7 ms·

The Importance of Having Your Pain Be Legible

114 points by plattegrond 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gue5t 8y ago
Glad to be able to upvote an article like this. The prevalence of articles about things that aren't software or hardware hacking, combined with the site's increased popularity lowering the bar for technical content to be considered worthwhile, and its occupancy of a critical position in the cultural namespace ("hacker news" is a really good name but not descriptive of the actual focus of the site--the hacker ethic is anticapitalist rather than neoliberal), make HN a really tragic institution these days.
- badcede 8y ago
  "Glad to be able to upvote an article like this." "The prevalence of articles about things that aren't software or hardware hacking" "tragic"
  - jschwartzi 8y ago
    What's your point?
    - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
      I think he is saying that he original comment is hypocritical. The person is glad to upvote this particle non technical article. But they think its tragic that non technical articles are bring down the quality of the site.
      - gue5t 8y ago
        Yep. I think the site is in a tragic place, but it's not for a lack of technical articles (or I'd submit them) but instead for cultural reasons (the majority of the userbase doesn't want HN to be a purely technical forum). Changing the culture has to be done via concerted effort in that direction, not by simply voting for the things I want to see in the end. Second-order effects and so on.
        dang 8y ago
        HN has never been a purely technical forum. Its DNA is in the overlap between "anything that gratifies intellectual curiosity" and "anything that good hackers would find interesting": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The word 'anything' appears twice in the 'On-Topic' section. HN's early years amounted to "anything that pg would find interesting", and he finds a lot of things interesting. So when I read your comment, what I hear is that HN is staying true to its original mission. That doesn't seem like a tragic place for the site, nor a new one. For example, people sometimes have the perception that HN has grown more political over time. The opposite is true, as I tried to show here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869. Such perceptions are externalities that exist for other reasons.
lcuff 8y ago
The notion that affective empathy is present in any complete way in text-only communication is misguided at best. Affective empathy gets communicated f2f via voice quality, body posture, tonus et al. The lack of a medium for affective information is a primary reason why text-only discussions go off the rails so quickly.
- classichasclass 8y ago
  It's very easy to assume the worst about someone if they're not seated across from you and you don't have those other cues. In fact, if we don't share that person's viewpoint, I'll wager it's our default to assume the worst.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  > The lack of a medium for affective information is a primary reason why text-only discussions go off the rails so quickly. I don't agree with that. As someone who has communicated primarily online since childhood, I feel as though I am much more attenuated to some group of people's emotional state through text, whereas in person, I feel like my emotions are obvious to everyone besides me, which makes them feel like they are much more able to be subject to manipulation. I as well feel as though my own 'truthful understanding' is concrete in real life, but online, it is easily manipulated in the attempt to see eye to eye. Style develops - humor, sensitivity, all this is information depending on who you associate with and whether you are reflective of another intuitively, or whether it requires gradual understanding and a developed awareness / sensitivity, coupled together with time and observation. I find that text discussions go off the rails because people aren't trying to see eye to eye. They either latch onto a specific point (irony) or a key phrase that doesn't jive appropriately with their perspective, and that constructs the direction of the discussion. People can have whole conversations without actually understanding another, and you can actually examine these arguments and decompose them into parts that once again, become mostly linear. Part of that I think is because, a conversation sequence can actually be composed of many people, which can make it seem like a dialogue, but a dialogue it is often not. This can also happen to individuals, I can see in myself, I consistently contradict myself in a most convoluted way, through the attempt to balance multiple perspectives of awareness - perhaps in the attempt to coalesce those perspectives into some understanding that resonates as true to myself. But I find that to be a problem with no solution, because as soon as resonance seems to be found, the understanding escapes me through repetition - a sort of semantic satiation of concepts. So care must be taken. The problems(?) of life.
maldusiecle 8y ago
Leaving aside how poorly written this is ("spergonaut"? really?), I don't really see its claims about flagging borne out. Heavily political articles are often flagged regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. Certainly in the case of articles like this, which are more or less the definition of "more heat than light."
- dqv 8y ago
  >I don't really see its claims about flagging borne out I think the posts disappear from the frontpage when they get flagged, so it's hard to verify. But I've seen it. I'll come to discussion that I think are interesting and reload an hour or so later and find it's been flagged.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  A recent example for me seems to support the “both sides get it” theory: I noticed a comment touting worn out conservative talking points had been flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432814 I vouched for it, since it was well formed, if ignorant. I then responded, with what I consider a well formed SJW position: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432902 but I was voted down to zero, thus semi-hidden. So there’s some degree of balance playing out there. I do think the solution, for anyone who thinks reasonable but ignorant positions are getting flagged, is to vouch for them.
- musage 8y ago
  > Leaving aside how poorly written this is ("spergonaut"? really?) What poor criticism. > articles like this, which are more or less the definition of "more heat than light." Provide that definition, please.
