6 ms·

I don't think cynicism is just about stasis, but about spotting when optimistic messages are hiding a power-grabbing scheme of some kind. Or just being willing

I don't think cynicism is just about stasis, but about spotting when optimistic messages are hiding a power-grabbing scheme of some kind. Or just being willing to 'follow the money', and look behind the curtain, etc. Plenty of new things are important developments, even when there are selfish actors behind them. But also plenty of new things are just scams.

rektide 5y ago
Ultra-agree, that a lot of cynicism- against from those in power & who need others to enlist in the message- is due. But I think there's a general level of mistrust, of wanting to pick easy/simple/dependable paths, of resisting good/bold/better, that's just a personal "pragmatism" which is really cynicism in disguise. I don't think most engineering departments & product-development-organizations give anywhere near a fair shake to doing good, to trying for better. There's so many meetings called to discuss options, to try to suss out where to go, that revolve around mistrust, that are simply a hunt for security. And there's a good chance these hunts for security are right, that mediocrity would better serve us all. But theres ongoing & persistent resistance, un-understanding of better, that pervades, and I'd like to see a little more optimism, a little more shared idea of possibility about. I think there's a lot of possibility that we consign away, a lot of true organizational excellence (& personal glory along with it) that the easier/safer paths ignore. I also think HN is a classic, key demonstration of cynicism. I feel like a lot of new ideas presented get slammed, that the critics have a field day. I'd love a broad asssessment of positive/negative valence of posts. My gut feeling is that the novel gets extremely hostile reception here. Someone combined mutable torrents with webtorrent[1], & there felt like such vast continuing cynicism, such "what are the use cases?", such tearing it down, such disbelief & resistance. This just feels like one of endless countless examples of cyncism & disbelief, such desire to disregard, to put the new, potential, positives into a box that can be safely disregarded. This to me is the poison we swallow. For sure. 100%. Be wary of what people are selling. Be wary of the power-grabbing. But I think we ought try to wire ourselves to be positive if we can. We should look for the tell-tale signs, & try to promote & support the potentially good, the things that may have merit, to have optimism. While calling out the specific delusions & exploitionations that may be afoot. It's a balancing. But we should try, try try try, to find optimism. Just not without disregarding reason. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/publiusfederalist https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/publiusfed... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29513547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29513547
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  The internet (well, just worldwide connectivity IMO) has turned cynicism into a social signaling mechanism, it's not just HN. Cynical "dunks" burnish your qualifications to your in-group: make a "hot take" against US democrats, CRT, cryptocurrencies, management, VCs, capitalism, pastafarianism, you name it, and you'll get all your fellow in-group folks upvoting/retweeting/liking your "hot take". IMO this is the greatest threat of all; once group-identity politics are tied to takedowns, there's a huge incentive for dunking on ideas, which makes folks with new/weird ideas defensive about their own and therefore damages novel discourse. I'm not going to say I haven't been drawn into this myself at times but I try to think above it.
  - rektide 5y ago
    I'm having a very hard time trying to understand what you are trying to communicate here: there's a quite divergent set of topics that have been lumped together as hostile, dangerous, & negative, & it doesn't compute for me. I'm going to take things one by one, so we can talk particulars & explore how we see these. > The internet (well, just worldwide connectivity IMO) has turned cynicism into a social signaling mechanism, it's not just HN. We're cutting to the punch here, but: a lot of the thing you are about to list sound less like "the internet" & more like general society waking up & understanding what's less than optimal. > make a "hot take" against US democrats, They're pretty useless absolutely but the opposition has been stalwartly effective. Bernie wasn't that far off from being president & even though he's far outside the current party, the core consitutents desire far far more from this party. A lot of democrats-the-people loath the uselessnessness. Hot takes are deserved against any party that has gotten so little done. But also, most democrats are pretty sympathetic to how impossible the situation has been, how constitutionally rigged everything has been against them getting any chance to do anything. It's been decade after decade of democrats having zero actual chance to pass anything meaningful, other than, say, Romneycare. the demorat's are slammable but we all know there's not in many's lifetime been a single chance to determine whether they're actually useful or not. > CRT, cryptocurrencies, management, VCs, capitalism, Mostly deserved & out of touch higher echelon's detached from ground truth. The one exception IMO: I don't see any dunking against Critical Race Theory (CRT)s that doesn't come off as maligning & poisonous. There's no popular way to be anti-woke, yay. > pastafarianism Again a weird conflation of that which is slammed versus that which slams & is woke. No one makes "hot takes" against pastafarianism. We all know they are already warm saucy goodness. Pastafarians don't make hot takes against anyone else. Like CRT, like US democrats, they're just trying to do good; they only want progress, there's no possession with tearing down the bad or other. To return to our seeming core disagreement, you said: > Cynical "dunks" burnish your qualifications to your in-group: This feels like turning a hunt for oppression into a reason to disregard people. Many groups deserved to be dunked on, BECAUSE THEY