3 ms·

> ... but there's no evidence that amateur tennis is becoming more about strength and height. There's an implied quantitative model in this comment, but what i

by xpe 3y ago

> ... but there's no evidence that amateur tennis is becoming more about strength and height. There's an implied quantitative model in this comment, but what is being claimed is rather unclear. Until that model gets specified, we could talk in circles about it. Most would expect that strength matters, but how much? / And how much for what? For winning? For being competitive enough for it to be satisfying and fun? For overall participation levels? / I don't assume a linear effect across age, ability, nor skill. / And how much relative to other qualities? And how much are the factors intertwined?

xpe 3y ago
The comment I responded to claims there is no evidence, without offering support for itself. My goal here is to offer constructive criticism and invite the commenter to clarify. Here on HN, like most forums, there is a write vs. read imbalance: "write once, read many". If you take a broad view, the implications are clear: it is better when writers put in the effort to be clear, particularly when asked. There is a common conversational pattern: (a) One person makes a comment which is somewhat vague. (b) The next person reads, and despite the ambiguity, responds without asking clarification questions. (c) Repeat. Is it a surprise that such conversations have so many failure modes? Some include: (1) talking past each other; (2) not really learning; (3) not getting to know each other; (4) missing an opportunity to connect and build bridges. I attempted to break the pattern by pointing out the ambiguity and asking clarification questions. This is the norm for sites like Stack Overflow, for good reason. I have a hypothesis: the above dysfunctional pattern is not widely recognized here on HN. It isn't part of people's awareness; we fall into counterproductive conversational styles without recognizing it. Sure, there are styles of debate where people try to score points. That's a zero-sum mentality; a waste of our collective effort. I encourage us to reflect on this question: Given how much time people spend on HN, how many durable personal connections are formed?
- lapcat 3y ago
  Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this. My point was simply that amateur tennis is played by ordinary people—of all ages, shapes, sizes, and experience levels—in large part for fun, exercise, and recreation, so there's no reason to think that amateur tennis is somehow becoming more about strength and height. Ordinary people aren't changing, and thus amateur tennis isn't changing.
  - xpe 3y ago
    Thanks for elaborating. > Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this. This is your opinion. It also comes across as judgmental. Remember: people think differently and to different depths. I suspected you had more to say. There is no plausible way one could read your mind and go from what you wrote before to what you wrote here. I'm here to learn and discuss. It doesn't help when people have a dismissive tone in response to questions. FWIW, I enjoyed many of your comments in this thread. But this one wasn't persuasive to me. If you are curious why, I can explain, but at present, based on your above response, I'm reluctant.

by xpe 3y ago

xpe 3y ago

The comment I responded to claims there is no evidence, without offering support for itself. My goal here is to offer constructive criticism and invite the commenter to clarify. Here on HN, like most forums, there is a write vs. read imbalance: "write once, read many". If you take a broad view, the implications are clear: it is better when writers put in the effort to be clear, particularly when asked. There is a common conversational pattern: (a) One person makes a comment which is somewhat vague. (b) The next person reads, and despite the ambiguity, responds without asking clarification questions. (c) Repeat. Is it a surprise that such conversations have so many failure modes? Some include: (1) talking past each other; (2) not really learning; (3) not getting to know each other; (4) missing an opportunity to connect and build bridges. I attempted to break the pattern by pointing out the ambiguity and asking clarification questions. This is the norm for sites like Stack Overflow, for good reason. I have a hypothesis: the above dysfunctional pattern is not widely recognized here on HN. It isn't part of people's awareness; we fall into counterproductive conversational styles without recognizing it. Sure, there are styles of debate where people try to score points. That's a zero-sum mentality; a waste of our collective effort. I encourage us to reflect on this question: Given how much time people spend on HN, how many durable personal connections are formed?

lapcat 3y ago
Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this. My point was simply that amateur tennis is played by ordinary people—of all ages, shapes, sizes, and experience levels—in large part for fun, exercise, and recreation, so there's no reason to think that amateur tennis is somehow becoming more about strength and height. Ordinary people aren't changing, and thus amateur tennis isn't changing.
- xpe 3y ago
  Thanks for elaborating. > Wow, you are vastly, vastly overthinking this. This is your opinion. It also comes across as judgmental. Remember: people think differently and to different depths. I suspected you had more to say. There is no plausible way one could read your mind and go from what you wrote before to what you wrote here. I'm here to learn and discuss. It doesn't help when people have a dismissive tone in response to questions. FWIW, I enjoyed many of your comments in this thread. But this one wasn't persuasive to me. If you are curious why, I can explain, but at present, based on your above response, I'm reluctant.