- plattegrond 8y ago
  Oh, I've heard this one before. I believe what you mean is that it is low _status_. It seems pretty coherent and well structured to me. Self deprecation is a pretty common way for marginalized people to reclaim their identity, and take the teeth off insults. I'd think socially sensitive folks would be familiar with it?
kough 8y ago
Step up to the comment section, martyrs, don't be shy!
pnathan 8y ago
I would agree that there exists a distinct and mostly disjoint set of people: flaggers vs debaters, to use the OP's terminology. I don't see that tension going away. It's certainly a long-standing tension online. I disagree fairly comprehensively with everything after that first point, and I'll leave it at that to avoid the flamewar. :-)
quxbar 8y ago
This guy seems to veer out of the way of the natural conclusion near the end: > The term “woman-child” lacks teeth, because damseling and self-infantilization are acceptable for women. He seems to think that the fact that women are infantilized is a bonus, as if the 'pity points' accrued are the utility function of the game being played. This completely ignores the -actual advantages- that have been accruing for thousands of years from -massive, systemic violence-. The author seems to have trouble realizing just how pervasive the misogyny goes. It's not some tit-for-tat twitter debate about who pays for dinner (this is what PUA forums try to pretend). The attempt is to pull ourselves out of the hole of human ignorance, despite our cultural foundations being pretty incredibly problematic. Taking a look at the history of the 'west' makes it pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women
- haberman 8y ago
  75% of women survived the Titanic, compared with 19% of men. (http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html) At the massacre of Katyn, an estimated ~22,000 men and exactly 1 woman were executed by the Soviets. The West has undeniably patriarchal elements of its history. But trying to spin this into a narrative of pervasive misogyny ignores the very real value that society places on the well-being of women. Even in your own example, the men angrily avenge the treatment of the women by outsiders.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    I'd guess this has something to do with if a bunch of men die in the tribe it doesn't matter too much, but if a bunch of the women die in the tribe that's the end of the tribe. Men are pretty expendable when it comes to what's required to reproduce - that mixed with fighting for status/high risk behavior being attractive probably complicates things.
    - ciphergoth 8y ago
      This is a group selection based argument.
ggm 8y ago
It shouldn't need to be said that the distinction between the community of use, (and how users consent to be engaged) and the provider of the forum, (and how they consent to have the forum used) is always present. HN is not present in my mind, when I write things here. What people do, flagging me up or down, voting, responding, ignoring, is what I consider to be community engagement. If somebody working (paid or unpaid) in a meta-god-like state in HN technology can remove me, or my writing, thats distinct from the disdain others have for what I chose to say. I take the community rebukes as I find them. Sometimes, they hurt, sometimes, they feel valid. Sometimes, they hurt because they are valid. Shadowbanning is possibly kinder? But none the less, something has to be done to keep a tone. Thats what editorial is.
tempestn 8y ago
I was actually just thinking earlier today that HN's great strength is its focus on quality of discourse, and it would be great if it leaned into that even more. I would love if it were made extremely clear at signup and whenever possible afterward guidelines such as, 1) Comments should be well thought-out, politely written, and supported by facts 2) Down-votes should be used for comments that are uncivil or unproductive; even if you disagree with the point made, a comment has value if a good-faith effort has been made to engage in constructive conversation. These are similar to the existing guidelines—and I'm sure they could be fleshed out and worded better—but I feel the site would really benefit from even more emphasis on points like these. At signup, and then at convenient parts later on—when the user's karma unlocks the downvote capability for instance. There could even be a sort of "self-moderation" triggered by things like excessive down-voting or flagging, where it would remind the user of the guidelines and show them several of their votes, then just ask them to review and make sure they're using the buttons appropriately. Another possibility would be, whenever a user down-votes, require them to choose one of several categories of justification, like with a flag. That would quickly make it clear that the down-vote is for poor comments, rather than ones you personally disagree with. It might even be useful to have a similar—but probably optional—choice for up-votes; one nice options would be something like, "I disagree with this, but it's well argued." That kind of thing would give the ranking algorithms more variables to play with, hopefully improving results over time. Those are just some possibilities, and I'm sure there are many other options including by moderators when necessary. The main thing though would be to make the guidelines very clear. My hope would be that a focus on quality of discourse, rather than on the types of content that are allowed, would allow more controversial topics to be discussed productively, as well as prevent unpopular opinions (when presented productively) from being drowned out. Ideally, the specific "off-topic" subjects could even be removed from the guidelines, since there are intellectually interesting discussions to be had on many different topics. Of course we wouldn't want to be overwhelmed with political topics to the extent that nothing else makes it to the homepage, but if that were to happen perhaps a dedicated subsection could be used, rather than an outright ban. Perhaps that would be preferable regardless, since many HN'ers come here to enjoy stimulating content and discussion outside strongly polarizing topics. Regardless though, I feel the site should double down on its focus on rationality and civility, and take every opportunity to influence new and existing users in that direction.
zygotic12 8y ago
Fucking chill the lot of you. Learn from people that have had a real fight. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3536197 https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1...

