zlacker

Your implication seems to be that we don't have that - I disagree. HN is full of folks with different backgrounds. One particular category of topics is moderated - politics. There's massive inclusion of different lived experiences etc. In other forums I've found political discussions to be particularly irrational. The topic is just so fundamentally emotional that folks lose objectivity.

You can't argue with results. The comments on this site are superb. I probably read the comments 3x more than I read the base articles. Take a look at the comments on MSNBC, Fox News, or even the Washington Post. It's shrill emotional blather.

>>jspers+(OP)
I agree 100% with what you say but have to point out that your last "even" is a small example of how politics creeps in. In short, what often happens is that statements that are highly opinion-based are presented as broadly-agreed-upon facts.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't think you did it intentionally, and it was a minor thing, I just found it amusing to spot it.

EDIT2: to be even clearer, I'm referring to the implied fact that WP commenters are better-informed than the other two groups (on which I don't have a strong opinion).

>>jspers+(OP)
" The comments on this site are superb. "

I would agree with this... with caveat. The comments on this site are superb when discussing highly technical topics within the STEM sphere. However, the comments here tend to trail off to not much more insightful than average population for the following:

* Lifestyle posts (keto diets, IF, cold therapy, supplements, probiotics...)

* Drugs (microdosing LSD, ketamine therapy...)

* "Identity" politics (female-in-tech topics become a hotbed of debate, much of it not insightful)

* Nuances in economics or international affairs

At least IMO unless you can broadly anticipate that it's a subject that most commentors have significant education on, the discussion generally falls to either spitballing or anecdotes, neither of which are more insightful than a general public.

>>jspers+(OP)
My intent was to convey that intelligence or brilliance, alone, are not sufficient.

Breadth of experience and background matter. And if sufficiently broad, will cross boundaries of endowment or empowerment, and hence enter into political realms.