5 ms·

- no engagement with existing literature or work on this topic - no experimental tests of theories - massive reductionism of the complex emotional & cognitive

- no engagement with existing literature or work on this topic - no experimental tests of theories - massive reductionism of the complex emotional & cognitive phenomenon of music into low-level game theoretical optimizations sorry, I don't see a reason to take this seriously. reminds me of jurgen schmidhubers "groundbreaking" theory of science, art, music, and humor [1] [1] https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html

dang 5y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html There's nothing wrong with someone posting their ideas on a website. This forum is an internet watercooler, not an academic journal. Someone not being a specialist is no reason to shut down conversation.
- joeberon 5y ago
  Please refrain from unconstructive dismissals, the comment you replied to was excellent and added a lot of very important context when it comes to academic work. I don't want to use a site where such comments are not permitted.
- emsy 5y ago
  This is hardly a shallow dismissal and the comment didn’t actually criticize the lack of credentials.
  - dang 5y ago
    The point is that the comment isn't reacting curiously to anything in the article, just finding reasons to categorically reject it. That's not the intended spirit of this forum (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). And yes, I would say that all of the listed reasons are shallow. Someone not experimentally testing their theories, for example, is not a good reason to shut down conversation. Keep in mind that threads are super sensitive to initial conditions. Shallow dismissals often appear early in the life cycle of a discussion, precisely because they're so quick to jump to - and then we get a thread, and ultimately a culture, which is characterized by a mean dismissive spirit. Internet defaults already tend to mean dismissiveness, so we need to work to avoid that where possible.
- hackcasual 5y ago
  I would disagree that pointing out a paper or idea has no cites to existing work is a shallow critique. It at the very least means the commenter glanced through the content. And while it's possible for someone who's an amateur to contribute to a topic, not engaging with the existing work is a sign that you're going to get less out of the content they've put together.
  - dang 5y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "pointing out a paper or idea". The comment seems to me a classic example of superficially skimming an article in order to find reasons to reject it. Ending with "reminds me of", followed by a link to someone else the commenter rejects, is also a shallow cheap shot. What do these things really have in common? Basically nothing. I don't mean to pick too much on one comment and certainly not personally on the GP! This is just a common problem on the internet. What we want on HN is the kind of comments that enrich curious conversation. If you really don't think there is anything curiosity-gratifying in an article, that's what flags are for.
    - hackcasual 5y ago
      Sorry, edited to actually complete my thought in the first sentence. While I do agree, in general a lot of novel ideas get dismissed out-of-hand, a conversation about to what extent an idea engages with the existing community/literature around that idea is valuable. For example, if I saw a paper posted here that claimed it solved P!=NP, my first question would be as to how much it addressed the existing work, as mathematical ideas tend to attract cranks.
    - gotostatement 5y ago
      if you don't want that type of comment on HN, feel free to remove it - it's not a big deal to me. But it's not a shallow critique - this article makes grand claims about how the brain works that are not backed up by any experiment or reference; it's reducing an extremely complex phenomenon - music and subjective experience of music - to a simple cognitive processing and meaning-making framework; and none of this makes any reference to work that other people have done on the matter. If you consider this a shallow critique, then I have to think that the only thing you wouldn't consider shallow is engaging deeply with the content, but that's not fair - for the reasons I gave, my contribution is claiming that this not worth engaging further with - it's crankery

dang 5y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html There's nothing wrong with someone posting their ideas on a website. This forum is an internet watercooler, not an academic journal. Someone not being a specialist is no reason to shut down conversation.

joeberon 5y ago
Please refrain from unconstructive dismissals, the comment you replied to was excellent and added a lot of very important context when it comes to academic work. I don't want to use a site where such comments are not permitted.
emsy 5y ago
This is hardly a shallow dismissal and the comment didn’t actually criticize the lack of credentials.
- dang 5y ago
  The point is that the comment isn't reacting curiously to anything in the article, just finding reasons to categorically reject it. That's not the intended spirit of this forum (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). And yes, I would say that all of the listed reasons are shallow. Someone not experimentally testing their theories, for example, is not a good reason to shut down conversation. Keep in mind that threads are super sensitive to initial conditions. Shallow dismissals often appear early in the life cycle of a discussion, precisely because they're so quick to jump to - and then we get a thread, and ultimately a culture, which is characterized by a mean dismissive spirit. Internet defaults already tend to mean dismissiveness, so we need to work to avoid that where possible.
hackcasual 5y ago
I would disagree that pointing out a paper or idea has no cites to existing work is a shallow critique. It at the very least means the commenter glanced through the content. And while it's possible for someone who's an amateur to contribute to a topic, not engaging with the existing work is a sign that you're going to get less out of the content they've put together.
- dang 5y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "pointing out a paper or idea". The comment seems to me a classic example of superficially skimming an article in order to find reasons to reject it. Ending with "reminds me of", followed by a link to someone else the commenter rejects, is also a shallow cheap shot. What do these things really have in common? Basically nothing. I don't mean to pick too much on one comment and certainly not personally on the GP! This is just a common problem on the internet. What we want on HN is the kind of comments that enrich curious conversation. If you really don't think there is anything curiosity-gratifying in an article, that's what flags are for.
  - hackcasual 5y ago
    Sorry, edited to actually complete my thought in the first sentence. While I do agree, in general a lot of novel ideas get dismissed out-of-hand, a conversation about to what extent an idea engages with the existing community/literature around that idea is valuable. For example, if I saw a paper posted here that claimed it solved P!=NP, my first question would be as to how much it addressed the existing work, as mathematical ideas tend to attract cranks.
  - gotostatement 5y ago
    if you don't want that type of comment on HN, feel free to remove it - it's not a big deal to me. But it's not a shallow critique - this article makes grand claims about how the brain works that are not backed up by any experiment or reference; it's reducing an extremely complex phenomenon - music and subjective experience of music - to a simple cognitive processing and meaning-making framework; and none of this makes any reference to work that other people have done on the matter. If you consider this a shallow critique, then I have to think that the only thing you wouldn't consider shallow is engaging deeply with the content, but that's not fair - for the reasons I gave, my contribution is claiming that this not worth engaging further with - it's crankery