10 ms·

My complaints about Quora: * You have to use a "real" name. * Their members are predominantly white upper middle class tech/finance/marketing professiona

by carguy1983 15y ago

My complaints about Quora: * You have to use a "real" name. * Their members are predominantly white upper middle class tech/finance/marketing professionals - occasionally some Asians, but mainly from California or NY. * There's no good way to browse the site - if there is, it's not easy to find. * Groupthink and being penalized for speaking your mind, both common problems for high-IQ communities.

olalonde 15y ago
> Groupthink and being penalized for speaking your mind, both common problems for high-IQ communities. That's what I like about HN. Groupthink is indeed present (especially when it comes to technical topics such as programming languages or OSes - we all have a strong incentive to promote what we use), but not nearly as much as any other online community I'm aware of. There's a recurring pattern that I like here: usually, when a submission argues X, the top comment in the comment thread criticizes/refutes X. By hearing the two sides of an argument, one can better form an opinion.
- alecco 15y ago
  HN groupthink is getting out of control. No answers but donwvotes to any dissenting comment.
  - unalone 15y ago
    I think it's actually better now than it was. There are a number of contrarian voices in each contentious thread arguing firmly that there's more to an issue than perhaps simple analysis would give credit for. There used to be more of an Ayn Randian/"supermen" feel, more people patting each other on the backs for being superior creatures cos entrepreneurs are the end point of evolution. The site seems a fair deal saner, from my point of view. The nature of systematic conversation ensures there will always be groupthink. Systems are designed to function in certain ways and deny other approaches to get their desired result. The result is that people who want this system flock to it, and people who want to somehow act counter to this system are going to be a minority that's possibly chased away by the system itself. Options like downvoting and "ranking" comments" and flagging inappropriate topics basically say that there is a right way to behave or talk, there are topics that are better than others. Then either people are attracted to the sites that reinforce their worldview or they're conditioned by these rules to decide there're right and wrong ways to think or to be – I'm not sure which it is. Probably a little of both.
    - olalonde 15y ago
      That's why I don't think down votes should be used to express disagreement (although pg doesn't share this opinion). I personally frequently up vote comments I disagree with if I feel they are thoughtful and bring an interesting perspective. The variety of ideas is important and should be encouraged.
      - sitkack 15y ago
        Up/down is the wrong direction for the arrows I think. Left <--> right, meaning on-topic/off-topic ? One of the problems I think is that there are so many dimensions represented by two simple little arrows that it is difficult for the system (the web software itself) to discern the intent, so it turns into a popularity (I agree,I disagree) button. But if you had a button for each piece of information it would look like [] well written [] well thought out [] agree [] disagree [] poorly written [] funny [] off topic For bonus points they would be in a random order in the UI so people wouldn't develop muscle memory voting on comments.
        skore 15y ago
        I have thought about the On/Off-Topic button as well for some time now. I think it's a good concept to try out, mainly because it is not judgmental - Sometimes I like following an Off-Topic discussion and I've had a couple of good ones on HN. But most of the time, it can be very distracting - separating it from the main discussion is worth a shot. As for more detailed buttons - I think that would make it too complex. Slashdot has established the same concept, probably based on the same reasoning (mostly to distinguish between "just" funny and actually insightful comments). Can't speak that much about how successful it is, maybe somebody else has more insight here.
        sitkack 15y ago
        Yeah, the buttons get out of hand, but the information they would represent is greatly needed. And how do you encourage people to rate what they read and interacted with? Based on the stats people post about the amount of traffic driven by an HN or Reddit submission ... the vast majority of users don't interact via any sort of voting mechanism at all. I am working on a site now that is heavily based on passive activity voting, users have no idea how their actions are being used by the site to rank itself. Their inputs have much less weight than purposeful actions where both parties are aware of the event. It is almost like you need an agent that votes in certain public ways (sentiment analysis,summarization,etc) to decide if comments snarky, funny, off topic, etc.
  - dasil003 15y ago
