4 ms·

The last quarter of this post has the real message. The first half will probably snatch most of the comments though because that's where all the controversial

by th 16y ago

The last quarter of this post has the real message. The first half will probably snatch most of the comments though because that's where all the controversial ramblings and historical inaccuracies are.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I debated going back and arguing each little historical point, but in fact, the response here is a wonderful example of exactly what I was saying. It doesn't matter. Just assume I'm wrong. If my information doesn't fit with a reader's model, the value of what I am saying is lost. With some types of information, there is no way to say it "the right way" -- it's just not going to fit. Perhaps 99% of that information is bad, perhaps not, but if we don't consume it, we'll never know. Several people still never got to the point of the article. So really the comments on HN work as an extended example. Very meta, and pretty neat.
- mquander 16y ago
  "Everything is going to shit" is a much easier thing to argue about than "you should listen to critical people."
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Yeah but the point wasn't that everything is going to hell, and it wasn't that you should listen to critical people, it's that there are certain criticisms that deserve attention and concern, yet these concepts are impossible to broach with some because it becomes an assault on their way of looking at the universe. You get into endless arguments. This can be confused easily with "everything is going to hell" especially for those who don't want to acknowledge any problems at all. It's grumpy-old-man-syndrome, the other side. As I pointed out in another comment, this is a attribute of how groups of people relate to one another. Citing my personal view of things only served to frame up my suggestions in the manner I was talking about, which then caused exactly the response I mention. I think it's a facile argument to say that this is an issue about criticism only. If only it were so simple.
    - mquander 16y ago
      OK, sorry for mischaracterizing your point.

by th 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I debated going back and arguing each little historical point, but in fact, the response here is a wonderful example of exactly what I was saying. It doesn't matter. Just assume I'm wrong. If my information doesn't fit with a reader's model, the value of what I am saying is lost. With some types of information, there is no way to say it "the right way" -- it's just not going to fit. Perhaps 99% of that information is bad, perhaps not, but if we don't consume it, we'll never know. Several people still never got to the point of the article. So really the comments on HN work as an extended example. Very meta, and pretty neat.

mquander 16y ago
"Everything is going to shit" is a much easier thing to argue about than "you should listen to critical people."
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Yeah but the point wasn't that everything is going to hell, and it wasn't that you should listen to critical people, it's that there are certain criticisms that deserve attention and concern, yet these concepts are impossible to broach with some because it becomes an assault on their way of looking at the universe. You get into endless arguments. This can be confused easily with "everything is going to hell" especially for those who don't want to acknowledge any problems at all. It's grumpy-old-man-syndrome, the other side. As I pointed out in another comment, this is a attribute of how groups of people relate to one another. Citing my personal view of things only served to frame up my suggestions in the manner I was talking about, which then caused exactly the response I mention. I think it's a facile argument to say that this is an issue about criticism only. If only it were so simple.
  - mquander 16y ago
    OK, sorry for mischaracterizing your point.