3 ms·

When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. Try this thought experiment: if Arrington seemed

by pg 17y ago

When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. Try this thought experiment: if Arrington seemed like the nicest, most self-deprecating guy in the world-- like Father Mulcahy, for anyone who remembers MASH-- would people be so angry about his supposed lack of journalistic scruples?

dfranke 17y ago
I'd still object to his publishing of the stolen Twitter memos under the pretense, contradicted by Ev, that he had permission, no matter how ingratiating he were about it. Other conduct, such as his baseless attack on Last.FM and his recent T-shirt gaffe, simply could not be formulated or carried out by the personality that you describe.
- gruseom 17y ago
  his baseless attack on Last.FM Other commenters have referred to this as well. I'm curious: how do you know it was baseless? All I remember is an unsatisfyingly ambiguous they-said-they-said dispute that was never resolved in my mind (and apparently not Google's as well, because a quick search doesn't reveal anything). IIRC, Techcrunch printed what they said was a leaked email substantiating the base of their claim. Was that email a forgery? Just to spray some anti-troll foam on this, I mean my questions strictly literally. I don't have a preference for the truth to be one way or the other. I'm just curious (mildly; enough to post the question) what it actually is.
philwelch 17y ago
I suspect many people would still have no idea what Arrington's personality is in person, and thus continue to judge him entirely based upon the behavior of TechCrunch. How he greets people in person probably has no real impact. This can extend even further--from everything I've gathered, George W. Bush is a very easy person to like once you know him in person. Yet he was very recently one of the most widely despised people in the world. Your actual personality doesn't seem to matter once you start doing things people don't like, or otherwise become famous outside people who know you in person.
- pg 17y ago
  I didn't say people only dislike him because of the way he seems in person. How could all the random people who complain about him in comment threads have met him in person?
  - netsp 17y ago
    I'm hope I don't appear to be trolling or taking things out of context, but it did sort of sound like that, especially if one is skimming: I offend people by writing. And I do it the same way Michael offends people in person:
    - pg 17y ago
      Ok, I tweaked that bit to avoid confusing people.
rw 17y ago
Maybe you are actually arrogant? How could you tell that you aren't just using your concise writing style as an excuse to offend people?
- pg 17y ago
  How could you tell that you aren't just using your concise writing style as an excuse to offend people? You ask friends you know are nice to read your drafts and warn you if you're being mean.
run4yourlives 17y ago
When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. That's a bit of an logic leap though. Common sense suggests that if someone is disliked by a person, the reason is most likely evident and known. Most don't dislike as a default response. Assertions not following Occam's Razor need citation.
- barry-cotter 17y ago
  Common sense = conventional wisdom. They're both wrong reasonably often. Have you never taken an instant dislike to someone within seconds of meeting them? Or indeed, felt a connection with someone you haven't known long enough to have any real bond? These are mostly subconscious reactions to demeanour, tone and (much weaker) dress. You've heard "First impressions last", right? So obviously we judge people outside of conscious, logical thought processes. Person and Costume: Effects on the Formation of First Impressions http://fcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/32 http://fcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/32 First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind After a 100-Ms Exposure to a Face http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118597412/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118597412/abstrac... Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: a field study of interviewer behavior http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3296559 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3296559
tsally 17y ago
Well, if you're going to be a badass journalist, you have to do it all the time. Arrigton just does it when it serves his purpose and that's why he lacks journalistic integrity. Case in point: you were told you were being mean because your insightful questions made some startups look bad at TechCrunch50.
thaumaturgy 17y ago
Angry? No, because anger isn't the appropriate emotional response to such a person. But that doesn't mean that people would react positively, either. The response would simply be altered: people would likely try to work with him, try to correct his behavior as they saw fit, or dismiss him altogether. > When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. This is stunningly arrogant, and I'm speaking as someone that's constantly accused of arrogance. If you're going to tell people that you understand their motivations or behaviors better than they do, you should trot out some better evidence than mere conjecture.
- pg 17y ago
  What sort of evidence do you think would be appropriate?
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    The kind that requires more than a day to put together. At the very least, let's see some studies of controversial figures, the traits those figures have in common, and the most common reactions to them. Let's see if there's a correlation between mere abruptness in an individual, and widespread long-term dislike of that person. Or do some social experiments, with actual control and experiment groups. The point though was less about coming up with the right kind of experiments -- although that could be kind of fun -- and more that it's extremely arrogant to tell people that you understand them better than they do, especially when it's completely unjustified, as it is here. Whether you consider that kind of arrogance to be a negative trait or not is up to you.
- gruseom 17y ago
  << When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. >> This is stunningly arrogant No it's not. It's an obvious fact of human nature. One way to know this is by self-observation. That may seem oxymoronic (how can I observe something I am denying?) but with a bit of honesty it works well. One tell-tale sign is when the emotional charge around something is incommensurate with the reason someone is giving. I think this may be going on here. The most common stated criticism of Arrington is that his journalistic standards are poor. But is everyone who says that really so passionate about journalistic standards in general? I kind of doubt it.
ErrantX 17y ago
I think anger is unfair; I font like him much, I don't hold a lot of respect for him as an individual (though I respect his achievements) and I do think that recently he has started to get worse. But Im not going to sit and rant angrily at him. Commentors on TechCrunch do plenty of that - but y'know every blog has that. TCC just reacts badly to it sometimes :) Yes there are angry people - your right. Some probably dont like his abrasiveness (It's never worried me; my family are like that so Im used to it), some probably dont like his ethics and get cross (again, never understood that one). Sadly none of this is will change their minds :) (Just look at Graywolf angrily hounding Matt Cutts day and night over any conspiracy he can formulate in Google blog posts / press release etc. he wont stop no matter how patient Cutts is with him)

by pg 17y ago

dfranke 17y ago

I'd still object to his publishing of the stolen Twitter memos under the pretense, contradicted by Ev, that he had permission, no matter how ingratiating he were about it. Other conduct, such as his baseless attack on Last.FM and his recent T-shirt gaffe, simply could not be formulated or carried out by the personality that you describe.

