3 ms·

I will try one last time - I invite anyone who disagrees to share their disagreement. Was there not enough civility? I've shared my experiences on the American

I will try one last time - I invite anyone who disagrees to share their disagreement. Was there not enough civility? I've shared my experiences on the American system, and my opinions, and I've taken time to write them and share anecdotes. Something like 6-8 people found them useful and voted up. Something like 7-9 people as of now found them upsetting/wrong/something and voted them down. The comment score has been swinging. This is apparently quite polarizing to people. I'd really like to know why - agreement or disagreement, actually. I would truly, respectfully like to hear it. I've shared my experience and opinion, and would like to hear yours. Or your rationale for saying "this comment ought not to have been made and/or is completely wrong", which is what a vote against says. Was it uninsightful? Misguided or inaccurate? Not enough politeness? Certainly, there was some thought and introspection before writing. I am at a loss to understand people's views on this - I will not speculate further, but instead, again, humbly, ask for a reply so that we may have a discussion, if you feel it worth your time to make known how you feel.

scott_s 17y ago
I imagine some of your upvotes are like mine: I don't really agree with what you said, but I still think it's a valid, civil comment. So I upvoted it from -1 to 0. I consider that a correction upvote. Personally, I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion because I think you've painted a caricature of our educational system - recognizable features are there, but greatly exaggerated. Addressing all of these would take more time and effort than I want to invest in a discussion that I've seen and participated in before. Also keep in mind that people don't owe you a response. Scolding people into talking to you is not a good tactic.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > Personally, I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion because I think you've painted a caricature of our educational system - recognizable features are there, but greatly exaggerated. Interesting - that's fair. I suppose a lot of people's experience differs too, so it's easy for people to talk past each other. I do know quite a lot of people, including a lot of self made people, and it's a subject I've discussed a lot. I've done teaching and training myself and I think our system is in disrepair, but perhaps I should be more balanced and less caricaturizing. > Also keep in mind that people don't owe you a response. Owe? Well, certainly not, though perhaps it's considerate for someone to explain why they downvoted a comment and it lets discussion get going. My own sense of decorum is I'll downvote noise ("right on! lol!" type posts) without explaining why, otherwise I won't unless there's already a good reply explaining why the disagreement. > Scolding people into talking to you is not a good tactic. I'm torn by whether to make a joke or a serious reply to this. I'll go the serious route: There's no scolding involved. I think people downvote identity-held issues without writing a disagreement, and I think it means people's worldviews don't evolve as quickly as they could, both mine and others'. I've had some fantastic disagreements with my comments in the past that led to very good discussion where I've learned a lot. For instance: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723610 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723610 So, I appreciate replies. Especially on an identity-level issue, yes, I'll absolutely ask again if I think people might be kneejerk voting based on identity. I want to learn on here, and want to be entertained, and I want others to learn, and I want others to be entertained. With discussion, we can do that. That's why I invite it. Thank you for your response.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > I'll go the serious route: There's no scolding involved. Yes, there was. You seem to think that downvotes are a bad thing. They're actually feedback that you don't get in most circumstances. You seem to think that you're owed feedback that you like. You're wrong.
aheilbut 17y ago
I wasn't moved to downvote, but there are at least three claims that I think are misguided and a bit distasteful. But most of the rest is junk unless your goal is to be a moderately salaried reasonably secure employee. This seems to imply that there is something wrong with wanting to be a "moderately salaried reasonably secure employee". That's actually more or less what most people want, and our society and educational system, despite its problems, still does a remarkably good job of making that happen. High school and college never have and can't teach you what you need to be perform on the highest levels. College (and graduate school) isn't going help you perform at the highest levels in things the 100m sprint, or in car salesmanship, or how to hustle. But academia is still the best currently evolved system for training people to do research in disciplines like computer science or sociology. Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. It isn't news to anyone that academia isn't the optimal, shortest-path to make a lot of money. That's not why people do it. Finally, you're making sweeping claims about the value of college and the entire educational system, when the original post was about a much more focussed issue of corporate basic research vs. academic research.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  This was incredibly valuable to me to read. Thank you. > Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. This reminded me of something I took for granted that most people thought - when most people don't think it. I'd done quite a lot of cowboy frontier-style research when I was younger, and written much of it up. But I really disliked marketing, producing, selling. Eventually I met the head of Apple's Market Research for Canada, and he was an amazing guy. He taught me so much. One thing he really, really hammered into me was that it's good and right to be compensated for the value you create. I got a motto from one of those talks in Toronto - "Edison not Tesla." By all accounts, Tesla was the greater scientist and probably better human being than Edison. But Edison became very wealthy, and Tesla had a bit of a hard life. So I do absolutely believe that the making the greatest contribution to society and wealth are and should be married - and that it keeps you on track. I think researchers ought to become wealthy as they benefit humanity, and it's a tragedy when they don't. So bettering of people's lives, truly, measurably, ought to result in the doer of good also having their life improved. Wealth isn't the only measure of that, but it is a large one. Thanks again for your reply, very insightful to me.

