4 ms·

He wasn’t a teenager.

tomhoward 7y ago
He was 19. Neuroscientists tell us that in most people, the pre-frontal cortex (the rational decision-making part of the brain) doesn't fully form till the mid 20s, which is why everyone says douchey things, well into their 20s. We have no idea what his real thinking/motivation was behind that comment, but a combination of adolescent bravado and incredulity that this stupid little app he'd hacked together was working so well would suffice, at least as well as casting him as a 19-year-old moustache-twirling super-villain-in-the-making would. This is the one-and-only such quote of his from that period that gets invoked. If that's the most scandalous piece of dirt anyone could dig up on him from his entire early life, he's not doing too badly. I sure as hell wouldn't fare so well.
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  People typically refer to 13-18 as teenage. 18 and over. College in general is referred to as young adult or even adult.
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    It's a pedantic point and it doesn't contradict anything I wrote in the rest of the comment.
    - digitaltrees 7y ago
      Saying he was a teenager to excuse the morally questionable behavior and reduce his culpability is invalid when he isn’t really a teenager based on legal standards. He would be tried as an adult in any legal proceeding and fully morally and legally responsible for his actions. So my point stands. Pedantic doesn’t mean anything relevant to this conversation.
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        We're not talking about an act of criminal violence, or indeed anything illegal at all. We're talking about a private, off-the-cuff remark, isolated from much surrounding context or knowledge of what was going on in his mind or heart when he made it. For all we know it was just a dumb 19-year-old joke, so there's not even any clear evidence of immorality, apart from by the person who publicly shared a private conversation. OK, I understand that for a lot of people, it's really important to fixate on this "gotcha" instance, to take the view that the worst possible conceivable motive just has to be the only plausible one, even though there is no possibility of undertaking the kind of forensic or judicial examination that would be required to properly determine such a thing. But seriously, regardless of what it may or may not reveal about Zuckerberg, fixating on it is just not a healthy or productive way to look at the world. I invite you to explore the psychology concept of the shadow [1], and consider that when we fixate on other people's flaws and transgressions like this, there's very likely plenty wrong that we're not seeing in ourselves, but that we could greatly benefit from paying attention to. That's is why I call out this trope whenever I see it on HN. Not because it upsets me that people are saying mean things about Mark Zuckerberg. It's that in focusing on other people's supposed sins, they're likely avoiding looking at what they could pay attention to in themselves, and thus embrace big opportunities for their own personal growth. Say what you like about Zuckerberg and Facebook's current/recent conduct. There's plenty there, and there are plenty of valid and important discussions to be had about the role of Facebook etc in the modern world. But this 15-year-old comment trivialises these present-day issues, and is also just super-boring. By the way, the Oxford dictionary and Wikipedia both define "teenager" as any age ending in "teen", so nobody is wrong to use it in that way. You can apply a different interpretation, but it would only be for rhetorical purposes, not to correct any errant assertions of fact. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
        digitaltrees 7y ago
        You’re switching the issue. The debate is whether he was young and therefore excused for saying something dumb. But he was of an age that he would be held responsible for much more serious acts. Joking about disclosing peoples private details without consent is not criminal but he was old enough to be expected to know that would be perceived as wrong. Indeed by alluding to the concept of trust, the comment indicated some awareness. This is not an example of gotcha culture because the point I am arguing against is that a 19 is excused because they are a teenager. He was an adult in the eyes of society based on legal status. I am open to debate about whether that age of culpability needs to be adjusted based on neuroscience. The shadow is not applicable, and just a red herring, not relevant to whether a 19 year old is an adult. I am not even getting into whether his comment indicates a willingness to log into their email without permission. Why excuse this? If you heard an 19 year old joke about walking into someone’s house would you think they were too young and shouldn’t know better? As far as the Oxford dictionary, I’ll stick with the general legal definition, as it is more relevant a social measure of whether he should have know better based on generally acceptable measures of conduct at that age, and is fairly held responsible. This 15 year old comment doesn’t trivialize anything, it serves as an anchor over a 15 year period where the underlying intent is established and the intervening conduct makes more sense and is much worse. It’s impossible to argue that disclosure is inadvertent when this intent was present at the very beginning. He was literally selling peoples information for social credibility with a friend. You may think it’s boring, but I am just as pissed as the first day I heard it and have been off of Facebook for the last 10 years as a result. I hope everyone hears this comment over and over, maybe then it would sink in.
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  What he said wasn’t douchey, it showed disregard for the rights and worth of other people. That should be learned in kindergarten. We all make mistakes, but his mistake was not age appropriate.

