HN's Karma score has partially helped me better understand myself in the social context. With time I've learned to realize which types of responses/opinions people generally prefer and how to word the same sentence so that it relates to people up to a point.
I'm the nerdy type, with some social mis-alignments and I don't often realize how I represent my opinions and it's hard to look at yourself from a 3rd perspective.
So Karma has actually helped me understand my place better. I'm not a Karma whore by any means but I really like paying attention to which responses work well and I even try to apply the same approach in every day life.
Another thing that has also helped me: Twitter. I actually believe I write better since I started using Twitter because I'm more used to cramming more information to a smaller amount of words.
That reminds me of what Conan O'Brien said about Twitter in his post-sack interview - that he felt it really honed his output, because he had to condense his jokes.
He referred to his own comment. He cannot upvote it.
Regarding down votes: some people click them because they disagree, some because they think the post may be irrelevant. Sometimes it is not clear which is the case.
In my opinion, the best part of HN is that even when you are having a boring day, you might learn something interesting of short or long-term value.
In my opinion, the second-best part is that if you are isolated IRL whether by choice and/or circumstance (e.g. because you have too much work to do for a client commitment that you don't go out with friends) - it makes you feel connected/better when your comments impact or contribute to a discussion.
In brief, HN is an escape from routine that still is (even though it may be classified as a routine, for many of us). Thanks, pg!
> "you might learn something interesting of short or long-term value"
This is a common attitude among HN readers: we want to learn things of value. That's why we keep coming back here. This community makes a habit of saying things of value, and of recognizing things of value and (through voting algorithms) giving them a place of prominence.
If you look at my submissions to HN you will notice that most of them are of the Ask HN type. At first I did this because I had nothing to submit. My main source of information still is HN.
I can identify with this general sentiment but I really suck at posting questions. This was true long before I found HN and will likely remain mostly true in spite of me actively working on this issue. So I think what a particular individual learns will depend in part on where they are coming from. I come from a non-coding background, I'm female and have spent lots of time in female-majority environments. For me, one of the big obvious lessons on HN is that men communicate and interact differently from women. In some ways, I find myself more comfortable with that and in other ways less comfortable.
Probably the most obvious is that men are less touchy-feely. I find that in female-majority environments, there is much more lie-to-your-face while stabbing you in the back type behavior. I'm a real blunt individual, which often goes over poorly with women (my dad and ex-husband are both career military and my mom is foreign -- so, to be fair, lots of Americans find me hard to take/hard to really understand, not just women). The flip side of that is that people here seem to make less effort to understand my admittedly "alien" perspective. It feels to me more like it is on me to work at communicating effectively. I'm okay with that because I find that pat-you-on-the-head and be nice to you stuff often doesn't really result in better communication. Like a pain killer, it often just masks the fact there is a big problem. Men seem to be better about bluntly letting you know it's an issue -- which can be very uncomfortable to face but, in the long run, is usually more productive.
Of course, since I am female, I find that when I do the exact same thing a man would do, it is often interpreted by other people as "overly aggressive". So time will tell if I will be able to take the lessons learned here and put them to constructive use in my life.
Probably the most obvious is that men are less touchy-feely.
Yes, I can believe that as being true. This may have little correlation, but I distinctly remember a trip to a completely female run dental office. This was for oral surgery, and I had every confidence in the doctor, but there were times during the procedure (as my gums were being cut open) when I noticed her being, how can I say, respectful or dainty, with my mouth, and I was thinking to myself just get in there and do what you have to do! I'm pretty numb here! lol (the work was top notch) but I guess it did make the overall experience a bit nicer. :)
I find that in female-majority environments, there is much more lie-to-your-face while stabbing you in the back type behavior.
Wow.
The flip side of that is that people here seem to make less effort to understand my admittedly "alien" perspective.
Sadly, I think Americans can be guilty of this in general, often times, including myself.