114 points by plattegrond 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Glad to be able to upvote an article like this. The prevalence of articles about things that aren't software or hardware hacking, combined with the site's increased popularity lowering the bar for technical content to be considered worthwhile, and its occupancy of a critical position in the cultural namespace ("hacker news" is a really good name but not descriptive of the actual focus of the site--the hacker ethic is anticapitalist rather than neoliberal), make HN a really tragic institution these days.

badcede 8y ago
"Glad to be able to upvote an article like this." "The prevalence of articles about things that aren't software or hardware hacking" "tragic"
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  What's your point?
  - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
    I think he is saying that he original comment is hypocritical. The person is glad to upvote this particle non technical article. But they think its tragic that non technical articles are bring down the quality of the site.
    - gue5t 8y ago
      Yep. I think the site is in a tragic place, but it's not for a lack of technical articles (or I'd submit them) but instead for cultural reasons (the majority of the userbase doesn't want HN to be a purely technical forum). Changing the culture has to be done via concerted effort in that direction, not by simply voting for the things I want to see in the end. Second-order effects and so on.
      - dang 8y ago
        HN has never been a purely technical forum. Its DNA is in the overlap between "anything that gratifies intellectual curiosity" and "anything that good hackers would find interesting": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. The word 'anything' appears twice in the 'On-Topic' section. HN's early years amounted to "anything that pg would find interesting", and he finds a lot of things interesting. So when I read your comment, what I hear is that HN is staying true to its original mission. That doesn't seem like a tragic place for the site, nor a new one. For example, people sometimes have the perception that HN has grown more political over time. The opposite is true, as I tried to show here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869. Such perceptions are externalities that exist for other reasons.

lcuff 8y ago

The notion that affective empathy is present in any complete way in text-only communication is misguided at best. Affective empathy gets communicated f2f via voice quality, body posture, tonus et al. The lack of a medium for affective information is a primary reason why text-only discussions go off the rails so quickly.