scott_s 17y ago

I imagine some of your upvotes are like mine: I don't really agree with what you said, but I still think it's a valid, civil comment. So I upvoted it from -1 to 0. I consider that a correction upvote. Personally, I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion because I think you've painted a caricature of our educational system - recognizable features are there, but greatly exaggerated. Addressing all of these would take more time and effort than I want to invest in a discussion that I've seen and participated in before. Also keep in mind that people don't owe you a response. Scolding people into talking to you is not a good tactic.

lionhearted 17y ago
> Personally, I'm not interested in engaging you in discussion because I think you've painted a caricature of our educational system - recognizable features are there, but greatly exaggerated. Interesting - that's fair. I suppose a lot of people's experience differs too, so it's easy for people to talk past each other. I do know quite a lot of people, including a lot of self made people, and it's a subject I've discussed a lot. I've done teaching and training myself and I think our system is in disrepair, but perhaps I should be more balanced and less caricaturizing. > Also keep in mind that people don't owe you a response. Owe? Well, certainly not, though perhaps it's considerate for someone to explain why they downvoted a comment and it lets discussion get going. My own sense of decorum is I'll downvote noise ("right on! lol!" type posts) without explaining why, otherwise I won't unless there's already a good reply explaining why the disagreement. > Scolding people into talking to you is not a good tactic. I'm torn by whether to make a joke or a serious reply to this. I'll go the serious route: There's no scolding involved. I think people downvote identity-held issues without writing a disagreement, and I think it means people's worldviews don't evolve as quickly as they could, both mine and others'. I've had some fantastic disagreements with my comments in the past that led to very good discussion where I've learned a lot. For instance: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723610 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=723610 So, I appreciate replies. Especially on an identity-level issue, yes, I'll absolutely ask again if I think people might be kneejerk voting based on identity. I want to learn on here, and want to be entertained, and I want others to learn, and I want others to be entertained. With discussion, we can do that. That's why I invite it. Thank you for your response.
- anamax 17y ago
  > I'll go the serious route: There's no scolding involved. Yes, there was. You seem to think that downvotes are a bad thing. They're actually feedback that you don't get in most circumstances. You seem to think that you're owed feedback that you like. You're wrong.

aheilbut 17y ago

I wasn't moved to downvote, but there are at least three claims that I think are misguided and a bit distasteful. But most of the rest is junk unless your goal is to be a moderately salaried reasonably secure employee. This seems to imply that there is something wrong with wanting to be a "moderately salaried reasonably secure employee". That's actually more or less what most people want, and our society and educational system, despite its problems, still does a remarkably good job of making that happen. High school and college never have and can't teach you what you need to be perform on the highest levels. College (and graduate school) isn't going help you perform at the highest levels in things the 100m sprint, or in car salesmanship, or how to hustle. But academia is still the best currently evolved system for training people to do research in disciplines like computer science or sociology. Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. It isn't news to anyone that academia isn't the optimal, shortest-path to make a lot of money. That's not why people do it. Finally, you're making sweeping claims about the value of college and the entire educational system, when the original post was about a much more focussed issue of corporate basic research vs. academic research.

lionhearted 17y ago
This was incredibly valuable to me to read. Thank you. > Third, both of your posts imply that the only measure of value - of self, and to society - is wealth. This reminded me of something I took for granted that most people thought - when most people don't think it. I'd done quite a lot of cowboy frontier-style research when I was younger, and written much of it up. But I really disliked marketing, producing, selling. Eventually I met the head of Apple's Market Research for Canada, and he was an amazing guy. He taught me so much. One thing he really, really hammered into me was that it's good and right to be compensated for the value you create. I got a motto from one of those talks in Toronto - "Edison not Tesla." By all accounts, Tesla was the greater scientist and probably better human being than Edison. But Edison became very wealthy, and Tesla had a bit of a hard life. So I do absolutely believe that the making the greatest contribution to society and wealth are and should be married - and that it keeps you on track. I think researchers ought to become wealthy as they benefit humanity, and it's a tragedy when they don't. So bettering of people's lives, truly, measurably, ought to result in the doer of good also having their life improved. Wealth isn't the only measure of that, but it is a large one. Thanks again for your reply, very insightful to me.