5 ms·

I'm never surprised to see these sorts of comments even in discussion forums that I hold in high esteem, such as HN. As an engineer, I've seen pretty heated arg

I'm never surprised to see these sorts of comments even in discussion forums that I hold in high esteem, such as HN. As an engineer, I've seen pretty heated arguments about very silly things such as whose editor is better. These are generally very intelligent people, but are susceptible to cognitive dissonance. Rational discourse goes out the window at that point, because they're convinced they're right and it's impossible that other view points may be correct. It's part of the reason most of the world is still religious. I bet you if there were down votes allowed on HN, this post would be about dead even, because tons of people probably disagree with him. But it's just the right sort of inflammatory comments that garners attention and get up votes too.

pavs 14y ago
> I bet you if there were down votes allowed on HN, this post would be about dead even, because tons of people probably disagree with him. Downvotes are allowed on HN, you have to have a certain amount of "points" to be able to downvote.
- samiur1204 14y ago
  Ahh, that might be nice to get to someday.
tptacek 14y ago
Comments do get downvoted on HN. The question is, what kind of HN participant upvotes a comment like that? Who is deciding that that was a comment worth promoting, and why?
- samiur1204 14y ago
  I'm sure a few people agree with what he said, because people tend to get swayed by forceful statements (eg. this is how Fox gets its viewership).
  - tptacek 14y ago
    When people upvote objectively bad comments, we get evidence that their votes should be weighted down.
    - diminish 14y ago
      clearly, there is no fair, well-defined measurement for 'bad comment', except for the number of upvotes and downvotes. if now votes themselves were voted, and in turn those were recursively voted; we would end up in a ridiculous web site where diversity does not prevail and majority suppresses minority.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        I am done pretending that the diversity you're alluding to is valuable. It's not; it's toxic and stupid. Let this "minority" go crud up some other forum.
        samiur1204 14y ago
        While I think there are objectively bad comments, the attitude you're taking towards them may be a little unfair. People may have some opinions that are objectively wrong that can be repaired through allowing their comments to be seen and having us tell them why they're wrong.
        tptacek 14y ago
        I don't care what you think is fair. People who write or promote indefensibly stupid comments could be penalized, and doing so would probably make the site better. Paul Graham should try that (or try doing it more).
        samiur1204 14y ago
        Well, you come up with a way to identify "indefensibly stupid" comments, and then I'll get behind it.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  The question is, what kind of HN participant upvotes a comment like that? After upvoting your comment, I will answer your question. It occurs to me, because of, um, examples I have seen, that sometimes a person who has no personal knowledge of what the underlying facts are (that is, whether TechCrunch is a good citizen of the Valley or a bad citizen shot through with conflicts of interest) may upvote a comment that appears to differ from the HN consensus just to bring that dissenting view to prominence in the discussion, the better to encourage people who know facts about the matter (pro or con) to speak to those facts. In any one thread, I have at most one upvote (or downvote) for each comment, so I'm never completely sure if I'm part of the thread consensus or part of a mistaken group of outliers if I vote in a thread where I don't post. In many threads, I plainly don't know enough to vote either up or down on disputed factual matters (and thus don't vote), but I try to read in lurk mode and learn something. Maybe some people who upvoted the offensive comment in this thread, whoever they were, were "upvoting for disagreement," just as some people submit articles for disagreement, Even though the consensus here is that submitting a story endorses a story, and upvoting a comment implies agreement with the comment, there are definitely some participants here who submit or who upvote to provoke critical comment from other participants.
pron 14y ago
OT but maybe not really: > Rational discourse goes out the window at that point, because they're convinced they're right and it's impossible that other view points may be correct. It's part of the reason most of the world is still religious. So you think that if people were only more open to rational discussion then fewer of them will stay religious? I think you are discounting the vital role irrationality plays in our lives and playing up the importance of rationality. I think religion offers people something that is beyond or external to rationality -- not something that opposes it. Same goes for "religious arguments" about editors. Instead of belittling such sentiments, you might want to find out why they're so prevalent and whether they are indeed harmful. I suggest you read Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground and Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. These books have awarded me a lot of insight on the subject.
- samiur1204 14y ago
  Actually have read Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground. I'll look into the other book that you recommended too. And personally, I have nothing against people being religious and wasn't belittling that sentiment. I merely think that many people are indoctrinated into a religion at an early age, and "know" that they are right, and use various ways to rationalize the belief their parents instilled in them, instead of exploring their beliefs on their and coming to their own conclusions.

