9 ms·

> Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative? That is gratuitously negative because you are

> Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative? That is gratuitously negative because you are not contributing anything to the conversation except your opinion. While everyone tends to think their own opinion is an incredibly valuable gift to the world, the world rarely receives it as such. > Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I hear people make statement like that one, they are usually weaseling into some businessey doublespeak that roughly translates into "people like me can be negative, people like you cannot, but I refuse to say that outright." You've taken a simple sentence of a few words, expanded it into a nebulous category of "statement[s] like that one", inferred motivation, and taken it as an assault on "people like you". That's "critical thinking" if you use the definition of critical meaning "negative" but not the more valuable sort of criticism based on empirical evidence and carefully considered logic. Now, if you'd presented examples of how previous arguments have been called "gratuitous" but in fact contained substantial contributions in terms of facts and logic, or vice versa, because of the status of the individuals involved, then you would have a real argument rather than just a vague expression of cynicism, and I for one would not call that "gratuitous negativity".

Jimmy 12y ago
>That is gratuitously negative because you are not contributing anything to the conversation except your opinion. That doesn't explain at all why something would be "gratuitously negative". I can contribute my opinion that the sky is blue and provide no evidence or arguments. But if I only say "The sky is blue," and nothing else, then it doesn't look like I'm being "gratuitously negative".
- svachalek 12y ago
  My apologies. The question was asking if this statement was "gratuitously negative" or just "regular negative", so I thought we could take its negativity for granted. I would tend to agree with the original commenter that "horrible" is a negative word, and with you that "blue" is not. I hope that clears it up.
  - Jimmy 12y ago
    It's fine. I was being overly-pedantic. :)
kolbe 12y ago
First and foremost, I would like to have a friendly laugh at you deriding opinions, then following it up with a long post of your opinions. But I don't have any criticism of what you said simply because it is your opinion. In fact, I (and many HNers) value the opinions of others (critical or otherwise), especially those of people who are especially intelligent or experienced. If opinions were worthless, the world would be stagnant. Great companies and great science has been done utilizing nothing more than opinions (one great scientist used his opinion that "God does not play dice with the universe" to drive his research). Secondly, the quote I took can very reasonably be taken as the most important statement Sam made, and a statement on which the rest of his article depends on. I didn't infer motivation, though I did use anecdotes from my life experience (i.e. the empirical evidence you accuse me of lacking) to inform the way in which I interpret statements that follow the "morally speaking, x is good, but excessive x is bad" logical structure (which, no shit "[bad adjective] x is bad" is virtually a tautology). And I'm sorry, but I have no clue what your last sentence has to do with anything. Sam presented zero examples of posts that are "gratuitously" negative, let alone numbers that support that this gratuitous negativity is rampant. Nevertheless, I do believe him that there is more ill-natured criticism than is ideal (mostly because every single community, online or otherwise, has this characteristic). Just his opinion that there is too much of the wrong type of criticism, and some information that he will be doing something about it. I offered another opinion that some others seem to share.
- Meai 12y ago
  He is right though, I also think your post was a perfect example of gratious negativity. However as this shows, it needs exceptional people with a high level of self reflection and lots of practice at discussions to even realize what is and isnt gratious negativity. For that reason I dont think this new rule will have any effect on this site because there are simply not enough people to vote according to this new rule and punish people who violate it. Even if we do explain to you how your comment was gratiously negative, you will simply not agree and that's that. There won't be any tangible consequences to your disagreement and therefore you won't change. I think this is the core problem of online discussions: Without consequences, people dont change. This is also why sites like Stackoverflow work well: It has (positive) consequences if you contribute well. (="internet points") but it's easier there because those are purely technical discussions with clear goals and non-goals. Life isn't so focussed in non-technical areas. So let's take your comment: You start with saying "statements like these are horrible" which is a personal opinion of yours without any backing evidence which you START with. So you start with something unsubstantiated and yet it's already very negative. In the real world this would more obviously be seen as poor social skills: Dont just start out a discussion by saying the other guy's opinion is horrible and then later on "maybe" add some points to underline that. Make your points FIRST and then at the end with a large disclaimer say your personal opinion if you really have to. Imagine every comment here to be a job interview. You wouldnt talk with adjectives like "horrible" at your interview. It's inprecise, it's pointless. You would instead say "statements like these are a little too inprecise because it's hard to qualify what is and isnt 'gratious' negativity." See how I completely omitted the word "horrible" yet the message was unchanged, no even better: the message has now more substance at the same wordcount. NOW I think you know what is meant by gratious negativity. Things that add wordcount without adding substance - yet being negative at the same time. As another poster has pointed out, there should and can be a similar rule about positivity.