    This is a tricky one. Of course every human community has some measure groupthink. However, when people complain about groupthink here and you investigate their comment history you often find a confrontational or rude tone paired with unconvincing arguments. Much like "Fanboy", "Groupthink" is a sort unassailable conversation-ending ad-hominem that people trot out when they are frustrated, with or without reason...
- guscost 15y ago
  I do get downvoted less for voicing angry opinions around here, which is refreshing and polite. Don't underestimate the value of politeness... especially when you want to voice angry opinions.
- mtrimpe 15y ago
  All I know is that lately for quite some percentage of HN articles I know exactly what the top comment will be before I read it.
- jules 15y ago
  On the contrary, HN groupthink is quite severe (although it has decreased somewhat since the time that comment scores were no longer displayed). I guess it depends on perspective: if you're in the middle of a box, the box looks like the entire universe.
  - J3L2404 15y ago
    I disagree on comment scores. Not having them makes bandwagoning more likely because I tended to not upvote comments that already have high scores. It does likely make the data more useful to pg though. On technical questions it is painful not having comment scores.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      I don't think that PG has time to analyze the data. I think he's just making an honest mistake by taking away comment scores from us.
      - sitkack 15y ago
        Why is the metadata so important to so many people on HN? I don't understand it. Is it a mechanism to find the best comments in a thread? Is it a visualization issue? Is it ego? Is it a voting mechanism to know what others think is important? I honestly do not know.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Item's rating is not a metadata. It's at the core of the data about comments made. Yes, it's a way to find best comments in a thread (not guaranteed, but much better than nothing). Has nothing to do with ego.
        sitkack 15y ago
        How about if there was a glyph or color that denoted the amount of votes,views,etc? I think one of the issues was putting a numeric score on an item encouraged upvoting already popular comments.
- ma2rten 15y ago
  I think there is groupthink in HN even on non-technical topics, but it's much more subtle. It's about that every problem should be resolved using a rational argument. I think arguments appealing to intuition, emotion or authority are likely to get down voted. I am not saying it is a bad thing, that bias is part of why I read HN and not some tabloid. However, I don't think rational thought is perse the best answer to every question, because it's inviting to make incorrect assumptions.
hyperbovine 15y ago
Fear of being ostracized is universal. If anything, I'd say "high-IQ" communities are less susceptible to groupthink and penalizing dissent.
- zwischenzug 15y ago
  Groupthink is human nature. You find different kinds of groupthink in high-IQ communities because their common cause is different. Groupthink different.
uhs 15y ago
Why does it matter that they are predominantly white? I agree that the other things you mention like class might be important. But race, seriously? How do you even know they are white anyway?
huggyface 15y ago
Their members are predominantly white Adorable racism. Groupthink and being penalized for speaking your mind Is it groupthink that I pointed out your blatant racism? Message boards the world over are full of people saying wrong, obnoxious, ignorant things and then foolishly thinking that a negative response is just because everyone else is prey to groupthink, etc. It is a short-circuit of self-analysis.
- whateverer 15y ago
  > Adorable racism. How so? Shutting your eyes doesn't make the bias go away.
  - huggyface 15y ago
    The poster didn't complain about a bias. They complained about a perceived demographic composition. Detroit is too black. Vancouver has too many Indians. How do those sound? There is no difference between what the poster said and those statements, beyond the common acceptance that you can be racist against whites, even if just attacking the imaginary demographic of a group.
    - whateverer 15y ago
      > racist against whites I believe that, technically, the term would be "discriminatory" in this case, white people being in a position of relative power and privilege in the West (and most of the world, really. White people are esteemed all over, even if just in relation to other foreigners). But it just isn't the same as you said. The difference here is that this is a question-and-answers forum, and the lack of diversity, as in the homogeneity of values and experiences, might be indeed undesirable. Though I wasn't able to quickly find an study that showed that homogeneity begets groupthink...
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- carguy1983 15y ago
  Yeah, I guess I'm racist. I want diversity in my populations, applied to every context possible. Full stop. "I'm sorry you're offended."
sghill 15y ago
The first one was the dealbreaker for me. I signed up using part of my real name instead of my full name. Within hours I was blocked from adding anything to Quora. As a result, I haven't been back since signing up.

