both and neither. Partisan discussions, or even any kind of bitching at all ... are outright discouraged. I often step out of line in this regard and don't always agree, but I'm also confident that folk on "the other side" face the same kind of treatment. Though frustrating at times, I respect that it keeps things clean and helps cut out a lot of nonsense, of which the Internet has no shortage should I feel the need to go find some.
EDIT - actually upon some reflection I think that I would have to respectfully disagree, and change my opening sentence here to just "neither". Extremes of opinion that are "off topic" are not tolerated, and this is a good thing.
In one sense it's a shame when thoughtful, evidence-based discussion is discouraged for being off-topic. But I suspect that's ultimately what makes those discussions possible; they're happening between relatively small numbers of discussants, in a space that doesn't draw in people looking for political debates.
People who show up for political debate generally do so with knives drawn; you hear from the loudest people with the most solidified views, and the stuff that rises to the top is playing to the crowd instead of engaging in extended discussions. But in a rec sports team, a movie club, or a tech forum, people aren't grouped by viewpoint and vitriolic arguments are a distraction from the original cause. So those places seem to breed conversations where people take the time to hear one another and avoid breaking down into pure tribalism.
Another way of looking at it is that in that context, they are interacting as fellow members of their "rec team tribe" rather than as members of competing political tribes. (which they may also be a part of)
Actual abuse, trolling, etc deserves to be downvoted into unreadability.
> The site’s now characteristic tone of performative erudition—
> hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative—
> often masks a deeper recklessness. Ill-advised citations proliferate;
> thought experiments abound; humane arguments are dismissed as
> emotional or irrational. Logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify
> broad moral positions. The most admired arguments are made with data,
> but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be
> ancillary concerns. The message-board intellectualism that might
> once have impressed V.C. observers like Graham has developed into an
> intellectual style all its own. Hacker News readers who visit the
> site to learn how engineers and entrepreneurs talk, and what they
> talk about, can find themselves immersed in conversations that
> resemble the output of duelling Markov bots trained on libertarian
> economics blogs, “The Tim Ferriss Show,” and the work of
> Yuval Noah Harari.Got down-voted down to the abysses.
Obviously, the article was an anti-trump article.
In one sense it's a shame when thoughtful, evidence-
based discussion is discouraged for being off-topic. But
I suspect that's ultimately what makes those discussions
possible;
Thoughtful, evidence-based discussion should never be discouraged or deemed off-topic - no matter how sensitive the topic. ( People reading this, even 10-15 years on, might find the mores of this age whimsical, at best. )
The only reason one might find thoughtful, evidence-based discussion off-putting is to be on the good side of David Geffen in the hopeful attempt that he or she might be might be invited to luxuriate on his super-yacht, one day.
There's never a better reason than that to be economical with the truth.
It's passive aggressively accusing HN commenters of wrongthink and of abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments" (read: emotional arguments).
It basically dismisses the role of data in debate by suggesting that it is malleable or selective--we've all probably encountered this type of weaselly thinking, one that demands proof for an argument and, when provided, attacks the source as biased or the data as flawed. You can argue for pretty much any position when you embrace a brand of anti-intellectualism which believes that all data is fake/flawed and reality is subjective.
If you strip it down, the author is basically saying "I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking so much and get onboard my bandwagon."
Off-topic has nothing to do with the sensitivity of the topic or the current social mores. It has to do with not being on topic.
> The most admired arguments are made with data, > but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data > tend to be ancillary concerns.
That's a concern I often share: "the data" can so often be a "winner's history".
"I find it disagreeable that well thought out, logical and data driven conversations on topics with which I disagree are supported."
> ...dismisses the role of data in debate by suggesting that it is malleable or selective...
The points she makes are rock-solid. That said, I still do enjoy HN immensely and can tolerate the warts and libertarians.
> prefer debates be governed by [cherry-picked data] instead of whose argument is the most "humane"
There's a time and place for humane arguments and, in the absence of complete "data" (whatever THAT means), that may be all you have. At the end of the day, we're all emotional creatures and this often justifiably dominates considerations of human affairs. Not everything can be boiled down to problems in first order logic.
The structure of Hacker News just makes it very favorable to muddy the waters until the story disappears. And I think they correctly call that out in the article.
That's not wrong though. Reality is a social construct.
It is near impossible for a group to have a rational discussion about politics or religion. So it is better to just avoid the topic on a forum that values, pleasantry and support of one another as core values.
