8 ms·

The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like "yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes eve

by bobbles 12y ago

The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like "yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes every year"

ChrisAntaki 12y ago
There does seem to be a bias towards overly worded critical comments.
- brink 12y ago
  I like reading the counter argument so that I can feel like I looked at both sides of the matter. What can I say?
  - couchand 12y ago
    "both"? There's far more than two perspectives in any argument worth having.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    In some things the other side is just idiocy. Vaccines work and are generally safe. There is no legitimate other side to that.
- ertdfgcb 12y ago
  I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. When there's a post that says "we solved this problem", a lot of people here (me included) think "great, what's the next problem to solve". The focus is on "the next problem to solve" more than the "great", sometimes to the degree that the "great" is completely ignored. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it can get grating. It reminds me a lot of a part of the essay "How to ask questions the smart way"[0] by Eric Raymond: > Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give offence. Rather, it's the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy It's not quite the same, but it comes from the same cut-through-the-bullshit attitude. [0]: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
  - saraid216 12y ago
    > I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. Possibly, but there are a couple more factors. 1) In the general population, criticism is still the norm. The default reaction to any change is neutral to negative. If any response is made, chances are it will be negative. 2) On HN, vacuous responses are discouraged. And since substantive positive responses are hard to make (most of the positive spin usually ends up in the article, not in responses), positive responses in general are uncommon. Comparatively, substantive negative responses are easier to make, not least because it's almost always easier to see a problem than to see a solution. Either one of those would push the responses towards negative criticism. Combined with yours, you now have three not-insignificant forces. There are probably more. There probably aren't many forces pushing towards positive response, and demonstrably not enough to balance the scales.
  - mehwoot 12y ago
    I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly.
    - Terr_ 12y ago
      "Por qué no los dos!?"
    - asdkl234890 12y ago
      I think it's because we are pedantic. In a pedantic way no more world hunger, but people still die in car crashes, is correct. Pedantically correct.
    - Thimothy 12y ago
      I'd rather "Idealistic Perfectionist", thank you.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly. Unlikely. HNers are wide-eyed Utopians in the Platonic fashion of believing in virtue through central planning. There is no cynicism here to be found, but in the downvoted comments.
- krschultz 12y ago
  It's easy to sound smart when you write critical comments.
- nbardy 12y ago
  It is a problem, but I also enjoy the fact that I can rely on HN for to reason about why things aren't as great as they seem. It's important to know what stills needs fixing and I'd much rather digest it in a matter of fact HN comment than the common world is ending tone many other tend to take towards the US government.
freehunter 12y ago
Well people tend to take victories as if the problem was solved. You might say world hunger is solved, and people move on to fixing car crashes. And then when you point out that people still don't have access to clean water, everyone's attention has already moved on. By the time we can get their attention back, world hunger is a problem again because without clean water you can't run a farm.
rodgerd 12y ago
No, the top comment would be a bitter complaint that world hunger had been cured by the government, which can't do anything right, so it must be wrong to cure world hunger.
sgift 12y ago
And for good reason: Don't live yesterday. Just because you won a fight doesn't mean you'll win the war against all the worlds problems. Bask a few moments in the nice glow of a victory and then start attacking the next problem.
xnull2guest 12y ago
This is all well and good, but I did argue this over a month ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8882088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8882088

by bobbles 12y ago

The headline could say that world hunger was cured but the top comment on HN would still be something like "yes, but X people are still dying in car crashes every year"

ChrisAntaki 12y ago

There does seem to be a bias towards overly worded critical comments.

brink 12y ago
I like reading the counter argument so that I can feel like I looked at both sides of the matter. What can I say?
- couchand 12y ago
  "both"? There's far more than two perspectives in any argument worth having.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  In some things the other side is just idiocy. Vaccines work and are generally safe. There is no legitimate other side to that.
ertdfgcb 12y ago
I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. When there's a post that says "we solved this problem", a lot of people here (me included) think "great, what's the next problem to solve". The focus is on "the next problem to solve" more than the "great", sometimes to the degree that the "great" is completely ignored. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it can get grating. It reminds me a lot of a part of the essay "How to ask questions the smart way"[0] by Eric Raymond: > Much of what looks like rudeness in hacker circles is not intended to give offence. Rather, it's the product of the direct, cut-through-the-bullshit communications style that is natural to people who are more concerned about solving problems than making others feel warm and fuzzy It's not quite the same, but it comes from the same cut-through-the-bullshit attitude. [0]: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
- saraid216 12y ago
  > I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. Possibly, but there are a couple more factors. 1) In the general population, criticism is still the norm. The default reaction to any change is neutral to negative. If any response is made, chances are it will be negative. 2) On HN, vacuous responses are discouraged. And since substantive positive responses are hard to make (most of the positive spin usually ends up in the article, not in responses), positive responses in general are uncommon. Comparatively, substantive negative responses are easier to make, not least because it's almost always easier to see a problem than to see a solution. Either one of those would push the responses towards negative criticism. Combined with yours, you now have three not-insignificant forces. There are probably more. There probably aren't many forces pushing towards positive response, and demonstrably not enough to balance the scales.
- mehwoot 12y ago
  I think at least part of it is because the people on HN enjoy solving problems so much. Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly.
  - Terr_ 12y ago
    "Por qué no los dos!?"
  - asdkl234890 12y ago
    I think it's because we are pedantic. In a pedantic way no more world hunger, but people still die in car crashes, is correct. Pedantically correct.
  - Thimothy 12y ago
    I'd rather "Idealistic Perfectionist", thank you.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > Or we're all cynical assholes. Just possibly. Unlikely. HNers are wide-eyed Utopians in the Platonic fashion of believing in virtue through central planning. There is no cynicism here to be found, but in the downvoted comments.
krschultz 12y ago
It's easy to sound smart when you write critical comments.
nbardy 12y ago
It is a problem, but I also enjoy the fact that I can rely on HN for to reason about why things aren't as great as they seem. It's important to know what stills needs fixing and I'd much rather digest it in a matter of fact HN comment than the common world is ending tone many other tend to take towards the US government.

freehunter 12y ago

Well people tend to take victories as if the problem was solved. You might say world hunger is solved, and people move on to fixing car crashes. And then when you point out that people still don't have access to clean water, everyone's attention has already moved on. By the time we can get their attention back, world hunger is a problem again because without clean water you can't run a farm.

rodgerd 12y ago

No, the top comment would be a bitter complaint that world hunger had been cured by the government, which can't do anything right, so it must be wrong to cure world hunger.

sgift 12y ago

And for good reason: Don't live yesterday. Just because you won a fight doesn't mean you'll win the war against all the worlds problems. Bask a few moments in the nice glow of a victory and then start attacking the next problem.

xnull2guest 12y ago

This is all well and good, but I did argue this over a month ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8882088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8882088