4 ms·

We have as much right to defend the behavior as you have to attack it. It's an arbitrary questions of norms and of tolerance to criticism. In modern society it

by gwgarry 13y ago

We have as much right to defend the behavior as you have to attack it. It's an arbitrary questions of norms and of tolerance to criticism. In modern society it seems that we're so isolated and insecure in ourselves that we can't handle criticism and meanness. That everyone must be over socialized to be overly concerned about what everyone else thinks and not be concerned about the objectivity of what we're trying to achieve. In political questions this is overly dangerous. A healthy level of tolerance of criticism is necessary for any sort of critical culture. Without it disasters like the nuclear disaster in Japan occur. Where everyone is trying to be so polite and get along that obvious problems go unsolved because criticism is not brought to bear on the right people at the right time. Yes there are limits to what is acceptable and not overdoing it. But then there is also a need for tolerance of criticism to an extent and perhaps if there is enough confidence a rebuttal to criticism.

DrJokepu 13y ago
Are you sure his problem was really criticism? I think that his problem was rather that people were making value judgements about his character in a manner that what he felt was unfair.
tspike 13y ago
I think you're conflating criticism and being mean. It's quite possible to offer kind, empathetic criticism, which I would argue is more effective. When the person receiving criticism doesn't see it as an attack, he/she is far more likely to listen to it.
- protomyth 13y ago
  It is the difference between some drunk on the street yelling at you about your behavior or one of your friends sitting you down on a park bench and saying "we've been friends for a long while and I think you need to hear a couple of things..."
moomin 13y ago
The sooner people understand that anti-social behaviour is about community and not about rights the better, but I still see people confusing the two. Yes you've got a right to be rude, you've also got a right to blather on for two hours about Dragonball Z. Both behaviours will leave adults concluding that you're not capable of mature discussion. And if you and your mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30. If, on the other hand, you want an intelligent conversation about tech and startups with the largest number of intelligent people, I suggest that we should all talk a bit more like Paul Graham and a bit less like a 14-year old playing Call of Duty (or, for that matter, Linus Torvalds)
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Thank you for writing your point in a manner the reinforces your point. I have given your point a point.
- gwgarry 13y ago
  > The sooner people understand that anti-social behaviour is about community and not about rights the better "Anti-social" behavior according to whom and to what extent and for what purpose? For the purpose of feminizing men so that they are more passive and they fit better into your ideals of who people should be? So to fit men who want to be themselves into your little cult of civility? > I still see people confusing the two. There is no confusion. People want to be themselves and want a culture to cater to that. Instead you want a culture that caters to your needs. Which is fine, but that is no global definition of what that is and how to implement it. The idea that everyone and every community should conform to these feminizing norms is highly flawed. And is totally arbitrary. > Both behaviours will leave adults concluding Massive generalization. Adults, eh? Fuck you for calling any ideals that don't conform to your to be childish. > mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30. The point is to appeal to your group, not to appeal to all of society. That's what religions attempt to do, and fail all the time doing. There are no ideals that fit every community or even all of society. To attempt to create such ideals is essentially social engineering. It's the purview of totalitarians. > intelligent conversation about tech and startups Fuck you for calling people who don't conform to your norms unintelligent.
srdev 13y ago
There's a wide gap between giving objective, straightforward criticism and being insulting. The latter is not necessary to get one's point across. The latter is also what Linus did, and what many in the programming community encourage, under the guise of being the former. You don't need to be a bully to give pointed criticism. The fact that people don't seem to get this, and rabidly defend terrible behavior, is discouraging.
pfortuny 13y ago
The fact that something is 'artificial' (i.e. a product of art, essentially) does not mean it is 'arbitrary' (i.e. just a product of freedom or authority -arbitrium-). Do not take social norms as 'arbitrary': they usually have deeper meanings than what we usually assume. I am not saying you are obviously wrong. I complain about the 'arbitrary'. In Western cultures, educated criticism is always enveloped in smoothness, and language is an important part of this envelope. This is not evolutionary, it is cultural and we do it because, in the long term, society has noticed that this is useful. Academia is the classical example of this: one may hate his colleague in the same Department, and also his ideas, but one is not going to bully him linguistically in a paper. Because the time spent in explaining the insults is not worth it. Unless one is a simple bully, obviously. But this is not the usual state of affairs.
com2kid 13y ago
> We have as much right to defend the behavior as you have to attack it. It's an arbitrary questions of norms and of tolerance to criticism. In modern society it seems that we're so isolated and insecure in ourselves that we can't handle criticism and meanness. Criticism means something in particular though, namely being critical of something. Being critical of an idea does not mean insulting the person who proposed the idea, rather it means replying to the idea with intelligent commentary and feedback. There is rarely cause to be uncivil in providing criticism, and indeed doing such frequently closes doors to communication. > A healthy level of tolerance of criticism is necessary for any sort of critical culture. Without it disasters like the nuclear disaster in Japan occur. Where everyone is trying to be so polite and get along that obvious problems go unsolved because criticism is not brought to bear on the right people at the right time. Indeed this is true, but I think the overall feel in this thread is that the technical community frequently confuses criticism with outright personal attacks. In the very least, legitimate criticism is frequently mixed with verbal abuse, which adds nothing to the discourse. > Yes there are limits to what is acceptable and not overdoing it. But then there is also a need for tolerance of criticism to an extent and perhaps if there is enough confidence a rebuttal to criticism. A good engineer is one who accepts criticism, for that is how one improves. But if I am doing a code review, I would not tolerate someone questioning my history of career decisions when judging if my software architecture is correct. I would not tolerate it because it is not on task, nor does it have a point or purpose. There are times when bringing up the topic of someone's credentials or personal history is relevant, but even then there is no need to be disrespectful about it. Now there are of course sometimes when more forceful language is called for, such as when personal or public safety is at stake, or when the future of a company is on the line. I would say that under those conditions, one should still do their best to communicate in a civil fashion, and then slowly escalate language used as is appropriate.