He was 19. Neuroscientists tell us that in most people, the pre-frontal cortex (the rational decision-making part of the brain) doesn't fully form till the mid 20s, which is why everyone says douchey things, well into their 20s. We have no idea what his real thinking/motivation was behind that comment, but a combination of adolescent bravado and incredulity that this stupid little app he'd hacked together was working so well would suffice, at least as well as casting him as a 19-year-old moustache-twirling super-villain-in-the-making would. This is the one-and-only such quote of his from that period that gets invoked. If that's the most scandalous piece of dirt anyone could dig up on him from his entire early life, he's not doing too badly. I sure as hell wouldn't fare so well.

digitaltrees 7y ago
People typically refer to 13-18 as teenage. 18 and over. College in general is referred to as young adult or even adult.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  It's a pedantic point and it doesn't contradict anything I wrote in the rest of the comment.
  - digitaltrees 7y ago
    Saying he was a teenager to excuse the morally questionable behavior and reduce his culpability is invalid when he isn’t really a teenager based on legal standards. He would be tried as an adult in any legal proceeding and fully morally and legally responsible for his actions. So my point stands. Pedantic doesn’t mean anything relevant to this conversation.
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      We're not talking about an act of criminal violence, or indeed anything illegal at all. We're talking about a private, off-the-cuff remark, isolated from much surrounding context or knowledge of what was going on in his mind or heart when he made it. For all we know it was just a dumb 19-year-old joke, so there's not even any clear evidence of immorality, apart from by the person who publicly shared a private conversation. OK, I understand that for a lot of people, it's really important to fixate on this "gotcha" instance, to take the view that the worst possible conceivable motive just has to be the only plausible one, even though there is no possibility of undertaking the kind of forensic or judicial examination that would be required to properly determine such a thing. But seriously, regardless of what it may or may not reveal about Zuckerberg, fixating on it is just not a healthy or productive way to look at the world. I invite you to explore the psychology concept of the shadow [1], and consider that when we fixate on other people's flaws and transgressions like this, there's very likely plenty wrong that we're not seeing in ourselves, but that we could greatly benefit from paying attention to. That's is why I call out this trope whenever I see it on HN. Not because it upsets me that people are saying mean things about Mark Zuckerberg. It's that in focusing on other people's supposed sins, they're likely avoiding looking at what they could pay attention to in themselves, and thus embrace big opportunities for their own personal growth. Say what you like about Zuckerberg and Facebook's current/recent conduct. There's plenty there, and there are plenty of valid and important discussions to be had about the role of Facebook etc in the modern world. But this 15-year-old comment trivialises these present-day issues, and is also just super-boring. By the way, the Oxford dictionary and Wikipedia both define "teenager" as any age ending in "teen", so nobody is wrong to use it in that way. You can apply a different interpretation, but it would only be for rhetorical purposes, not to correct any errant assertions of fact. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
      - digitaltrees 7y ago
        You’re switching the issue. The debate is whether he was young and therefore excused for saying something dumb. But he was of an age that he would be held responsible for much more serious acts. Joking about disclosing peoples private details without consent is not criminal but he was old enough to be expected to know that would be perceived as wrong. Indeed by alluding to the concept of trust, the comment indicated some awareness. This is not an example of gotcha culture because the point I am arguing against is that a 19 is excused because they are a teenager. He was an adult in the eyes of society based on legal status. I am open to debate about whether that age of culpability needs to be adjusted based on neuroscience. The shadow is not applicable, and just a red herring, not relevant to whether a 19 year old is an adult. I am not even getting into whether his comment indicates a willingness to log into their email without permission. Why excuse this? If you heard an 19 year old joke about walking into someone’s house would you think they were too young and shouldn’t know better? As far as the Oxford dictionary, I’ll stick with the general legal definition, as it is more relevant a social measure of whether he should have know better based on generally acceptable measures of conduct at that age, and is fairly held responsible. This 15 year old comment doesn’t trivialize anything, it serves as an anchor over a 15 year period where the underlying intent is established and the intervening conduct makes more sense and is much worse. It’s impossible to argue that disclosure is inadvertent when this intent was present at the very beginning. He was literally selling peoples information for social credibility with a friend. You may think it’s boring, but I am just as pissed as the first day I heard it and have been off of Facebook for the last 10 years as a result. I hope everyone hears this comment over and over, maybe then it would sink in.
digitaltrees 7y ago
What he said wasn’t douchey, it showed disregard for the rights and worth of other people. That should be learned in kindergarten. We all make mistakes, but his mistake was not age appropriate.