerks[1] (I wouldn't put Stephen in this particular category). We do need people like Wolfram and we need them to be themselves. 1. https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553 https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    If Wolfram didn't drag a self-aggrandizing anecdote into every third sentence it might be easier to focus on his ideas.
- theli0nheart 8y ago
  What’s your goal with that? Character smearing is tiring, repetitive, and doesn’t belong here. Let’s move on and focus on the ideas he’s sharing.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Wolfram's narcissism is tiring, repetitive, and doesn't belong anywhere. Let's keep that message clear and not go for "it's OK to be a jerk if you're smart."
    - theli0nheart 8y ago
      Um, no. It’s never OK to be a jerk. But that doesn’t mean jerks have nothing of value to add to the world. No human being is perfect. If we disregarded the successes and breakthroughs of anyone who did anything bad in their lives we’d still be living in the Stone Age.
    - FatalLogic 8y ago
      Picasso was a jerk, Mozart was a jerk etc I'm not saying Wolfram is in their league, but I think the same principle applies. You salute the ideas, not the man. If you want to criticize the person, then keep that separate.
      - zazen 8y ago
        I would agree if discussion of Wolfram's narcissism were being dragged into a discussion of Mathematica that didn't otherwise feature Wolfram personally; but that's not the case here. The link is to a text written by Wolfram, in substantial part about Wolfram, in which Wolfram's narcissism is on display. We can't separate the person here.
        golemotron 8y ago
        I do. You could.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I'm going to have to vehemently push back on this. I don't think you can declare what does and does not constitute "implicit approval" for other people. You can't just impose a crusade on other people. Am I approving of Wolfram'a narcissism if I read an article of his but don't make a comment discussing his narcissism? What if I upvote an article but don't comment about it? What if I comment, but not about his narcissism? Where's the line? Where does my obligation begin and end? If I choose to abstain from commenting on someone's narcissism, does that mean I have to boycott their work? Do I have to boycott talking about their work with other people? If you don't respond to this comment of mine, am I to read your silence as implicit agreement? If not, why is that idea any less flippant than yours? I'm not going to conspicuously trot out a meme about Wolfram's narcissism every time he comes up. It doesn't add any new information to the discussion, whereas he frequently writes interesting things. It also won't make Wolfram any less narcissistic, it will just be obsessive and futile. He's not harming anyone. To give an example, what you're suggesting is the reason why (for the most part) the only people who find Stallman bearable are people who share his ideology. If you have a pet crusade you launch whenever a topic comes up, you'll quickly find your comments marginalized by everyone who frankly doesn't care about it as much as you. It's just not a productive use of time and doesn't effect the change you think it will. It's a poor hill to die on.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Whether silence should mean tacit approval and whether it does mean tacit approval are two entirely different questions. I'd argue that it shouldn't but it does. Mentioning and disapproving of Wolfram's narcissism is hardly akin to dying on a hill, and nobody is even asking you to do it, but Phemist is asking people to not actively disapprove of Wolfram's narcissism and I find that odd.
    - zazen 8y ago
      >nobody is even asking you to do it It may not have been your conscious intent, but your previous comment was in fact in the imperative: >Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't.
    - 8y ago
- golemotron 8y ago
  Narcissism is a psychological disorder. Is it okay to attack and shame people for something they can't control? That doesn't seem right.
  - nmstoker 8y ago
    This is not meant argumentatively, but is it intrinsically part of the definition of a psychological disorder that it cannot be controlled at all by the person? And presumably people here aren't actually diagnosing him with the condition, merely saying be acts like that (as many smug, full of themselves people also act that way without it being clear they've got a disorder) Irrespective of that, I'd say that shaming someone isn't great whatever, but there's no denying that this kind of thing is disruptive - people persevere with his writing because he's often got valuable points to communicate, but you'd have to be thick skinned to say it wasn't intensely annoying. Even if Stephen can't control it, it seems like he's functional enough that he would be aware of the way he comes across and simply ask someone to edit out the OTT aspects brefore he posts. Knowing his eagerness for efficiency, perhaps he could even automate the text processing with the Wolfram Language.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  I just roll my eyes at his self-praise when I see it. I don't think it's really all that harmful or necessarily narcissism.
- dang 8y ago
  It's not about Wolfram, it's about HN threads not repeating themselves over and over again. When they do, they're off topic. And boy do they do that about this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19222812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19222812

lqet 8y ago

I was not aware of that, but am now. Thanks!

jjoonathan 8y ago

That strikes me as a bad idea. Silence = implicit approval. Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't.