by gwgarry 13y ago

DrJokepu 13y ago

Are you sure his problem was really criticism? I think that his problem was rather that people were making value judgements about his character in a manner that what he felt was unfair.

tspike 13y ago

I think you're conflating criticism and being mean. It's quite possible to offer kind, empathetic criticism, which I would argue is more effective. When the person receiving criticism doesn't see it as an attack, he/she is far more likely to listen to it.

protomyth 13y ago
It is the difference between some drunk on the street yelling at you about your behavior or one of your friends sitting you down on a park bench and saying "we've been friends for a long while and I think you need to hear a couple of things..."

moomin 13y ago

The sooner people understand that anti-social behaviour is about community and not about rights the better, but I still see people confusing the two. Yes you've got a right to be rude, you've also got a right to blather on for two hours about Dragonball Z. Both behaviours will leave adults concluding that you're not capable of mature discussion. And if you and your mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30. If, on the other hand, you want an intelligent conversation about tech and startups with the largest number of intelligent people, I suggest that we should all talk a bit more like Paul Graham and a bit less like a 14-year old playing Call of Duty (or, for that matter, Linus Torvalds)

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Thank you for writing your point in a manner the reinforces your point. I have given your point a point.
gwgarry 13y ago
> The sooner people understand that anti-social behaviour is about community and not about rights the better "Anti-social" behavior according to whom and to what extent and for what purpose? For the purpose of feminizing men so that they are more passive and they fit better into your ideals of who people should be? So to fit men who want to be themselves into your little cult of civility? > I still see people confusing the two. There is no confusion. People want to be themselves and want a culture to cater to that. Instead you want a culture that caters to your needs. Which is fine, but that is no global definition of what that is and how to implement it. The idea that everyone and every community should conform to these feminizing norms is highly flawed. And is totally arbitrary. > Both behaviours will leave adults concluding Massive generalization. Adults, eh? Fuck you for calling any ideals that don't conform to your to be childish. > mates establish a norm of anti-social behaviour, you will neatly exclude large portions of the population including most women, most children and most men over 30. The point is to appeal to your group, not to appeal to all of society. That's what religions attempt to do, and fail all the time doing. There are no ideals that fit every community or even all of society. To attempt to create such ideals is essentially social engineering. It's the purview of totalitarians. > intelligent conversation about tech and startups Fuck you for calling people who don't conform to your norms unintelligent.

srdev 13y ago

There's a wide gap between giving objective, straightforward criticism and being insulting. The latter is not necessary to get one's point across. The latter is also what Linus did, and what many in the programming community encourage, under the guise of being the former. You don't need to be a bully to give pointed criticism. The fact that people don't seem to get this, and rabidly defend terrible behavior, is discouraging.

pfortuny 13y ago

The fact that something is 'artificial' (i.e. a product of art, essentially) does not mean it is 'arbitrary' (i.e. just a product of freedom or authority -arbitrium-). Do not take social norms as 'arbitrary': they usually have deeper meanings than what we usually assume. I am not saying you are obviously wrong. I complain about the 'arbitrary'. In Western cultures, educated criticism is always enveloped in smoothness, and language is an important part of this envelope. This is not evolutionary, it is cultural and we do it because, in the long term, society has noticed that this is useful. Academia is the classical example of this: one may hate his colleague in the same Department, and also his ideas, but one is not going to bully him linguistically in a paper. Because the time spent in explaining the insults is not worth it. Unless one is a simple bully, obviously. But this is not the usual state of affairs.

com2kid 13y ago

> We have as much right to defend the behavior as you have to attack it. It's an arbitrary questions of norms and of tolerance to criticism. In modern society it seems that we're so isolated and insecure in ourselves that we can't handle criticism and meanness. Criticism means something in particular though, namely being critical of something. Being critical of an idea does not mean insulting the person who proposed the idea, rather it means replying to the idea with intelligent commentary and feedback. There is rarely cause to be uncivil in providing criticism, and indeed doing such frequently closes doors to communication. > A healthy level of tolerance of criticism is necessary for any sort of critical culture. Without it disasters like the nuclear disaster in Japan occur. Where everyone is trying to be so polite and get along that obvious problems go unsolved because criticism is not brought to bear on the right people at the right time. Indeed this is true, but I think the overall feel in this thread is that the technical community frequently confuses criticism with outright personal attacks. In the very least, legitimate criticism is frequently mixed with verbal abuse, which adds nothing to the discourse. > Yes there are limits to what is acceptable and not overdoing it. But then there is also a need for tolerance of criticism to an extent and perhaps if there is enough confidence a rebuttal to criticism. A good engineer is one who accepts criticism, for that is how one improves. But if I am doing a code review, I would not tolerate someone questioning my history of career decisions when judging if my software architecture is correct. I would not tolerate it because it is not on task, nor does it have a point or purpose. There are times when bringing up the topic of someone's credentials or personal history is relevant, but even then there is no need to be disrespectful about it. Now there are of course sometimes when more forceful language is called for, such as when personal or public safety is at stake, or when the future of a company is on the line. I would say that under those conditions, one should still do their best to communicate in a civil fashion, and then slowly escalate language used as is appropriate.