3 ms·

I get wanting to keep HN from old-fashioned vulgarity and gossip, but I can't imagine finding it less-than-intellectually-interesting. It's an improbably clean

by Digory 5y ago

I get wanting to keep HN from old-fashioned vulgarity and gossip, but I can't imagine finding it less-than-intellectually-interesting. It's an improbably clean example of the conflict between modern and traditional religious views of marriage and money, and whether wanting divorce to be less traumatic can actually make it less traumatic. The symbolism is off the charts. [Churches] all regard divorce as something like cutting up a body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment. What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else. -- CS Lewis, Mere Christianity

dang 5y ago
You're making general points about divisive topics (marriage and religion in this case). The odds of interesting conversation on the open internet are low when the topics are intense like that. HN threads feel like an intimate conversation (something we all like about it), but they're really broadcasts to a large audience. On polarized topics, the odds that some message will land explosively in some portion of the statistical cloud are high. Some of those readers will rush into the comments to heatedly answer some provocation, and off we are to the flames. We don't try to avoid divisive topics altogether, but we do to try to wait for solid opportunities - the ones where the odds are less skewed to flamewar. Threads are sensitive to initial conditions, the most important of which are the title and the article (in that order). If we start off with something substantive, where there's enough information for the mind to sink its teeth into [1], we're more likely to get reflective responses rather than reflexive ones [2]. In other words, it's best to play the good hands and fold the bad ones. A blockbuster billionaire story with a sensational title and no additional information will probably produce discussion that burns hot, fast, and shallow. People will react reflexively with their pre-existing associations about the personalities involved and the generic topic (divorce, in this case). That is the sort of discussion that HN is not for. We want the kind that burns slower, goes deeper, and wends through unexpected places. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20sink%20teeth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

by Digory 5y ago

dang 5y ago

You're making general points about divisive topics (marriage and religion in this case). The odds of interesting conversation on the open internet are low when the topics are intense like that. HN threads feel like an intimate conversation (something we all like about it), but they're really broadcasts to a large audience. On polarized topics, the odds that some message will land explosively in some portion of the statistical cloud are high. Some of those readers will rush into the comments to heatedly answer some provocation, and off we are to the flames. We don't try to avoid divisive topics altogether, but we do to try to wait for solid opportunities - the ones where the odds are less skewed to flamewar. Threads are sensitive to initial conditions, the most important of which are the title and the article (in that order). If we start off with something substantive, where there's enough information for the mind to sink its teeth into [1], we're more likely to get reflective responses rather than reflexive ones [2]. In other words, it's best to play the good hands and fold the bad ones. A blockbuster billionaire story with a sensational title and no additional information will probably produce discussion that burns hot, fast, and shallow. People will react reflexively with their pre-existing associations about the personalities involved and the generic topic (divorce, in this case). That is the sort of discussion that HN is not for. We want the kind that burns slower, goes deeper, and wends through unexpected places. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20sink%20teeth&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...