3 ms·

I also find it helpful "to know if someone has experience with what they are saying." Where we disagree is whether "Source: XYZ" is allegation or fact.

by dfc 12y ago

kens 12y ago
dfc, I read the "AskHistorians" link you posted above and I think I understand better where you're coming from. It seems like /r/AskHistorians requires statements to be sourced to standards (probably higher than Wikipedia's) with reliable primary or secondary sources. If that's what you're looking for, then obviously "Source: I'm an XYZ" will seem worthless. My theory of internet discussions is there are three styles: "scientific conference", where participants try to say accurate things to reach factual conclusions; "debate team", where participants are trying to win for their side; and "cocktail party", where participants are having an interesting conversation. The problem is that you're trying to apply "scientific conference" rules to a HN "cocktail party" conversation, and it's not a good fit. (I'm sympathetic to the "scientific conference" viewpoint, by the way.) To answer your question above, I don't view "Source: XYZ" as a fact, but I consider it as helpful information. (i.e. they probably aren't lying about being XYZ, and probably know what they are talking about, so I'll take what they say as having a good chance of being true.)
- dfc 12y ago
  I appreciate the manner and content of your response. I agree that conversations on HN, for the majority of the time, are cocktail party conversations, ie. good faith collegial conversations. However I think that the "Source: XYZ" is also inappropriate for discussions among friends. Elsewhere in this discussion people were discussing lethality and volts/amps. If you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, make some reasonable comment that "volts blah blah, and amps blah" I am going to take you at your word and carry on our discussion. If it sounds like bullshit I am going to call you out on it and ask for proof just like I would to a friend at a cocktail party. It seems that if I am going to accept your allegation that you are an XYZ simply because you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, said that you are an XYZ I should just accept your original comment. Adding the "Source: XYZ" is troubling for me because it seems to evoke some magical air of authority from thin air. Summoning this cloak of superiority/authority is out of place among friends, just as out of place as someone showing up to a cocktail party in a lab coat. Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources, but if sources are required, legitimate verifiable sources should be used.
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources" I think you misunderstand the purpose of the "source: XYZ" comment in this and many other HN discussions. It's not meant to create an undeserved air of authority. It's meant to help contextualize the information being given. When I talk about math curriculum, I usually tell people I teach fourth grade math in an inner-city school. That helps people understand that I'm talking from that perspective, rather than the perspective of a parent or an administrator. It also helps people understand how closely my experience matches the specific situation being spoken of (same grade level? Same demographics?) and it suggests which lines of inquiry I'd be most helpful in addressing (ie, "what does it cost to purchase district-wide curriculum" is beyond my expertise, but "how do your students handle such-and-such concept" is a great question.) It doesn't prove I'm a world-class expert or that nobody can argue with me or otherwise unfairly imbue my comment with false authority. I think this is actually normal in cocktail party type conversations. "I heard this thing about [topic]." "Oh, I'm actually a [job] and here's some additional detail about [thing and topic] based on my experience."
  - nmjohn 12y ago
    The thing is though, at a cocktail party the people you are talking to likely already know your profession. So if something on biology comes into conversation and you are a PhD biochemist, your insights likely should carry a little bit more weight. On the internet, we know significantly less about the people we are conversing with. So to me, as long as the "source: xyz" is critically related to the discussion at hand, it is worthwhile. This instance was one of those cases. On the other hand, statements beginning "as a parent..." (the requirements for being a parent vs. earning a PhD being the key difference) typically are not critically related to the discussion at hand, and in those instances are quite annoying and do beg the "air of authority" that is absolutely undeserved. I would say I see a lot more of the the later on reddit than on HN. This discussion on reddit likely would have had a different progression.
JshWright 12y ago
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3mhztjin2ysy64/card.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3mhztjin2ysy64/card.png Hopefully the correlation between my (years old) username and the name on the card is close enough to meet the (hopefully fairly low) burden of proof for an online messaging forum.
- dang 12y ago
  That wasn't necessary. Your comments were more than fine. Comments speaking from direct personal experience are something we need more of here. It's cool to see the card, though :)