rongenre 8y ago
I'm reasonably sure that the self-aggrandizement that he does is probably why Mathematica is pretty much a niche product, even compared to Matlab, and certainly numpy/pandas.
viscanti 8y ago
> Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't. That's fair, but I'm not sure that a comment thread on HN is going to change him. He might be stuck in his ways at this point and may not even care about what some of the posts here say about his narcissism. I'm also not sure that we need to convince anyone here that he is a narcissist, as that part doesn't seem contentious. So maybe focusing on the other areas is better.
comboy 8y ago
Well if you don't like him just ignore him, that's the biggest weapon in today's world. There are so many more interesting things to discuss than the author's personal traits. As Eric Weinstein put it, we are standing on shoulders of jerks[1] (I wouldn't put Stephen in this particular category). We do need people like Wolfram and we need them to be themselves. 1. https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553 https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  If Wolfram didn't drag a self-aggrandizing anecdote into every third sentence it might be easier to focus on his ideas.
theli0nheart 8y ago
What’s your goal with that? Character smearing is tiring, repetitive, and doesn’t belong here. Let’s move on and focus on the ideas he’s sharing.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Wolfram's narcissism is tiring, repetitive, and doesn't belong anywhere. Let's keep that message clear and not go for "it's OK to be a jerk if you're smart."
  - theli0nheart 8y ago
    Um, no. It’s never OK to be a jerk. But that doesn’t mean jerks have nothing of value to add to the world. No human being is perfect. If we disregarded the successes and breakthroughs of anyone who did anything bad in their lives we’d still be living in the Stone Age.
  - FatalLogic 8y ago
    Picasso was a jerk, Mozart was a jerk etc I'm not saying Wolfram is in their league, but I think the same principle applies. You salute the ideas, not the man. If you want to criticize the person, then keep that separate.
    - zazen 8y ago
      I would agree if discussion of Wolfram's narcissism were being dragged into a discussion of Mathematica that didn't otherwise feature Wolfram personally; but that's not the case here. The link is to a text written by Wolfram, in substantial part about Wolfram, in which Wolfram's narcissism is on display. We can't separate the person here.
      - golemotron 8y ago
        I do. You could.
throwawaymath 8y ago
I'm going to have to vehemently push back on this. I don't think you can declare what does and does not constitute "implicit approval" for other people. You can't just impose a crusade on other people. Am I approving of Wolfram'a narcissism if I read an article of his but don't make a comment discussing his narcissism? What if I upvote an article but don't comment about it? What if I comment, but not about his narcissism? Where's the line? Where does my obligation begin and end? If I choose to abstain from commenting on someone's narcissism, does that mean I have to boycott their work? Do I have to boycott talking about their work with other people? If you don't respond to this comment of mine, am I to read your silence as implicit agreement? If not, why is that idea any less flippant than yours? I'm not going to conspicuously trot out a meme about Wolfram's narcissism every time he comes up. It doesn't add any new information to the discussion, whereas he frequently writes interesting things. It also won't make Wolfram any less narcissistic, it will just be obsessive and futile. He's not harming anyone. To give an example, what you're suggesting is the reason why (for the most part) the only people who find Stallman bearable are people who share his ideology. If you have a pet crusade you launch whenever a topic comes up, you'll quickly find your comments marginalized by everyone who frankly doesn't care about it as much as you. It's just not a productive use of time and doesn't effect the change you think it will. It's a poor hill to die on.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Whether silence should mean tacit approval and whether it does mean tacit approval are two entirely different questions. I'd argue that it shouldn't but it does. Mentioning and disapproving of Wolfram's narcissism is hardly akin to dying on a hill, and nobody is even asking you to do it, but Phemist is asking people to not actively disapprove of Wolfram's narcissism and I find that odd.
  - zazen 8y ago
    >nobody is even asking you to do it It may not have been your conscious intent, but your previous comment was in fact in the imperative: >Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't.
  - 8y ago
golemotron 8y ago
Narcissism is a psychological disorder. Is it okay to attack and shame people for something they can't control? That doesn't seem right.
- nmstoker 8y ago
  This is not meant argumentatively, but is it intrinsically part of the definition of a psychological disorder that it cannot be controlled at all by the person? And presumably people here aren't actually diagnosing him with the condition, merely saying be acts like that (as many smug, full of themselves people also act that way without it being clear they've got a disorder) Irrespective of that, I'd say that shaming someone isn't great whatever, but there's no denying that this kind of thing is disruptive - people persevere with his writing because he's often got valuable points to communicate, but you'd have to be thick skinned to say it wasn't intensely annoying. Even if Stephen can't control it, it seems like he's functional enough that he would be aware of the way he comes across and simply ask someone to edit out the OTT aspects brefore he posts. Knowing his eagerness for efficiency, perhaps he could even automate the text processing with the Wolfram Language.
nsxwolf 8y ago
I just roll my eyes at his self-praise when I see it. I don't think it's really all that harmful or necessarily narcissism.
dang 8y ago
It's not about Wolfram, it's about HN threads not repeating themselves over and over again. When they do, they're off topic. And boy do they do that about this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19222812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19222812