I posted yesterday’s post about quitting Hacker News right before lunch. (I’d actually written it the week prior but never got around to posting it because I had a business trip to Chicago to deal with.) When I got back from lunch I had a long list of emails from WordPress full of comments which is the telltale sign of a front page article on HN, and sure enough it was #1.
So a few thoughts on the responses. For one, I didn’t mean to imply that I wouldn’t visit the site anymore, I’ll still lurk. I like the links. I think there are some great people on the site. I think good discussions do occur, though you have to dig for them. I just don’t think it’s worth getting in 20 discussions to have one where I learn something.
One person said of HN
as far as I know is still one of the few sites with a large community and a strong bias towards intellectualism and knowledge sharing
I wish I believed that, I’d still be commenting there if I did. It’s not biased toward intellectualism, it’s biased toward nerdiness. Intellectuals have nuanced conversations about any topic. Nerds have partisan conversations about geeky topics. HN isn’t intellectual, it’s nerdy. There’s a big difference.
Most smart people aren’t intellectuals. It’s not their fault, they largely haven’t been exposed to other intellectuals. It’s easy to confuse talking about esoteric things for talking about things intellectually. I’ll give a few examples to help.
One common thread over the last year or two is that people are often focusing on how HN has changed as it’s grown. That’s a common topic on the site. Some people say it’s gotten better, some people say it’s gotten worse and whenever you hear people generalize like that, you know the result is not going to be an intellectual conversation.
An intellectual would discuss the community changes in a nuanced way, which would be to talk about specific facets of it that have gotten better or worse and implicitly admit the possibility that words like “better” or “worse” are useless when applied as generalities. I will say that the community has changed in the time I’ve been there, in some ways I would consider positive and some I’d consider negative, but that’s a post in and of itself, and to be honest not the one I’m interested in writing now, but you get the picture. The point is that there are things about it that are better, and things about it that are worse, and whether it’s better or worse overall depends greatly on what you visit the site for.
Another total failure of intellectualism: some people mistook my leaving to be the result of the glut of TSA articles. That’s like saying the guy who suffered from AIDS for the last ten years died of a cold. It might have been the nail in the coffin, but it was just a result of something deeper, which is that the lack of down-votes leads to annoying trends and makes vocal minorities overrepresented.
And, for the record, I’m not in favor of the backscatter machines. I actually agree with the community sentiment on that from a very high level which, admittedly, doesn’t say much. I just recognize that the issue is incredibly complex and the discussions I’m seeing there don’t reflect that at all. I hesitate to even bring it up here, as I don’t want people to think this post is about the TSA either, or even about the glut of TSA stories, but it’s a great example of how conversation could be better.
The issue is right up there with abortion in terms of complexity. There’s the issue of the TSA itself. What knowledge it has (perhaps there’s a legitimate reason that someone with a lot more information and experience preventing terrorism than me feels these are worth the expense and invasion of privacy). Who is making the decisions and why, who is enforcing them and how? There’s the issue of civil liberties issue (i.e. even if these things do make us safer, are they worth it? What’s the tradeoff?). There’s the health issue (these things use X-rays, is there a cancer risk to travellers? What about to TSA agents?) There’s the issue of enforcement (how much culpability do the ground level TSA agents have? If the system is immoral, does that make the TSA agent amoral for accepting that job? I personally feel that way about telemarketers, but not TSA agents, why?) There are the questions us travellers who think they’re a bad idea should be asking, most specifically what do we do about it? The answer clearly isn’t being a douche to some TSA agent at the airport, but beyond that it gets murky.
My problem is that what I’m not seeing is that nuanced discussion of any of these myriad of facets. Even if we accept that this issue is on-topic for Hacker News (which I don’t, it’s no more relevant than abortion, which is verboten, or any other civil liberties topic) I’m not seeing the sort of discussion I should from a community that routinely pats itself on the back for being so intelligent. I’m just seeing senseless partisanship. If I wanted that I’d watch cable news.
And that was my point. I’m not quitting the discussions because they are too frequently about the TSA (which seems to have abated anyway) or that they aren’t intelligent, it’s because they aren’t intellectual. I don’t learn anything from them.