gruseom 17y ago
his baseless attack on Last.FM Other commenters have referred to this as well. I'm curious: how do you know it was baseless? All I remember is an unsatisfyingly ambiguous they-said-they-said dispute that was never resolved in my mind (and apparently not Google's as well, because a quick search doesn't reveal anything). IIRC, Techcrunch printed what they said was a leaked email substantiating the base of their claim. Was that email a forgery? Just to spray some anti-troll foam on this, I mean my questions strictly literally. I don't have a preference for the truth to be one way or the other. I'm just curious (mildly; enough to post the question) what it actually is.

philwelch 17y ago

I suspect many people would still have no idea what Arrington's personality is in person, and thus continue to judge him entirely based upon the behavior of TechCrunch. How he greets people in person probably has no real impact. This can extend even further--from everything I've gathered, George W. Bush is a very easy person to like once you know him in person. Yet he was very recently one of the most widely despised people in the world. Your actual personality doesn't seem to matter once you start doing things people don't like, or otherwise become famous outside people who know you in person.

pg 17y ago
I didn't say people only dislike him because of the way he seems in person. How could all the random people who complain about him in comment threads have met him in person?
- netsp 17y ago
  I'm hope I don't appear to be trolling or taking things out of context, but it did sort of sound like that, especially if one is skimming: I offend people by writing. And I do it the same way Michael offends people in person:
  - pg 17y ago
    Ok, I tweaked that bit to avoid confusing people.

rw 17y ago

Maybe you are actually arrogant? How could you tell that you aren't just using your concise writing style as an excuse to offend people?

pg 17y ago
How could you tell that you aren't just using your concise writing style as an excuse to offend people? You ask friends you know are nice to read your drafts and warn you if you're being mean.

run4yourlives 17y ago

When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. That's a bit of an logic leap though. Common sense suggests that if someone is disliked by a person, the reason is most likely evident and known. Most don't dislike as a default response. Assertions not following Occam's Razor need citation.

barry-cotter 17y ago
Common sense = conventional wisdom. They're both wrong reasonably often. Have you never taken an instant dislike to someone within seconds of meeting them? Or indeed, felt a connection with someone you haven't known long enough to have any real bond? These are mostly subconscious reactions to demeanour, tone and (much weaker) dress. You've heard "First impressions last", right? So obviously we judge people outside of conscious, logical thought processes. Person and Costume: Effects on the Formation of First Impressions http://fcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/32 http://fcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/32 First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind After a 100-Ms Exposure to a Face http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118597412/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118597412/abstrac... Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: a field study of interviewer behavior http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3296559 http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3296559

tsally 17y ago

Well, if you're going to be a badass journalist, you have to do it all the time. Arrigton just does it when it serves his purpose and that's why he lacks journalistic integrity. Case in point: you were told you were being mean because your insightful questions made some startups look bad at TechCrunch50.

thaumaturgy 17y ago

Angry? No, because anger isn't the appropriate emotional response to such a person. But that doesn't mean that people would react positively, either. The response would simply be altered: people would likely try to work with him, try to correct his behavior as they saw fit, or dismiss him altogether. > When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. This is stunningly arrogant, and I'm speaking as someone that's constantly accused of arrogance. If you're going to tell people that you understand their motivations or behaviors better than they do, you should trot out some better evidence than mere conjecture.

pg 17y ago
What sort of evidence do you think would be appropriate?
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  The kind that requires more than a day to put together. At the very least, let's see some studies of controversial figures, the traits those figures have in common, and the most common reactions to them. Let's see if there's a correlation between mere abruptness in an individual, and widespread long-term dislike of that person. Or do some social experiments, with actual control and experiment groups. The point though was less about coming up with the right kind of experiments -- although that could be kind of fun -- and more that it's extremely arrogant to tell people that you understand them better than they do, especially when it's completely unjustified, as it is here. Whether you consider that kind of arrogance to be a negative trait or not is up to you.
gruseom 17y ago
<< When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they claim, or even believe themselves. >> This is stunningly arrogant No it's not. It's an obvious fact of human nature. One way to know this is by self-observation. That may seem oxymoronic (how can I observe something I am denying?) but with a bit of honesty it works well. One tell-tale sign is when the emotional charge around something is incommensurate with the reason someone is giving. I think this may be going on here. The most common stated criticism of Arrington is that his journalistic standards are poor. But is everyone who says that really so passionate about journalistic standards in general? I kind of doubt it.

ErrantX 17y ago

I think anger is unfair; I font like him much, I don't hold a lot of respect for him as an individual (though I respect his achievements) and I do think that recently he has started to get worse. But Im not going to sit and rant angrily at him. Commentors on TechCrunch do plenty of that - but y'know every blog has that. TCC just reacts badly to it sometimes :) Yes there are angry people - your right. Some probably dont like his abrasiveness (It's never worried me; my family are like that so Im used to it), some probably dont like his ethics and get cross (again, never understood that one). Sadly none of this is will change their minds :) (Just look at Graywolf angrily hounding Matt Cutts day and night over any conspiracy he can formulate in Google blog posts / press release etc. he wont stop no matter how patient Cutts is with him)