olalonde 15y ago

> Groupthink and being penalized for speaking your mind, both common problems for high-IQ communities. That's what I like about HN. Groupthink is indeed present (especially when it comes to technical topics such as programming languages or OSes - we all have a strong incentive to promote what we use), but not nearly as much as any other online community I'm aware of. There's a recurring pattern that I like here: usually, when a submission argues X, the top comment in the comment thread criticizes/refutes X. By hearing the two sides of an argument, one can better form an opinion.

alecco 15y ago
HN groupthink is getting out of control. No answers but donwvotes to any dissenting comment.
- unalone 15y ago
  I think it's actually better now than it was. There are a number of contrarian voices in each contentious thread arguing firmly that there's more to an issue than perhaps simple analysis would give credit for. There used to be more of an Ayn Randian/"supermen" feel, more people patting each other on the backs for being superior creatures cos entrepreneurs are the end point of evolution. The site seems a fair deal saner, from my point of view. The nature of systematic conversation ensures there will always be groupthink. Systems are designed to function in certain ways and deny other approaches to get their desired result. The result is that people who want this system flock to it, and people who want to somehow act counter to this system are going to be a minority that's possibly chased away by the system itself. Options like downvoting and "ranking" comments" and flagging inappropriate topics basically say that there is a right way to behave or talk, there are topics that are better than others. Then either people are attracted to the sites that reinforce their worldview or they're conditioned by these rules to decide there're right and wrong ways to think or to be – I'm not sure which it is. Probably a little of both.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    That's why I don't think down votes should be used to express disagreement (although pg doesn't share this opinion). I personally frequently up vote comments I disagree with if I feel they are thoughtful and bring an interesting perspective. The variety of ideas is important and should be encouraged.
    - sitkack 15y ago
      Up/down is the wrong direction for the arrows I think. Left <--> right, meaning on-topic/off-topic ? One of the problems I think is that there are so many dimensions represented by two simple little arrows that it is difficult for the system (the web software itself) to discern the intent, so it turns into a popularity (I agree,I disagree) button. But if you had a button for each piece of information it would look like [] well written [] well thought out [] agree [] disagree [] poorly written [] funny [] off topic For bonus points they would be in a random order in the UI so people wouldn't develop muscle memory voting on comments.
      - skore 15y ago
        I have thought about the On/Off-Topic button as well for some time now. I think it's a good concept to try out, mainly because it is not judgmental - Sometimes I like following an Off-Topic discussion and I've had a couple of good ones on HN. But most of the time, it can be very distracting - separating it from the main discussion is worth a shot. As for more detailed buttons - I think that would make it too complex. Slashdot has established the same concept, probably based on the same reasoning (mostly to distinguish between "just" funny and actually insightful comments). Can't speak that much about how successful it is, maybe somebody else has more insight here.
        sitkack 15y ago
        Yeah, the buttons get out of hand, but the information they would represent is greatly needed. And how do you encourage people to rate what they read and interacted with? Based on the stats people post about the amount of traffic driven by an HN or Reddit submission ... the vast majority of users don't interact via any sort of voting mechanism at all. I am working on a site now that is heavily based on passive activity voting, users have no idea how their actions are being used by the site to rank itself. Their inputs have much less weight than purposeful actions where both parties are aware of the event. It is almost like you need an agent that votes in certain public ways (sentiment analysis,summarization,etc) to decide if comments snarky, funny, off topic, etc.
- dasil003 15y ago
  This is a tricky one. Of course every human community has some measure groupthink. However, when people complain about groupthink here and you investigate their comment history you often find a confrontational or rude tone paired with unconvincing arguments. Much like "Fanboy", "Groupthink" is a sort unassailable conversation-ending ad-hominem that people trot out when they are frustrated, with or without reason...
guscost 15y ago
I do get downvoted less for voicing angry opinions around here, which is refreshing and polite. Don't underestimate the value of politeness... especially when you want to voice angry opinions.
mtrimpe 15y ago
All I know is that lately for quite some percentage of HN articles I know exactly what the top comment will be before I read it.
jules 15y ago
On the contrary, HN groupthink is quite severe (although it has decreased somewhat since the time that comment scores were no longer displayed). I guess it depends on perspective: if you're in the middle of a box, the box looks like the entire universe.
- J3L2404 15y ago
  I disagree on comment scores. Not having them makes bandwagoning more likely because I tended to not upvote comments that already have high scores. It does likely make the data more useful to pg though. On technical questions it is painful not having comment scores.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    I don't think that PG has time to analyze the data. I think he's just making an honest mistake by taking away comment scores from us.
    - sitkack 15y ago
      Why is the metadata so important to so many people on HN? I don't understand it. Is it a mechanism to find the best comments in a thread? Is it a visualization issue? Is it ego? Is it a voting mechanism to know what others think is important? I honestly do not know.
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        Item's rating is not a metadata. It's at the core of the data about comments made. Yes, it's a way to find best comments in a thread (not guaranteed, but much better than nothing). Has nothing to do with ego.
        sitkack 15y ago
        How about if there was a glyph or color that denoted the amount of votes,views,etc? I think one of the issues was putting a numeric score on an item encouraged upvoting already popular comments.
ma2rten 15y ago
I think there is groupthink in HN even on non-technical topics, but it's much more subtle. It's about that every problem should be resolved using a rational argument. I think arguments appealing to intuition, emotion or authority are likely to get down voted. I am not saying it is a bad thing, that bias is part of why I read HN and not some tabloid. However, I don't think rational thought is perse the best answer to every question, because it's inviting to make incorrect assumptions.