I read this some time ago and have been feeling vaguely like there was probably a miscommunication somewhere. For sake of clarification, to me it "goes without saying" (which is why I didn't say it) that people who are more touchy-feely are also highly likely to be the type to lie (say nice things) to your face while stabbing you in the back. Both things tend to be rooted in or related to a dislike of confrontation. People who place an inordinately high value on the (superficially) feel-good experience are, obviously (at least to me), the same type that will make nice while doing you serious harm. Can't have people (ie THEMSELVES) be uncomfortable while we burn them, now can we?
Hrm... I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying there is a correlation for being touchy-feely with backstabbing? I thought you meant touchy-feely as a definition for "a woman's touch" so to speak. In other words, being more sensitive. For example, my mom is quite compassionate and empathetic, so she would be more "touchy-feely" about some topics than I might be, but she is the last person that would ever intentionally be a backstabber. I'm not sure if this makes sense, and we may still have some miscommunication. I'm just trying to get more insight into the female perspective, but I think you are saying that often times females may be quicker to be deceitful when talking with one another, whereas males will be blunt and upfront, even if it means offending someone. Perhaps you are intending "touchy-feely" to mean non-genuine? That may be our miscommunication.
I don't think it is accurate to say women (or anyone who is touchy-feely) are more backstabbing. I do think it is accurate to say that touchy-feely types are generally inclined to be less direct (what you characterized as "deceitful") in the face of something socially unpleasant -- they seem to expect others to read between the lines, infer and so on. When such subtleties fail, they often don't deal well with the ugliness which ensues. Having written my above paragraph, it occurred to me that although I am a conflict-avoider and will go out of my way to avoid fighting with people, I seem more comfortable with direct confrontation than most women and that is probably one of the things that makes many people uncomfortable with me. People find me "combative" although I really don't like to fight with people. But if there is an issue, I generally prefer to be direct and prefer people being direct with me -- assuming there is no malice on both sides. Where there is real malice, best to know when to shut up.
FWIW: My experience has been that extremely suave, charming men are typically also untrustworthy. They generally know how to manipulate people and usually don't hesitate to do so. Of course, people who are both charming and have a strong sense of integrity make wonderful company. But if I have to choose one or the other, I prefer integrity to charm.
Perhaps you are intending "touchy-feely" to mean non-genuine?
No, but I think there is some correlation between the two things. People who want very much to make nice are inclined to tell "little white lies", which puts one on a slippery slope. I wish my experiences indicated otherwise.
Yes, that does seem clearer. Thanks for the clarification. LOL on the "extremely suave, charming men" as it might describe one of my brothers. My mom says he could "charm a nun out of some stuff" ;) And I do think he is a bit manipulative (of my parents at least, he's the baby boy), but I do think he tries to maintain some sense of integrity. Hopefully he notices how straightforward I try to be, and that has some influence. I agree little white lies can put anyone on a slippery slope. It's interesting to imagine those may be more attributable to women than men, in general.
It's interesting to imagine those may be more attributable to women than men, in general.
I think there is some truth to that. I suspect that it's not "genetic" (or whatever) so much as economic (for lack of a better word). But that's probably a very long, controversial, off-topic discussion. :-D
"Talk less" is only good advice for those who already talk a lot. I had to learn to say things without caring too much for their relevance. It helped a lot with conversations.
It kinda already had made me very popular. My colleagues and friends now come to more for advice more often and give more gravity to what I have to say, because they know whatever I say would be well thought out and efficiently said (more than anyone else they can turn to, anyway). Also they know I would listen to there questions and try to improve (customise rather?) my advice to their unique position.
Quick tip: "I would listen to there questions" should be "I would listen to their questions". Saw the mistake in your blog post several times and thought I'd point it out as nobody has yet and it makes an otherwise good article appear amateurish.
Mastering the difference between there/their/they're is a good skill to have :)
It actually irritates me that you can almost count on karma for saying something like "prove it" to a post that may present fairly good evidence already or that is clearly personal opinion not really subject to proof.
But I'm not wholly concerned with Karma. 6 points for something controversial probably implies more impact than 20 point for something simplistic, since the controversial point probably is going to generate a good deal of mod-downs too.