People can have a productive discussion on the veracity (origins/malleability are not good reasons to ignore data by themselves in my opinion) of the data, other data can be presented to support or contradict the original point, and in a perfect world perhaps both sides would come away a little more aware of an issue.
I'm saying there's benefit to moderating off topic discussions regardless of the nature of said content.
I'm trying to be charitable here, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're setting up the data as never being sufficient e.g. "whatever THAT means" in order to support humane arguments over data based arguments.
> The nice thing about having discussions based on fact...
Things are different, however, in discussions about human affairs, political, inter-personal topics, social movements, historical interpretations, art, design, music, aesthetics, business and other topics in the human experience. These discussions DO EXIST on HN. And NO, sorry, pure facts may not be enough or might be incomplete or out-of-reach for that subject-matter.
You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example:
> accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments"
Actually says:
> humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational
It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand.
Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it.
You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text.
The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum.
I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.
I try and avoid the latter, to the extent humanly possible.
How often do you hear "I didn't know that, and it's a good point" in political discussion? When hypothetically, there's no reason you should hear it less frequently than in scientific discussions.
One of the great casualties of modern political debate is that citizens mimic professional politicians, in that the sole mode of discourse is argumentative.
When in reality, if I'm faffing about on HN I would much rather learn something than "win."
It's not like dang steps in at the end of every debate to award the winner a gold trophy.
I feel like at less than ~ 3:1 "citizens":stranger ratios, any conversation spirals down. Because someone inevitably takes the bait, responds to stupidity, and there goes the thread.
Friend will click, ad revenue will be generated.
There are two fundamentally different sources of truth: ethical consensus and physical data.
They are ultimately incompatible, in that only a single option can be your ultimate source of truth. Albeit other(s) can be valued to some degree.
The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that it attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.
Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
If the fundamental nature of short-duration comment consumption is antithetical to fact checking, that's certainly a problem.
But it's still superior to uncited points, as it is ultimately verifiable.
In a choice between the two, I'll take the ill (claims appearing more supported than they are) for the good (inculcating a culture of transparent citation).
I think most people would accept that thoughtful, evidence-based discussion should be discouraged while sitting in the front row at an opera, or in the midst of a professor's lecture.
What I'm describing is similarly an issue of logistics, not content. I'm not making a claim about sensitive topics, and I'm certainly not proposing dishonesty or the suppression of uncomfortable truths. The problem with off-topic content is simply that: it's off topic, and on a forum thread or the top of an HN post it makes on-topic conversation more difficult to conduct. Forked-discussion settings like Tumblr and Twitter are closer to a conference than a lecture, and can sustain popular off-topic discussion with less derailment.
The relevance of politics and sensitive topics is only in my second point, that places like HN which center on non-political topics can create particularly good discussions. I largely agree with you, I'm endorsing the fact that HN doesn't ban politics or sensitive topics; the rules of avoiding flamebait, grandstanding, and excessive derailment help to prevent pointless yelling while preserving good political discussion around the margins.
(As an aside which risks being off-topic: why David Geffen? I've never seen someone use him as their go-to example of sucking up to a billionaire.)
Reproducibility crises or statistical hacking news articles are evidence of success. In a less-introspective system, those self-reevaluations didn't even happen!
Viz, the 300+ years it took for a shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric consensus.
> ... it [the cited paragraph] attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth.
It attacks the idea of using glib, incomplete, or poorly examined "facts" as the basis for a valid argument.
If you want to say that poorly vetted "facts" are a basis for "supreme truth" and, further, that you can only choose that or else some kind of mushy ethical considerations... that's your prerogative, but you're wrong.
I'll bite.
Data can do a lot to improve discussions about history, politics and business.
I'd also argue that data can improve discussions about seemingly subjective things such as design.
> And NO, sorry, pure facts many not be enough or might be incomplete or out-of-reach for that subject-matter.
In fact I'd say that I'm close to saying those are the only discussions worth having about certain topics.
If I like a design and you don't that brings us nowhere. If either of us can bring some data and say 72% of the testers prefered it strongly, - but colorblind people struggled with it - that is something that might give both of us some value and might lead to better results.
It's one thing to downvote something that's factually incorrect, mean-spirited, ect. But downvoting a post that expresses a well-formed, but subjective opinion? I used to just ignore opinions that I disagreed with; and only downvote flames and things that were factually incorrect.
