8 ms·

I would appreciate it if people stopped making up or repeating ridiculous pseudo-scientific explanations for whatever it is they want to believe.

the_cat_kittles 14y ago
No need to attack the person, especially when they responded with grace.
jmathai 14y ago
I read something on Twitter the other day which reminds me of you. "I'm a content creator. My content is criticizing other people's content." https://twitter.com/VectorBelly/status/289489202742181888 https://twitter.com/VectorBelly/status/289489202742181888
- corwinstephen 14y ago
  On a forum like Hackernews where the purpose of the entire thing is to gain knowledge and expand wisdom, it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to post things when they have no clue what they're talking about. If the guy had posted an opinion based on fact, it would have been fair game, but this particular opinion was based on nothing more than colloquial beliefs which perpetuate fallacy. In my opinion, he was right to criticize. If he hadn't, I'd be going around telling people about how my brain is becoming dopamine tolerant due to the bursts of it I get every time I watch porn. I'm glad I know that's not true.
  - ohwp 14y ago
    It's about the tone, not the critique. What VigUi7vv8G2 is saying about dopamine might be correct but his tone is anti-social. He could have left "Oh dear god." and "What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while." out of it and it would have been a perfect helpful response.
    - jmathai 14y ago
      Precisely. There's a difference in criticism with the intent of being constructive and that being destructive or only for the purpose of inflating one's ego. Tone.
sievert 14y ago
I would down-vote you if I had the karma
rdtsc 14y ago
> I would appreciate it Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations. Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else. They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.
- jaggederest 14y ago
  They were also clearly incorrect. No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides factual inaccuracy. It's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully. This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    True, but as many others wrote here, you can correct another person and still be polite about it. One of the things I love about HN is that incorrect opinions are quickly corrected by people in the know, often with providing proper citations. However, what is quite often missing, is civility. Moreover, in this case one should be exceptionally polite, given the very personal nature of the OP's post and the courage to attach his name to his writing. I recommend everyone (myself included) to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", even if they don't think they have a problem with being polite. I keep re-reading this book and everytime I do I see something more to correct (it has already heavily influenced the way I write e-mails to people).
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    They were incorrect on a side detail "shot of dopamine equals pleasure". That is not the main crux of the comment and latching onto that side detail and throwing "Fuck this and fuck that" around is is insulting the person and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even after the original author politely answered and noticed the correction the insults continued with "this is not acceptable" . > Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer. The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.

the_cat_kittles 14y ago

No need to attack the person, especially when they responded with grace.

jmathai 14y ago

I read something on Twitter the other day which reminds me of you. "I'm a content creator. My content is criticizing other people's content." https://twitter.com/VectorBelly/status/289489202742181888 https://twitter.com/VectorBelly/status/289489202742181888

corwinstephen 14y ago
On a forum like Hackernews where the purpose of the entire thing is to gain knowledge and expand wisdom, it's perfectly reasonable to expect people not to post things when they have no clue what they're talking about. If the guy had posted an opinion based on fact, it would have been fair game, but this particular opinion was based on nothing more than colloquial beliefs which perpetuate fallacy. In my opinion, he was right to criticize. If he hadn't, I'd be going around telling people about how my brain is becoming dopamine tolerant due to the bursts of it I get every time I watch porn. I'm glad I know that's not true.
- ohwp 14y ago
  It's about the tone, not the critique. What VigUi7vv8G2 is saying about dopamine might be correct but his tone is anti-social. He could have left "Oh dear god." and "What the fuck? This is the dumbest thing I've read in a while." out of it and it would have been a perfect helpful response.
  - jmathai 14y ago
    Precisely. There's a difference in criticism with the intent of being constructive and that being destructive or only for the purpose of inflating one's ego. Tone.

sievert 14y ago

I would down-vote you if I had the karma

rdtsc 14y ago

> I would appreciate it Oh, you would? How dare everyone on the internet not cater to your expectations. Someone from the community shared a story of personal struggle. They didn't hide behind a pseudonym, and it was probably a hard decision for them. They also, did in hopes it would help someone else. They might not have used precise definitions or scientifically correct terms but they were honest and civil and even after you insulted them.

jaggederest 14y ago
They were also clearly incorrect. No matter how hard their struggle is, it's akin to linking vaccines to autism - no amount of personal pain overrides factual inaccuracy. It's an extremely important part of public discourse that incorrectness be called out, in a polite way, but clearly and forcefully. This is akin to 'balancing' a debate about evolution by having an evolutionary biologist there and a doctor of theology there. Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  True, but as many others wrote here, you can correct another person and still be polite about it. One of the things I love about HN is that incorrect opinions are quickly corrected by people in the know, often with providing proper citations. However, what is quite often missing, is civility. Moreover, in this case one should be exceptionally polite, given the very personal nature of the OP's post and the courage to attach his name to his writing. I recommend everyone (myself included) to re-read "How to Win Friends and Influence People", even if they don't think they have a problem with being polite. I keep re-reading this book and everytime I do I see something more to correct (it has already heavily influenced the way I write e-mails to people).
- rdtsc 14y ago
  They were incorrect on a side detail "shot of dopamine equals pleasure". That is not the main crux of the comment and latching onto that side detail and throwing "Fuck this and fuck that" around is is insulting the person and doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even after the original author politely answered and noticed the correction the insults continued with "this is not acceptable" . > Just because there is debate does not mean that there is not a clearly correct answer. The correct answer in this case doesn't really matter for the main point if we are talking about the dopamine. Which, from what I see is the clearly factually incorrect statement. Latching unnecessarily unto inconsequential details and derailing the conversion is also called trolling and bullying and will get the message downvoted or flagged.