ARE CYNICAL. Because they are inaccessible, not open, not participating, not doing enough, doing bad, or outright acting in bad faith. It's difficult to figure out exactly where any voice is positioned, but, critical review that says: "you are not being optimistic enough": that's (sometimes) not cynical. Just because review is negative does not make it cynical. One can have higher expectations & use those to stage critical reviews. > it's not just HN. Cynical "dunks" burnish your qualifications... you'll get all your fellow in-group folks upvoting/retweeting/liking your "hot take". IMO this is the greatest threat of all I've walked point by point through how I don't see your listed examples as bad or hazarous or cynical. There's due cynicism against bad, there's due well wishes for the good to be better. I'm not completely opposed- there's certainly a critical air about- but to me it's not the internet & a lot of those airs are resistive to oppressionaries, are optimistic in nature. It is a very critical time, absolutely, but I don't see much of the critiques as cynical or performative or harmful: I see them as part of a direly needed push out of the long rut society has been stuck in, & a drive towards better. And one that isn't trying to harm or damage, but to simply make aware, to share.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mitko 5y ago
OP here, if you're able to separate the act of "look behind the curtain" from the visceral feeling that things can change and you can be the one improving them - then I'm very happy for you. I personally found it hard to separate the two for many year, and fell in the pattern of unifying them. Cynical outlook has been a helpful protecting mechanism, though no longer as useful, as I'm trying to find and play more win-win games.
- jacknews 5y ago
  Yes maybe my definition is wrong, I consider myself slightly cynical (I lived to see the excitement of cyberspace turn into Facebook after all), but perhaps I mean skeptical, although to me what you're talking about is more nihilism. There are some things that really don't change, and I guess that can be a source of cynicism. The poor will always be among you, lying politicians, the greedy rich, etc. But I'd argue that isn't cause for inaction, quite the opposite, though I can see nihilists just retreating to their beds in despair.
  - mitko 5y ago
    Interesting point about nihilism, appreciate your discussion. I still identify as cynical in many domains, though I don't think of myself as nihilistic as the latter seems more absolute. Re: things that really don't change, I'd say "until they do". Plenty of examples in history where the whole system switches to a different equilibrium point (for example as in "Inadequate Equilibria" book). When I'm referring to cynicism, I'm talking about the difference between the mindset of "these will never change", vs "these are attractor points in the current social system, which all history so far have been used, but the system may have other equilibriums and solutions for which X=`the rich are not greedy`". Hope that's helpful!
    - jacknews 5y ago
      Helpful. The things that don't change I refer to, I really mean human nature, and I really think that doesn't change much. Some people just want to watch the world burn, etc, some people are greedy, narcissistic, lazy, psychotic, etc. The cause for optimism, is that we can change society to better deal with the nature of the beast, bring out the best, and suppress the ugly. There's lots of work to do!
chrisweekly 5y ago
There's a big difference between the ancient philosophy practiced by Cynics, and our modern concept of "cynicism".
bee_rider 5y ago
Is that really cynicism? If you are willing to look behind the curtain or follow the money, you must believe there's a chance that some optimistic messages are actually honest, right? Otherwise, why bother looking? The viewpoint that says "why bother looking" is cynicism, I think. This is the viewpoint that says "all optimistic messages are power grabbing schemes." And it is a really disempowering and hopeless way of viewing the world. I think it is better to keep looking behind the curtain. There's got to be something good back there.
- manmal 5y ago
  I think „why bother looking“ is actually defeatism. Maybe they are closely related, but I feel cynicism has more of an „I told you so“ ring to it. In that interpretation, cynicism would be about jaded expectations re the future, while defeatism would be (accompanying?) demotivation. I wouldn’t ascribe demotivation to every cynicist though.
ratww 5y ago
> about spotting when optimistic messages are hiding a power-grabbing scheme of some kind IMO that's not being cynical. That's actually an universally positive trait: being able to spot power-grabbing schemes. The problem with the negative side of cynicism described in the article is that, (to follow your example) the power-grabbing scheme is not the thing being detected, but rather the display of optimism. Every display of optimism is treated as being a power-grabbing scheme, or worse, naivety. The things cynics end up attacking in the end isn't the power grabbing per se, but the optimism. The answer is not to attack everything optimistic, but also neither to attack nothing. Life is hard.
- hoseja 5y ago
  That is what is derogatorily called cynicism in the OP. Perhaps as one studies history they find that all forms of positive change conceivable by mere humans have been co-opted and are accounted for in the extremely energetic struggle of the system to remain alive, as it has been selected for very much Darwinistically.
  - ratww 5y ago
    > That is what is derogatorily called cynicism in the OP. Then, there are clearly two things being called cynicism here. Arguing that the author is wrong because X is good when the author is actually talking about Y is a fruitless exercise. > Perhaps as one studies history they find that all forms of positive change conceivable by mere humans have been co-opted and are accounted for in the extremely energetic struggle of the system to remain alive, as it has been selected for very much Darwinistically. That still doesn't and won't ever mean that positive change is negative. If you're still throwing the baby with a bathwater, you're the bad kind of cynic.