classichasclass 8y ago
It's very easy to assume the worst about someone if they're not seated across from you and you don't have those other cues. In fact, if we don't share that person's viewpoint, I'll wager it's our default to assume the worst.
s-shellfish 8y ago
> The lack of a medium for affective information is a primary reason why text-only discussions go off the rails so quickly. I don't agree with that. As someone who has communicated primarily online since childhood, I feel as though I am much more attenuated to some group of people's emotional state through text, whereas in person, I feel like my emotions are obvious to everyone besides me, which makes them feel like they are much more able to be subject to manipulation. I as well feel as though my own 'truthful understanding' is concrete in real life, but online, it is easily manipulated in the attempt to see eye to eye. Style develops - humor, sensitivity, all this is information depending on who you associate with and whether you are reflective of another intuitively, or whether it requires gradual understanding and a developed awareness / sensitivity, coupled together with time and observation. I find that text discussions go off the rails because people aren't trying to see eye to eye. They either latch onto a specific point (irony) or a key phrase that doesn't jive appropriately with their perspective, and that constructs the direction of the discussion. People can have whole conversations without actually understanding another, and you can actually examine these arguments and decompose them into parts that once again, become mostly linear. Part of that I think is because, a conversation sequence can actually be composed of many people, which can make it seem like a dialogue, but a dialogue it is often not. This can also happen to individuals, I can see in myself, I consistently contradict myself in a most convoluted way, through the attempt to balance multiple perspectives of awareness - perhaps in the attempt to coalesce those perspectives into some understanding that resonates as true to myself. But I find that to be a problem with no solution, because as soon as resonance seems to be found, the understanding escapes me through repetition - a sort of semantic satiation of concepts. So care must be taken. The problems(?) of life.

maldusiecle 8y ago

Leaving aside how poorly written this is ("spergonaut"? really?), I don't really see its claims about flagging borne out. Heavily political articles are often flagged regardless of which side of the aisle they come from. Certainly in the case of articles like this, which are more or less the definition of "more heat than light."

dqv 8y ago
>I don't really see its claims about flagging borne out I think the posts disappear from the frontpage when they get flagged, so it's hard to verify. But I've seen it. I'll come to discussion that I think are interesting and reload an hour or so later and find it's been flagged.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
A recent example for me seems to support the “both sides get it” theory: I noticed a comment touting worn out conservative talking points had been flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432814 I vouched for it, since it was well formed, if ignorant. I then responded, with what I consider a well formed SJW position: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432902 but I was voted down to zero, thus semi-hidden. So there’s some degree of balance playing out there. I do think the solution, for anyone who thinks reasonable but ignorant positions are getting flagged, is to vouch for them.
musage 8y ago
> Leaving aside how poorly written this is ("spergonaut"? really?) What poor criticism. > articles like this, which are more or less the definition of "more heat than light." Provide that definition, please.
plattegrond 8y ago
Oh, I've heard this one before. I believe what you mean is that it is low _status_. It seems pretty coherent and well structured to me. Self deprecation is a pretty common way for marginalized people to reclaim their identity, and take the teeth off insults. I'd think socially sensitive folks would be familiar with it?

kough 8y ago

Step up to the comment section, martyrs, don't be shy!

pnathan 8y ago

I would agree that there exists a distinct and mostly disjoint set of people: flaggers vs debaters, to use the OP's terminology. I don't see that tension going away. It's certainly a long-standing tension online. I disagree fairly comprehensively with everything after that first point, and I'll leave it at that to avoid the flamewar. :-)

quxbar 8y ago

This guy seems to veer out of the way of the natural conclusion near the end: > The term “woman-child” lacks teeth, because damseling and self-infantilization are acceptable for women. He seems to think that the fact that women are infantilized is a bonus, as if the 'pity points' accrued are the utility function of the game being played. This completely ignores the -actual advantages- that have been accruing for thousands of years from -massive, systemic violence-. The author seems to have trouble realizing just how pervasive the misogyny goes. It's not some tit-for-tat twitter debate about who pays for dinner (this is what PUA forums try to pretend). The attempt is to pull ourselves out of the hole of human ignorance, despite our cultural foundations being pretty incredibly problematic. Taking a look at the history of the 'west' makes it pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

