4 ms·

Anyone rememer how that New Yorker piece describes HN as a place full of performative erudition?

by JamesG124 6y ago

TimSchumann 6y ago
I’d have a witty retort to this, but I can’t find the relevant XKCD.
jpxw 6y ago
I’ll take “performative” erudition over a lack of any erudition at all.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
Ha! That rings true ^_^ Although it has to be said: Takes one to know one, New Yorker. Contemptuousness toward amateurs might be justified though.
vharuck 6y ago
I'd much rather "performative erudition" than "performative idiocy" (a.k.a. trolling), because the latter makes visiting idiots feel they're in good company[0]. [0] Paraphrased (surprisingly to me) from a Hacker News user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082
themodelplumber 6y ago
Funny in its way. I was thinking about this a while back. IMO HN as a community is mostly introverted (subjective/qualitative) and structure-biased, so open-ended discussions on "erudite" topics which may not be direct specialties of commenters will encourage a sort of performing or even bluffing effect, out of community-identity stress. At that time I think I concluded that the least-pressured conversations, and likely most positive and upbeat, would be those on topics like retro computing. Such a topic is close to the HN tech-user specialty, close to the heart because of its strong integration with personal past experiences, and mostly made up of "known" or "closed-ended" topics. So, far from a performance or bluff, you get some pretty passionate tales from direct experience, and erudition be damned. Not sure if that's a rule, but so far it matches my personal perceptions of what makes a really good discussion here, vs. one that's...less like that.
downerending 6y ago
Wow--that's quite a bit of (presumably unintentional) irony, coming from them.
voldacar 6y ago
Lol the New Yorker is the epitome of "performative erudition".
andrepd 6y ago
Why "performative" though? Sorta relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/774/ https://xkcd.com/774/

Anyone rememer how that New Yorker piece describes HN as a place full of performative erudition?

TimSchumann 6y ago

I’d have a witty retort to this, but I can’t find the relevant XKCD.

jpxw 6y ago

I’ll take “performative” erudition over a lack of any erudition at all.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago

Ha! That rings true ^_^ Although it has to be said: Takes one to know one, New Yorker. Contemptuousness toward amateurs might be justified though.

vharuck 6y ago

I'd much rather "performative erudition" than "performative idiocy" (a.k.a. trolling), because the latter makes visiting idiots feel they're in good company[0]. [0] Paraphrased (surprisingly to me) from a Hacker News user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082

themodelplumber 6y ago

Funny in its way. I was thinking about this a while back. IMO HN as a community is mostly introverted (subjective/qualitative) and structure-biased, so open-ended discussions on "erudite" topics which may not be direct specialties of commenters will encourage a sort of performing or even bluffing effect, out of community-identity stress. At that time I think I concluded that the least-pressured conversations, and likely most positive and upbeat, would be those on topics like retro computing. Such a topic is close to the HN tech-user specialty, close to the heart because of its strong integration with personal past experiences, and mostly made up of "known" or "closed-ended" topics. So, far from a performance or bluff, you get some pretty passionate tales from direct experience, and erudition be damned. Not sure if that's a rule, but so far it matches my personal perceptions of what makes a really good discussion here, vs. one that's...less like that.

downerending 6y ago

Wow--that's quite a bit of (presumably unintentional) irony, coming from them.

voldacar 6y ago

Lol the New Yorker is the epitome of "performative erudition".

andrepd 6y ago

Why "performative" though? Sorta relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/774/ https://xkcd.com/774/