rektide 5y ago

Ultra-agree, that a lot of cynicism- against from those in power & who need others to enlist in the message- is due. But I think there's a general level of mistrust, of wanting to pick easy/simple/dependable paths, of resisting good/bold/better, that's just a personal "pragmatism" which is really cynicism in disguise. I don't think most engineering departments & product-development-organizations give anywhere near a fair shake to doing good, to trying for better. There's so many meetings called to discuss options, to try to suss out where to go, that revolve around mistrust, that are simply a hunt for security. And there's a good chance these hunts for security are right, that mediocrity would better serve us all. But theres ongoing & persistent resistance, un-understanding of better, that pervades, and I'd like to see a little more optimism, a little more shared idea of possibility about. I think there's a lot of possibility that we consign away, a lot of true organizational excellence (& personal glory along with it) that the easier/safer paths ignore. I also think HN is a classic, key demonstration of cynicism. I feel like a lot of new ideas presented get slammed, that the critics have a field day. I'd love a broad asssessment of positive/negative valence of posts. My gut feeling is that the novel gets extremely hostile reception here. Someone combined mutable torrents with webtorrent[1], & there felt like such vast continuing cynicism, such "what are the use cases?", such tearing it down, such disbelief & resistance. This just feels like one of endless countless examples of cyncism & disbelief, such desire to disregard, to put the new, potential, positives into a box that can be safely disregarded. This to me is the poison we swallow. For sure. 100%. Be wary of what people are selling. Be wary of the power-grabbing. But I think we ought try to wire ourselves to be positive if we can. We should look for the tell-tale signs, & try to promote & support the potentially good, the things that may have merit, to have optimism. While calling out the specific delusions & exploitionations that may be afoot. It's a balancing. But we should try, try try try, to find optimism. Just not without disregarding reason. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/publiusfederalist https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=github.com/publiusfed... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29513547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29513547