pavs 14y ago

> I bet you if there were down votes allowed on HN, this post would be about dead even, because tons of people probably disagree with him. Downvotes are allowed on HN, you have to have a certain amount of "points" to be able to downvote.

samiur1204 14y ago
Ahh, that might be nice to get to someday.

tptacek 14y ago

Comments do get downvoted on HN. The question is, what kind of HN participant upvotes a comment like that? Who is deciding that that was a comment worth promoting, and why?

samiur1204 14y ago
I'm sure a few people agree with what he said, because people tend to get swayed by forceful statements (eg. this is how Fox gets its viewership).
- tptacek 14y ago
  When people upvote objectively bad comments, we get evidence that their votes should be weighted down.
  - diminish 14y ago
    clearly, there is no fair, well-defined measurement for 'bad comment', except for the number of upvotes and downvotes. if now votes themselves were voted, and in turn those were recursively voted; we would end up in a ridiculous web site where diversity does not prevail and majority suppresses minority.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I am done pretending that the diversity you're alluding to is valuable. It's not; it's toxic and stupid. Let this "minority" go crud up some other forum.
      - samiur1204 14y ago
        While I think there are objectively bad comments, the attitude you're taking towards them may be a little unfair. People may have some opinions that are objectively wrong that can be repaired through allowing their comments to be seen and having us tell them why they're wrong.
        tptacek 14y ago
        I don't care what you think is fair. People who write or promote indefensibly stupid comments could be penalized, and doing so would probably make the site better. Paul Graham should try that (or try doing it more).
        samiur1204 14y ago
        Well, you come up with a way to identify "indefensibly stupid" comments, and then I'll get behind it.
tokenadult 14y ago
The question is, what kind of HN participant upvotes a comment like that? After upvoting your comment, I will answer your question. It occurs to me, because of, um, examples I have seen, that sometimes a person who has no personal knowledge of what the underlying facts are (that is, whether TechCrunch is a good citizen of the Valley or a bad citizen shot through with conflicts of interest) may upvote a comment that appears to differ from the HN consensus just to bring that dissenting view to prominence in the discussion, the better to encourage people who know facts about the matter (pro or con) to speak to those facts. In any one thread, I have at most one upvote (or downvote) for each comment, so I'm never completely sure if I'm part of the thread consensus or part of a mistaken group of outliers if I vote in a thread where I don't post. In many threads, I plainly don't know enough to vote either up or down on disputed factual matters (and thus don't vote), but I try to read in lurk mode and learn something. Maybe some people who upvoted the offensive comment in this thread, whoever they were, were "upvoting for disagreement," just as some people submit articles for disagreement, Even though the consensus here is that submitting a story endorses a story, and upvoting a comment implies agreement with the comment, there are definitely some participants here who submit or who upvote to provoke critical comment from other participants.

pron 14y ago

OT but maybe not really: > Rational discourse goes out the window at that point, because they're convinced they're right and it's impossible that other view points may be correct. It's part of the reason most of the world is still religious. So you think that if people were only more open to rational discussion then fewer of them will stay religious? I think you are discounting the vital role irrationality plays in our lives and playing up the importance of rationality. I think religion offers people something that is beyond or external to rationality -- not something that opposes it. Same goes for "religious arguments" about editors. Instead of belittling such sentiments, you might want to find out why they're so prevalent and whether they are indeed harmful. I suggest you read Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground and Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. These books have awarded me a lot of insight on the subject.

samiur1204 14y ago
Actually have read Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground. I'll look into the other book that you recommended too. And personally, I have nothing against people being religious and wasn't belittling that sentiment. I merely think that many people are indoctrinated into a religion at an early age, and "know" that they are right, and use various ways to rationalize the belief their parents instilled in them, instead of exploring their beliefs on their and coming to their own conclusions.