5 ms·

Ask HN: The curious case of asymmetric skepticism on HN

8 points by DrNosferatu 2y ago

I've noticed a pattern where well-supported critiques of corporate practices (pharma pricing, tech monopolies, etc.) are often heavily downvoted without substantive counter-arguments, while pro-business claims face minimal scrutiny. This selective skepticism creates an uneven playing field: critics must provide exhaustive evidence and perfect nuance, while business-friendly assertions are accepted as conventional wisdom. Has anyone else observed this? Is there a cognitive bias at work when topics challenge the industry narratives many HN users are professionally invested in?

fsflover 2y ago
Yes, I encountered this myself, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264608.
- pvg 2y ago
  You're deriving 'controversy' and then something about the preferences of forum participants as a whole from the small vote changes (ending with a non-downvoted comment!) of a tropey, generic comment in reply to a very tropey bombastic comment. I don't think you can really do that accurately from those inputs.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > (ending with a non-downvoted comment!) Only after I had to comment asking for reasons. Also, it's not the first time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43379510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43379510. > tropey, generic comment I don't see how it's generic. It's about one specific example of a general trend.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      Another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402696
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Key expression: "receiving many upvotes and then downvotes"
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
anenefan 2y ago
Cognitive bias as a rationale as to why this might occur implies a singular group who up or down vote topics, where as there is more likely two or more different sub groups of account holders here. The other thing is perspective of what is well founded critique, such as that which you know to be so, and what others would think would be erroneous or at best flawed since the argument put forward might be deemed correct broadly but does not work with the particular instance due to various reasons like owing to context, morality, practicality ... etcetera.
ttyprintk 2y ago
Things that have a bias: 1. Making money. Specifically, making a rich person richer; earning you a margin less than the topmost in your risk class in their portfolio. 2. YCombinator, or startup philosophy. Doesn't rule out critiques of corporate philosophy, your approach just needs to tick more boxes. 3. There's this rule: business itself doesn't hold grudges. The smell of grudge means it's something else -- could be lots of other things: sports (Moneyball), politics (Marc Andreesen is articulate about how to remove ethics from politics), signalling network loyalties (Ivy League), but -- worthwhile or not -- those are costs. Be prepared for any business audience to form a consensus on rules; and in the non-business dimensions, individual humans to self-select. It's interesting to look outside this, though. It's academically interesting when a project succeeds in defiance of these rules, or any academically-evaluated rules.
DrNosferatu 2y ago
It's like, when put into question, they start to cry and can't even articulate a proper response addressing the arguments presented to them - then gang up and downvote. I thought of a name for these people: "Prostrating Putative Oligobros" (PPOs) (...or "presumptive", "wannabe"?)
- anenefan 2y ago
  Ah, if you're primarily observing that, then it's probably that many users see any feed back or back and forth discussion as flaming (or just find arguing upsetting in general -- some people are quite sensitive,) and as such down vote even if they are not experts in that field, they're most likely going by the tone of the comments and punishing who they see as the agitator.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    Ah - so you mean “crying” then :D #irony
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    But don’t these people worship Steve Jobs, the agitator and disruptor extraordinaire? What ever happened to ‘Think Different’?
    - DrNosferatu 2y ago
      ??? Why not engage with this argument instead of downvoting? Are you that keen on proving me right?
      - anenefan 2y ago
        I am unable to down vote. All of my replies in this thread have been a somewhat neutral tone ... just here to help. With all your flailing of arms, whaling away at perhaps an imperfect system -- my reply to you has been at my cost as well - demonstrating if any thing the point I was attempting to make. In regard to your other replies to me, perceived agitator was to mean specifically those users in the thread who have made some critique valid or not. As for crying, no not exactly. Some people are particularly sensitive to online arguments or hot debates. I've long been a moderator at a few different forums, and found myself quite surprised by the last people I'd expect messaging me over hurt feelings or inaction on my part. I'd also point out that in this feed plenty of members would feel they're enforcing a flame free area - they don't necessarily have any side or bias.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

8 points by DrNosferatu 2y ago

fsflover 2y ago

Yes, I encountered this myself, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264608.

pvg 2y ago
You're deriving 'controversy' and then something about the preferences of forum participants as a whole from the small vote changes (ending with a non-downvoted comment!) of a tropey, generic comment in reply to a very tropey bombastic comment. I don't think you can really do that accurately from those inputs.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > (ending with a non-downvoted comment!) Only after I had to comment asking for reasons. Also, it's not the first time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43379510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43379510. > tropey, generic comment I don't see how it's generic. It's about one specific example of a general trend.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    Another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402696
DrNosferatu 2y ago
Key expression: "receiving many upvotes and then downvotes"

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

anenefan 2y ago

Cognitive bias as a rationale as to why this might occur implies a singular group who up or down vote topics, where as there is more likely two or more different sub groups of account holders here. The other thing is perspective of what is well founded critique, such as that which you know to be so, and what others would think would be erroneous or at best flawed since the argument put forward might be deemed correct broadly but does not work with the particular instance due to various reasons like owing to context, morality, practicality ... etcetera.

ttyprintk 2y ago

Things that have a bias: 1. Making money. Specifically, making a rich person richer; earning you a margin less than the topmost in your risk class in their portfolio. 2. YCombinator, or startup philosophy. Doesn't rule out critiques of corporate philosophy, your approach just needs to tick more boxes. 3. There's this rule: business itself doesn't hold grudges. The smell of grudge means it's something else -- could be lots of other things: sports (Moneyball), politics (Marc Andreesen is articulate about how to remove ethics from politics), signalling network loyalties (Ivy League), but -- worthwhile or not -- those are costs. Be prepared for any business audience to form a consensus on rules; and in the non-business dimensions, individual humans to self-select. It's interesting to look outside this, though. It's academically interesting when a project succeeds in defiance of these rules, or any academically-evaluated rules.

DrNosferatu 2y ago

It's like, when put into question, they start to cry and can't even articulate a proper response addressing the arguments presented to them - then gang up and downvote. I thought of a name for these people: "Prostrating Putative Oligobros" (PPOs) (...or "presumptive", "wannabe"?)

anenefan 2y ago
Ah, if you're primarily observing that, then it's probably that many users see any feed back or back and forth discussion as flaming (or just find arguing upsetting in general -- some people are quite sensitive,) and as such down vote even if they are not experts in that field, they're most likely going by the tone of the comments and punishing who they see as the agitator.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  Ah - so you mean “crying” then :D #irony
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  But don’t these people worship Steve Jobs, the agitator and disruptor extraordinaire? What ever happened to ‘Think Different’?
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    ??? Why not engage with this argument instead of downvoting? Are you that keen on proving me right?
    - anenefan 2y ago
      I am unable to down vote. All of my replies in this thread have been a somewhat neutral tone ... just here to help. With all your flailing of arms, whaling away at perhaps an imperfect system -- my reply to you has been at my cost as well - demonstrating if any thing the point I was attempting to make. In regard to your other replies to me, perceived agitator was to mean specifically those users in the thread who have made some critique valid or not. As for crying, no not exactly. Some people are particularly sensitive to online arguments or hot debates. I've long been a moderator at a few different forums, and found myself quite surprised by the last people I'd expect messaging me over hurt feelings or inaction on my part. I'd also point out that in this feed plenty of members would feel they're enforcing a flame free area - they don't necessarily have any side or bias.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]