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
The internet (well, just worldwide connectivity IMO) has turned cynicism into a social signaling mechanism, it's not just HN. Cynical "dunks" burnish your qualifications to your in-group: make a "hot take" against US democrats, CRT, cryptocurrencies, management, VCs, capitalism, pastafarianism, you name it, and you'll get all your fellow in-group folks upvoting/retweeting/liking your "hot take". IMO this is the greatest threat of all; once group-identity politics are tied to takedowns, there's a huge incentive for dunking on ideas, which makes folks with new/weird ideas defensive about their own and therefore damages novel discourse. I'm not going to say I haven't been drawn into this myself at times but I try to think above it.
- rektide 5y ago
  I'm having a very hard time trying to understand what you are trying to communicate here: there's a quite divergent set of topics that have been lumped together as hostile, dangerous, & negative, & it doesn't compute for me. I'm going to take things one by one, so we can talk particulars & explore how we see these. > The internet (well, just worldwide connectivity IMO) has turned cynicism into a social signaling mechanism, it's not just HN. We're cutting to the punch here, but: a lot of the thing you are about to list sound less like "the internet" & more like general society waking up & understanding what's less than optimal. > make a "hot take" against US democrats, They're pretty useless absolutely but the opposition has been stalwartly effective. Bernie wasn't that far off from being president & even though he's far outside the current party, the core consitutents desire far far more from this party. A lot of democrats-the-people loath the uselessnessness. Hot takes are deserved against any party that has gotten so little done. But also, most democrats are pretty sympathetic to how impossible the situation has been, how constitutionally rigged everything has been against them getting any chance to do anything. It's been decade after decade of democrats having zero actual chance to pass anything meaningful, other than, say, Romneycare. the demorat's are slammable but we all know there's not in many's lifetime been a single chance to determine whether they're actually useful or not. > CRT, cryptocurrencies, management, VCs, capitalism, Mostly deserved & out of touch higher echelon's detached from ground truth. The one exception IMO: I don't see any dunking against Critical Race Theory (CRT)s that doesn't come off as maligning & poisonous. There's no popular way to be anti-woke, yay. > pastafarianism Again a weird conflation of that which is slammed versus that which slams & is woke. No one makes "hot takes" against pastafarianism. We all know they are already warm saucy goodness. Pastafarians don't make hot takes against anyone else. Like CRT, like US democrats, they're just trying to do good; they only want progress, there's no possession with tearing down the bad or other. To return to our seeming core disagreement, you said: > Cynical "dunks" burnish your qualifications to your in-group: This feels like turning a hunt for oppression into a reason to disregard people. Many groups deserved to be dunked on, BECAUSE THEY ARE CYNICAL. Because they are inaccessible, not open, not participating, not doing enough, doing bad, or outright acting in bad faith. It's difficult to figure out exactly where any voice is positioned, but, critical review that says: "you are not being optimistic enough": that's (sometimes) not cynical. Just because review is negative does not make it cynical. One can have higher expectations & use those to stage critical reviews. > it's not just HN. Cynical "dunks" burnish your qualifications... you'll get all your fellow in-group folks upvoting/retweeting/liking your "hot take". IMO this is the greatest threat of all I've walked point by point through how I don't see your listed examples as bad or hazarous or cynical. There's due cynicism against bad, there's due well wishes for the good to be better. I'm not completely opposed- there's certainly a critical air about- but to me it's not the internet & a lot of those airs are resistive to oppressionaries, are optimistic in nature. It is a very critical time, absolutely, but I don't see much of the critiques as cynical or performative or harmful: I see them as part of a direly needed push out of the long rut society has been stuck in, & a drive towards better. And one that isn't trying to harm or damage, but to simply make aware, to share.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mitko 5y ago