I also find it helpful "to know if someone has experience with what they are saying." Where we disagree is whether "Source: XYZ" is allegation or fact.

by dfc 12y ago

I also find it helpful "to know if someone has experience with what they are saying." Where we disagree is whether "Source: XYZ" is allegation or fact.

kens 12y ago

dfc, I read the "AskHistorians" link you posted above and I think I understand better where you're coming from. It seems like /r/AskHistorians requires statements to be sourced to standards (probably higher than Wikipedia's) with reliable primary or secondary sources. If that's what you're looking for, then obviously "Source: I'm an XYZ" will seem worthless. My theory of internet discussions is there are three styles: "scientific conference", where participants try to say accurate things to reach factual conclusions; "debate team", where participants are trying to win for their side; and "cocktail party", where participants are having an interesting conversation. The problem is that you're trying to apply "scientific conference" rules to a HN "cocktail party" conversation, and it's not a good fit. (I'm sympathetic to the "scientific conference" viewpoint, by the way.) To answer your question above, I don't view "Source: XYZ" as a fact, but I consider it as helpful information. (i.e. they probably aren't lying about being XYZ, and probably know what they are talking about, so I'll take what they say as having a good chance of being true.)

dfc 12y ago
I appreciate the manner and content of your response. I agree that conversations on HN, for the majority of the time, are cocktail party conversations, ie. good faith collegial conversations. However I think that the "Source: XYZ" is also inappropriate for discussions among friends. Elsewhere in this discussion people were discussing lethality and volts/amps. If you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, make some reasonable comment that "volts blah blah, and amps blah" I am going to take you at your word and carry on our discussion. If it sounds like bullshit I am going to call you out on it and ask for proof just like I would to a friend at a cocktail party. It seems that if I am going to accept your allegation that you are an XYZ simply because you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, said that you are an XYZ I should just accept your original comment. Adding the "Source: XYZ" is troubling for me because it seems to evoke some magical air of authority from thin air. Summoning this cloak of superiority/authority is out of place among friends, just as out of place as someone showing up to a cocktail party in a lab coat. Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources, but if sources are required, legitimate verifiable sources should be used.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources" I think you misunderstand the purpose of the "source: XYZ" comment in this and many other HN discussions. It's not meant to create an undeserved air of authority. It's meant to help contextualize the information being given. When I talk about math curriculum, I usually tell people I teach fourth grade math in an inner-city school. That helps people understand that I'm talking from that perspective, rather than the perspective of a parent or an administrator. It also helps people understand how closely my experience matches the specific situation being spoken of (same grade level? Same demographics?) and it suggests which lines of inquiry I'd be most helpful in addressing (ie, "what does it cost to purchase district-wide curriculum" is beyond my expertise, but "how do your students handle such-and-such concept" is a great question.) It doesn't prove I'm a world-class expert or that nobody can argue with me or otherwise unfairly imbue my comment with false authority. I think this is actually normal in cocktail party type conversations. "I heard this thing about [topic]." "Oh, I'm actually a [job] and here's some additional detail about [thing and topic] based on my experience."
- nmjohn 12y ago
  The thing is though, at a cocktail party the people you are talking to likely already know your profession. So if something on biology comes into conversation and you are a PhD biochemist, your insights likely should carry a little bit more weight. On the internet, we know significantly less about the people we are conversing with. So to me, as long as the "source: xyz" is critically related to the discussion at hand, it is worthwhile. This instance was one of those cases. On the other hand, statements beginning "as a parent..." (the requirements for being a parent vs. earning a PhD being the key difference) typically are not critically related to the discussion at hand, and in those instances are quite annoying and do beg the "air of authority" that is absolutely undeserved. I would say I see a lot more of the the later on reddit than on HN. This discussion on reddit likely would have had a different progression.

JshWright 12y ago

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3mhztjin2ysy64/card.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/h3mhztjin2ysy64/card.png Hopefully the correlation between my (years old) username and the name on the card is close enough to meet the (hopefully fairly low) burden of proof for an online messaging forum.

dang 12y ago
That wasn't necessary. Your comments were more than fine. Comments speaking from direct personal experience are something we need more of here. It's cool to see the card, though :)