Jimmy 12y ago

>That is gratuitously negative because you are not contributing anything to the conversation except your opinion. That doesn't explain at all why something would be "gratuitously negative". I can contribute my opinion that the sky is blue and provide no evidence or arguments. But if I only say "The sky is blue," and nothing else, then it doesn't look like I'm being "gratuitously negative".

svachalek 12y ago
My apologies. The question was asking if this statement was "gratuitously negative" or just "regular negative", so I thought we could take its negativity for granted. I would tend to agree with the original commenter that "horrible" is a negative word, and with you that "blue" is not. I hope that clears it up.
- Jimmy 12y ago
  It's fine. I was being overly-pedantic. :)

kolbe 12y ago

First and foremost, I would like to have a friendly laugh at you deriding opinions, then following it up with a long post of your opinions. But I don't have any criticism of what you said simply because it is your opinion. In fact, I (and many HNers) value the opinions of others (critical or otherwise), especially those of people who are especially intelligent or experienced. If opinions were worthless, the world would be stagnant. Great companies and great science has been done utilizing nothing more than opinions (one great scientist used his opinion that "God does not play dice with the universe" to drive his research). Secondly, the quote I took can very reasonably be taken as the most important statement Sam made, and a statement on which the rest of his article depends on. I didn't infer motivation, though I did use anecdotes from my life experience (i.e. the empirical evidence you accuse me of lacking) to inform the way in which I interpret statements that follow the "morally speaking, x is good, but excessive x is bad" logical structure (which, no shit "[bad adjective] x is bad" is virtually a tautology). And I'm sorry, but I have no clue what your last sentence has to do with anything. Sam presented zero examples of posts that are "gratuitously" negative, let alone numbers that support that this gratuitous negativity is rampant. Nevertheless, I do believe him that there is more ill-natured criticism than is ideal (mostly because every single community, online or otherwise, has this characteristic). Just his opinion that there is too much of the wrong type of criticism, and some information that he will be doing something about it. I offered another opinion that some others seem to share.

Meai 12y ago
He is right though, I also think your post was a perfect example of gratious negativity. However as this shows, it needs exceptional people with a high level of self reflection and lots of practice at discussions to even realize what is and isnt gratious negativity. For that reason I dont think this new rule will have any effect on this site because there are simply not enough people to vote according to this new rule and punish people who violate it. Even if we do explain to you how your comment was gratiously negative, you will simply not agree and that's that. There won't be any tangible consequences to your disagreement and therefore you won't change. I think this is the core problem of online discussions: Without consequences, people dont change. This is also why sites like Stackoverflow work well: It has (positive) consequences if you contribute well. (="internet points") but it's easier there because those are purely technical discussions with clear goals and non-goals. Life isn't so focussed in non-technical areas. So let's take your comment: You start with saying "statements like these are horrible" which is a personal opinion of yours without any backing evidence which you START with. So you start with something unsubstantiated and yet it's already very negative. In the real world this would more obviously be seen as poor social skills: Dont just start out a discussion by saying the other guy's opinion is horrible and then later on "maybe" add some points to underline that. Make your points FIRST and then at the end with a large disclaimer say your personal opinion if you really have to. Imagine every comment here to be a job interview. You wouldnt talk with adjectives like "horrible" at your interview. It's inprecise, it's pointless. You would instead say "statements like these are a little too inprecise because it's hard to qualify what is and isnt 'gratious' negativity." See how I completely omitted the word "horrible" yet the message was unchanged, no even better: the message has now more substance at the same wordcount. NOW I think you know what is meant by gratious negativity. Things that add wordcount without adding substance - yet being negative at the same time. As another poster has pointed out, there should and can be a similar rule about positivity.