OP here, if you're able to separate the act of "look behind the curtain" from the visceral feeling that things can change and you can be the one improving them - then I'm very happy for you. I personally found it hard to separate the two for many year, and fell in the pattern of unifying them. Cynical outlook has been a helpful protecting mechanism, though no longer as useful, as I'm trying to find and play more win-win games.

jacknews 5y ago
Yes maybe my definition is wrong, I consider myself slightly cynical (I lived to see the excitement of cyberspace turn into Facebook after all), but perhaps I mean skeptical, although to me what you're talking about is more nihilism. There are some things that really don't change, and I guess that can be a source of cynicism. The poor will always be among you, lying politicians, the greedy rich, etc. But I'd argue that isn't cause for inaction, quite the opposite, though I can see nihilists just retreating to their beds in despair.
- mitko 5y ago
  Interesting point about nihilism, appreciate your discussion. I still identify as cynical in many domains, though I don't think of myself as nihilistic as the latter seems more absolute. Re: things that really don't change, I'd say "until they do". Plenty of examples in history where the whole system switches to a different equilibrium point (for example as in "Inadequate Equilibria" book). When I'm referring to cynicism, I'm talking about the difference between the mindset of "these will never change", vs "these are attractor points in the current social system, which all history so far have been used, but the system may have other equilibriums and solutions for which X=`the rich are not greedy`". Hope that's helpful!
  - jacknews 5y ago
    Helpful. The things that don't change I refer to, I really mean human nature, and I really think that doesn't change much. Some people just want to watch the world burn, etc, some people are greedy, narcissistic, lazy, psychotic, etc. The cause for optimism, is that we can change society to better deal with the nature of the beast, bring out the best, and suppress the ugly. There's lots of work to do!

chrisweekly 5y ago

There's a big difference between the ancient philosophy practiced by Cynics, and our modern concept of "cynicism".

bee_rider 5y ago

Is that really cynicism? If you are willing to look behind the curtain or follow the money, you must believe there's a chance that some optimistic messages are actually honest, right? Otherwise, why bother looking? The viewpoint that says "why bother looking" is cynicism, I think. This is the viewpoint that says "all optimistic messages are power grabbing schemes." And it is a really disempowering and hopeless way of viewing the world. I think it is better to keep looking behind the curtain. There's got to be something good back there.

manmal 5y ago
I think „why bother looking“ is actually defeatism. Maybe they are closely related, but I feel cynicism has more of an „I told you so“ ring to it. In that interpretation, cynicism would be about jaded expectations re the future, while defeatism would be (accompanying?) demotivation. I wouldn’t ascribe demotivation to every cynicist though.

ratww 5y ago

> about spotting when optimistic messages are hiding a power-grabbing scheme of some kind IMO that's not being cynical. That's actually an universally positive trait: being able to spot power-grabbing schemes. The problem with the negative side of cynicism described in the article is that, (to follow your example) the power-grabbing scheme is not the thing being detected, but rather the display of optimism. Every display of optimism is treated as being a power-grabbing scheme, or worse, naivety. The things cynics end up attacking in the end isn't the power grabbing per se, but the optimism. The answer is not to attack everything optimistic, but also neither to attack nothing. Life is hard.

hoseja 5y ago
That is what is derogatorily called cynicism in the OP. Perhaps as one studies history they find that all forms of positive change conceivable by mere humans have been co-opted and are accounted for in the extremely energetic struggle of the system to remain alive, as it has been selected for very much Darwinistically.
- ratww 5y ago
  > That is what is derogatorily called cynicism in the OP. Then, there are clearly two things being called cynicism here. Arguing that the author is wrong because X is good when the author is actually talking about Y is a fruitless exercise. > Perhaps as one studies history they find that all forms of positive change conceivable by mere humans have been co-opted and are accounted for in the extremely energetic struggle of the system to remain alive, as it has been selected for very much Darwinistically. That still doesn't and won't ever mean that positive change is negative. If you're still throwing the baby with a bathwater, you're the bad kind of cynic.