haberman 8y ago
75% of women survived the Titanic, compared with 19% of men. (http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html) At the massacre of Katyn, an estimated ~22,000 men and exactly 1 woman were executed by the Soviets. The West has undeniably patriarchal elements of its history. But trying to spin this into a narrative of pervasive misogyny ignores the very real value that society places on the well-being of women. Even in your own example, the men angrily avenge the treatment of the women by outsiders.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I'd guess this has something to do with if a bunch of men die in the tribe it doesn't matter too much, but if a bunch of the women die in the tribe that's the end of the tribe. Men are pretty expendable when it comes to what's required to reproduce - that mixed with fighting for status/high risk behavior being attractive probably complicates things.
  - ciphergoth 8y ago
    This is a group selection based argument.

ggm 8y ago

It shouldn't need to be said that the distinction between the community of use, (and how users consent to be engaged) and the provider of the forum, (and how they consent to have the forum used) is always present. HN is not present in my mind, when I write things here. What people do, flagging me up or down, voting, responding, ignoring, is what I consider to be community engagement. If somebody working (paid or unpaid) in a meta-god-like state in HN technology can remove me, or my writing, thats distinct from the disdain others have for what I chose to say. I take the community rebukes as I find them. Sometimes, they hurt, sometimes, they feel valid. Sometimes, they hurt because they are valid. Shadowbanning is possibly kinder? But none the less, something has to be done to keep a tone. Thats what editorial is.

tempestn 8y ago

I was actually just thinking earlier today that HN's great strength is its focus on quality of discourse, and it would be great if it leaned into that even more. I would love if it were made extremely clear at signup and whenever possible afterward guidelines such as, 1) Comments should be well thought-out, politely written, and supported by facts 2) Down-votes should be used for comments that are uncivil or unproductive; even if you disagree with the point made, a comment has value if a good-faith effort has been made to engage in constructive conversation. These are similar to the existing guidelines—and I'm sure they could be fleshed out and worded better—but I feel the site would really benefit from even more emphasis on points like these. At signup, and then at convenient parts later on—when the user's karma unlocks the downvote capability for instance. There could even be a sort of "self-moderation" triggered by things like excessive down-voting or flagging, where it would remind the user of the guidelines and show them several of their votes, then just ask them to review and make sure they're using the buttons appropriately. Another possibility would be, whenever a user down-votes, require them to choose one of several categories of justification, like with a flag. That would quickly make it clear that the down-vote is for poor comments, rather than ones you personally disagree with. It might even be useful to have a similar—but probably optional—choice for up-votes; one nice options would be something like, "I disagree with this, but it's well argued." That kind of thing would give the ranking algorithms more variables to play with, hopefully improving results over time. Those are just some possibilities, and I'm sure there are many other options including by moderators when necessary. The main thing though would be to make the guidelines very clear. My hope would be that a focus on quality of discourse, rather than on the types of content that are allowed, would allow more controversial topics to be discussed productively, as well as prevent unpopular opinions (when presented productively) from being drowned out. Ideally, the specific "off-topic" subjects could even be removed from the guidelines, since there are intellectually interesting discussions to be had on many different topics. Of course we wouldn't want to be overwhelmed with political topics to the extent that nothing else makes it to the homepage, but if that were to happen perhaps a dedicated subsection could be used, rather than an outright ban. Perhaps that would be preferable regardless, since many HN'ers come here to enjoy stimulating content and discussion outside strongly polarizing topics. Regardless though, I feel the site should double down on its focus on rationality and civility, and take every opportunity to influence new and existing users in that direction.

zygotic12 8y ago

Fucking chill the lot of you. Learn from people that have had a real fight. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3536197 https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1...