That, IMO, is how I interpret how the “Eternal September” plays out here: When people penalize opinions instead of facts and flames.
Those two points can't be construed any other way than as anti-intellectual. They were cheap shots, and the author should have known they were a cheap shots.
That those points are somewhat incongruous with the subsequent assertion and surrounding piece doesn't mean they're any less anti-intellectual.
] "The most admired arguments are made with data, but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be ancillary concerns."
And indeed, I'd say that prefacing the immediately above (defensible) with the prior claims (indefensible) is the reason this entire comment thread exists.
The author could have made a much stronger argument about poor citation and fact checking, but they instead chose to include what feels like knee-jerk humanities logic horror, substantially muddying their point.
For example have you ever been in an argument where you recall reading a paper or statistic, but don't have it on hand? What if that statistic was a false correlation drummed up by a highly politicized thinktank?
This is why it's so important to not leave potentially misleading or outright wrong citations unchallenged. This is sort of how the 'vaccines cause autism' claims can quickly spiral out of control. It requires people to behave earnestly and not mislead with their citations.
But I doesn't say that. Throughout the paragraph the emphasis is on the recklessness.
"hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative—often masks a deeper _recklessness_"
"_Ill-advised_ citations"
"_thought_ experiments"
"logic, applied _narrowly_, is used to _justify_"
"data, but the _origins_, _veracity_, and _malleability_ of those data [...]"
And that is also in line with the conclusion that "message-board intellectualism that might once have impressed V.C. observers like Graham has developed into an intellectual style all its own" and "can find themselves immersed in conversations that resemble the output of duelling Markov bots". The critique here is essentially that people don't have scientific literacy.
That people on hacker news think they can be rational, dispassionate and authoritative but that their recklessness with citations, logic and data (and their dismissal of other arguments) suggests they can't.
That is the argument.
All of this is questioning the substance of the arguments made, not the substance of such arguments made correctly. The entire point is that they aren't made correctly. You might even read the paragraph as acknowledging that it once worked, when it impressed observers.
> Consequently, the rhetorical paraphrasing of the passage into the comment dismissing nerds seems on point.
You can argue anything you want, but the argument here was made from a basis of facts. If the commentator wants to concede that their argument isn't based on the text itself, then they and you might have a point. But instead the rest of the argument isn't very believable. Which is the logic behind my argument in the first place.
> Objectively, the humanities has a poor track record of getting pissy and taking cheap shots at science as a viable supreme source of knowledge.
Again not relevant to the facts at hand. Especially since again they aren't making those statement. Otherwise we can bring anything into the discussion, from nationality to sat scores.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious how you came to know that. Do you have some way of seeing who downvoted what?
When someone says they are afraid of flying, you show them facts of how safe commercial flight is compared to driving. You don't just quietly sit by while they try to pass legislation making flying illegal.
By who? Do you seriously read an HN comment that states something you didn't already know with a citation you don't bother to click and then just go forward assuming it's scientific fact?
I don't even take publications themselves as scientific facts until they have been reliably reproduced or provide ample evidence.
I can make a claim without a citation, or attribute it to "some article I read awhile ago". No one can verify my original claim. Someone may attempt to dig up another citation refuting it, or find a suspect source making my claim, but these are inefficient ways of fact checking. And if I wanted to be a dick, I could claim that wasn't what I was talking about / my original source.
I can also cite my claim. In this case, 99% may accept it at face value, but 1% may fact check my citation and loudly pronounce it doesn't conclude what I said it did. The 99% then gain the benefit of an erroneous report.
This is exactly why fact based discussions not only don't work, but don't happen on hacker news. Because you can just say something different. And that is how it always is. Someone posts a citation and someone else goes out of their way to debunk it. Then they just say something else. Next time no one bothers. Because the point isn't to have a fact based discussion, but to not be questioned on an already existing view. And that is what the article correctly caught on to.
> state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate
We both agree that the article goes on at length about the recklessness of fact-based arguments on HN.
Furthermore, I point to two direct quotes that I characterize as anti-fact and elevating non-factual or (debatably in the case of the latter) semi-factual methods of discussion to the same level as fact-based discussion.
You decline to provide evidence rebutting those two points, and instead cite the "emphasis" of the surrounding paragraph as a reason those two points should be ignored.
Does that accurately describe your position?