3 ms·

>I dont think this is true about article at all. Quite a few points are not complains about other peoples behavior nor do they contain anything bad. I do indoor

by bumby 5y ago

>I dont think this is true about article at all. Quite a few points are not complains about other peoples behavior nor do they contain anything bad. I do indoor climbing, it does cost money, we talked about climbing in the work a lot. I would really have to work hard to perceive myself being criticizes by that point. I did not read the article as commenting about what is "bad" about the tech industry but rather about how the homogeneity of the culture can make people feel alienated. Imagine your statement written by someone else read: "I dont think this is true about article at all. Quite a few points are not complains about other peoples behavior nor do they contain anything bad. I have a super yacht, it does cost money, we talked about the best places to take our super-yachts at work a lot. I would really have to work hard to perceive myself being criticizes by that point." Can you see how that would cause some people to feel alienated? Just because something is normative to you and your peer group does not mean it's normative across the board. It also doesn't mean it's automatically good or bad.

watwut 5y ago
Did you read my comment and comment I was responding to before writing yours? The parent complains that article listed things "act like wankers". Which clearly means "bad". Second, I worked with people who had completely different hobbies and interests than I do. I am not always in dominant majority, with climbing in that team I was. As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal.
- bumby 5y ago
  Yes, I read the parent comment. I originally typed out in my previous post that I felt you may have missed the point of the article, but I felt that was too harsh. I don't think the main takeaway from the article should be certain things commonplace in tech culture are "bad" but how it can be alienating. To that point, both yours and the parent post seem overly concerned with the "bad vs. good" distinction. I do have some issues with the article, but I think alienating certain people (whether conscious or not) is something we should be concerned about. Edit: it looks like you've edited your comment quite a bit since I first replied but I think there's another important clarification: >As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal. I'm not using "normative" to define "weird or not-weird" but rather commonplace. So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group. Pile enough of these together and it's easy to see how one may begin to feel alienated.
  - lazide 5y ago
    At some point, you have to decide to either; 1) talk about what you like, even if other people don’t connect well (be yourself at work?) 2) only like things other people connect with (seems limiting, but probably good for the social interactions) 3) pretend to like things others do and don’t talk about what you like (pretty much the definition of the conversationalist, but doing that all the time seems fake and probably unhealthy mentally for too long?) 4) never talk about anything controversial at all - aka the big Corp, how’s the weather answer. You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are, whose responsibility is that anyway? I certainly wasn’t wealthy when I was growing up (or frankly had anything but hand me downs 90% of the time), but I still found ways to get out and do stuff I liked - salvaged old computers, went exploring in the desert, etc. it often meant not really connecting with mainstream folks (who were more interested in sports or the like), and I found it pretty alienating trying to have ‘small talk’ with 99% of the folks around me frankly. Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone - it would not have helped them or me to think they had a duty to not be who there were or care about anything but what they cared about IMO. Anymore than me any my stuff.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone This was my main issue with the article. The author seemed so hyper-focused on the differences she saw day-to-day that she seemed unable to overcome them to find common ground to connect. >You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are This isn't really what I was getting at though. To me, the issue isn't whether or not we can talk about or be our authentic selves, but more about creating a monolithic culture that has in-groups and out-groups. You can have a culture that is homogenous but still accepts those from the outside as equals. In that context, I don't think your assertions hold; you don't have to have the same interests to connect with people. For example, you can connect by being legitimately curious about differing interests as long as it's a culture that is open to different interests without using them as a defining characteristic. From the author's perspective, it seems like she still felt like an outsider. How much of that was in her own head stemming from insecurities about being poor, I don't know.
- strken 5y ago
  The word wanker in Australian English denotes a specific kind of negativity, attached to egotism and acting as though you're better than others. I shouldn't have used it on HN, as it's a poor choice of phrasing for an international audience. As per [0], "the socially leveling term wanker ridicules a person who is pretentious and arrogant, thereby suggesting that humility, solidarity and being down-to-earth are highly valued qualities in Australian society." Vocally complaining about unbleached tampons and flying to Greece for one weekend are textbook wanker behaviour. I'm not sure of a good American English word to substitute. [0] http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003/stollznow.pdf http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003/stollznow.pdf
  - bumby 5y ago
    "douchey" is probably the closest I can immediately think of for American English
literallycancer 5y ago
Climbing is something that basically anyone can do, it improves your fitness and reduces the load on the healthcare system. Super yachts are something that almost no one can have, probably causes some pollution and otherwise doesn't really do anything useful? How can you compare the two? The author looks like she has to pass through doors sideways, so I can see how she might feel alienated by an activity that requires one to pull their own weight. I am quite sure that making people that are unhealthy by choice feel alienated is a good thing, all in all.