I don't see why the questions should be obvious, there simply are no stupid questions and if someone asks a question they deserve an answer, not an automatic upmod.
Comments like 'citation needed', 'prove it' are fortunately rare enough on HN that it's not a big problem.
I find many times I've asked questions related to an article that someone involved closer in whatever the topic of the article is could answer I have got up votes but less often answers. I guess it's a form of me to, others interested in an answer to but have nothing to add will up vote.
People down-modding controversial comments is my only criticism of HN - if you disagree you shouldn't downmod, rather write a reply explaining why you disagree; the karma of each post will show where the consensus lies.
The guidelines do indicate things should work this way - using only downmods for comments that are negatively adding to the conversion - but this doesn't seem to happen enough in practice.
I identify with the author. After getting comments down-voted for various reasons, I've felt the need to better scrutinize my thoughts and to carefully form my sentences when they have been worth submitting at all.
Formal style is boring. I think he meant conversational style. Write as if you are having a nice, friendly conversation with your peers. This produces persuasive writing.
I often notice people getting offended if you try to teach them anything directly though, in a social environment (even if you're known to be one to be open to being taught)
Consider why you are trying to teach. Is it to jockey for position/gain the upper hand?
If you truly want to make a better impression, have people teach you. The classic female 'Can you help me with my homework'. Really, no one likes a know-it-all. And if you win an intellectual argument, are you really winning? Show some interest in learning, genuine interest, from other people's experiences or knowledge.
Teaching is one of the harder disciplines because it is not about the teacher teaching but about the teacher learning how to teach from their students.
Good points. I really like the analogy with the female common by-phrase you brought up, which surprisingly I hadn't thought of. Of course, this helps you in some ways, but still doesn't address how to teach properly when the opportunity arises.
> And if you win an intellectual argument, are you really winning?
I've come to believe that unless you're in a debate team somewhere or are a teacher/prof at a school, the answer to that question is almost always 'No'.
You really have to wait for them to come to you with a problem, or at the very least, give them an optional lead in (e.g. "I was having trouble with #{subject x} last night as well, but I think I've got it now. You want me to see if I can't figure out what's got you stuck?"). That way you aren't forcing your way in, or coming off as "I'm smarter than you, just come over here and I'll explain it idiot", which I've seen happen plenty of times (and have done it myself a few times, I'm sure).
On the other hand, once people do start coming to you, you'll find you understand the topic better at the end yourself, and they'll greatly appreciate the help. If done right, they probably won't hesitate to come back for help again, which ends up in another win-win situation for you. Just don't swing to the other side and end up doing their work for them!
That is why I had a strike through for formal in the last sentence. I realized what I actually meant was an effective way. There is a difference between effective and formal. Sometimes meaning is lost in too much of jargon and too perfect a grammar.
I've learned not to take things at face value and provide evidence (and demand evidence) of why what's said makes sense, is credible, etc. People here are always calling others out for what amounts to "anecdotal evidence" and I know find myself doing that IRL much to the dismay of some people--coworkers, for example--who like to put forth flimsy ideas and evidence of different things as gospel. The average person doesn't ask questions (or just doesn't care as much), but I've learned from being here not to be like that. I imagine it's pissed some people off that I know, but it keeps misinformation down and thus, everybody benefits.
I've often thought that being involved in a variety of online communities over the years has really increased my ability to think critically about a topic. By now, I've seen and had so many arguments on such a wide range of topics that I'm able to recognize similar patterns in new information that I come across, and make better decisions because of it.
While debating certain things over and over does get old, at least you've thought things through in a very thorough manner.
I'm the nerdy type, with some social mis-alignments and I don't often realize how I represent my opinions and it's hard to look at yourself from a 3rd perspective.
So Karma has actually helped me understand my place better. I'm not a Karma whore by any means but I really like paying attention to which responses work well and I even try to apply the same approach in every day life.
Another thing that has also helped me: Twitter. I actually believe I write better since I started using Twitter because I'm more used to cramming more information to a smaller amount of words.
At least, that's how I see it.