hyperbovine 15y ago

Fear of being ostracized is universal. If anything, I'd say "high-IQ" communities are less susceptible to groupthink and penalizing dissent.

zwischenzug 15y ago
Groupthink is human nature. You find different kinds of groupthink in high-IQ communities because their common cause is different. Groupthink different.

uhs 15y ago

Why does it matter that they are predominantly white? I agree that the other things you mention like class might be important. But race, seriously? How do you even know they are white anyway?

huggyface 15y ago

Their members are predominantly white Adorable racism. Groupthink and being penalized for speaking your mind Is it groupthink that I pointed out your blatant racism? Message boards the world over are full of people saying wrong, obnoxious, ignorant things and then foolishly thinking that a negative response is just because everyone else is prey to groupthink, etc. It is a short-circuit of self-analysis.

whateverer 15y ago
> Adorable racism. How so? Shutting your eyes doesn't make the bias go away.
- huggyface 15y ago
  The poster didn't complain about a bias. They complained about a perceived demographic composition. Detroit is too black. Vancouver has too many Indians. How do those sound? There is no difference between what the poster said and those statements, beyond the common acceptance that you can be racist against whites, even if just attacking the imaginary demographic of a group.
  - whateverer 15y ago
    > racist against whites I believe that, technically, the term would be "discriminatory" in this case, white people being in a position of relative power and privilege in the West (and most of the world, really. White people are esteemed all over, even if just in relation to other foreigners). But it just isn't the same as you said. The difference here is that this is a question-and-answers forum, and the lack of diversity, as in the homogeneity of values and experiences, might be indeed undesirable. Though I wasn't able to quickly find an study that showed that homogeneity begets groupthink...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
carguy1983 15y ago
Yeah, I guess I'm racist. I want diversity in my populations, applied to every context possible. Full stop. "I'm sorry you're offended."

sghill 15y ago

The first one was the dealbreaker for me. I signed up using part of my real name instead of my full name. Within hours I was blocked from adding anything to Quora. As a result, I haven't been back since signing up.