by bumby 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

Did you read my comment and comment I was responding to before writing yours? The parent complains that article listed things "act like wankers". Which clearly means "bad". Second, I worked with people who had completely different hobbies and interests than I do. I am not always in dominant majority, with climbing in that team I was. As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal.

bumby 5y ago
Yes, I read the parent comment. I originally typed out in my previous post that I felt you may have missed the point of the article, but I felt that was too harsh. I don't think the main takeaway from the article should be certain things commonplace in tech culture are "bad" but how it can be alienating. To that point, both yours and the parent post seem overly concerned with the "bad vs. good" distinction. I do have some issues with the article, but I think alienating certain people (whether conscious or not) is something we should be concerned about. Edit: it looks like you've edited your comment quite a bit since I first replied but I think there's another important clarification: >As far as I know, people having hobbies I don't care about is completely normal. I'm not using "normative" to define "weird or not-weird" but rather commonplace. So regarding the article and your example, indoor climbing may be commonplace in your peer-group while still being non-normative in someone like the author's peer-group. Pile enough of these together and it's easy to see how one may begin to feel alienated.
- lazide 5y ago
  At some point, you have to decide to either; 1) talk about what you like, even if other people don’t connect well (be yourself at work?) 2) only like things other people connect with (seems limiting, but probably good for the social interactions) 3) pretend to like things others do and don’t talk about what you like (pretty much the definition of the conversationalist, but doing that all the time seems fake and probably unhealthy mentally for too long?) 4) never talk about anything controversial at all - aka the big Corp, how’s the weather answer. You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are, whose responsibility is that anyway? I certainly wasn’t wealthy when I was growing up (or frankly had anything but hand me downs 90% of the time), but I still found ways to get out and do stuff I liked - salvaged old computers, went exploring in the desert, etc. it often meant not really connecting with mainstream folks (who were more interested in sports or the like), and I found it pretty alienating trying to have ‘small talk’ with 99% of the folks around me frankly. Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone - it would not have helped them or me to think they had a duty to not be who there were or care about anything but what they cared about IMO. Anymore than me any my stuff.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >Learning how to connect with them was a skill it took a lot of time and effort to hone This was my main issue with the article. The author seemed so hyper-focused on the differences she saw day-to-day that she seemed unable to overcome them to find common ground to connect. >You can’t be authentic AND make everyone happy. Literally impossible. If someone is alienated by someone talking about who they are This isn't really what I was getting at though. To me, the issue isn't whether or not we can talk about or be our authentic selves, but more about creating a monolithic culture that has in-groups and out-groups. You can have a culture that is homogenous but still accepts those from the outside as equals. In that context, I don't think your assertions hold; you don't have to have the same interests to connect with people. For example, you can connect by being legitimately curious about differing interests as long as it's a culture that is open to different interests without using them as a defining characteristic. From the author's perspective, it seems like she still felt like an outsider. How much of that was in her own head stemming from insecurities about being poor, I don't know.
strken 5y ago
The word wanker in Australian English denotes a specific kind of negativity, attached to egotism and acting as though you're better than others. I shouldn't have used it on HN, as it's a poor choice of phrasing for an international audience. As per [0], "the socially leveling term wanker ridicules a person who is pretentious and arrogant, thereby suggesting that humility, solidarity and being down-to-earth are highly valued qualities in Australian society." Vocally complaining about unbleached tampons and flying to Greece for one weekend are textbook wanker behaviour. I'm not sure of a good American English word to substitute. [0] http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003/stollznow.pdf http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003/stollznow.pdf
- bumby 5y ago
  "douchey" is probably the closest I can immediately think of for American English

literallycancer 5y ago

Climbing is something that basically anyone can do, it improves your fitness and reduces the load on the healthcare system. Super yachts are something that almost no one can have, probably causes some pollution and otherwise doesn't really do anything useful? How can you compare the two? The author looks like she has to pass through doors sideways, so I can see how she might feel alienated by an activity that requires one to pull their own weight. I am quite sure that making people that are unhealthy by choice feel alienated is a good thing, all in all.