Re:GM lays off engineer who helped expose VW’s diesel fraud
by dang on Sunday May 12, 2019 @03:16PM
(#19893839)
I appreciate what you wrote here and the courage with which you shared your experience—the actual experience underlying what you wrote, including what you feel and some of the reasons for it. It's so hard to do that. It's much easier to just argue, or hide in other ways. I'm a hider myself; probably we all are. Thanks for modeling something better.
I don't think we can reach a solution by discouraging conversations on these topics—they're too relevant to people. It would be asking people to exclude too much of themselves. That can never work. Even if it did, it would constrain conversation into an artificial space, too separated from what's coming up in life. That would make HN less interesting. But we do moderate how much oxygen hot topics are allowed to consume on HN. Otherwise they would take over completely, which also would make HN less interesting. And we try to steer so when topics do come up, it's in the context of a substantive article with new information, as opposed to just predictable points being repeated for the nth time. That has a regulating effect on how quickly and how hot the flames burn. New information means something else is available for discussion besides pre-existing thoughts and feelings, which tend to be intense and painful. Those will come up no matter what—they need to—but it helps if there's a context besides them. That has a moderating effect. It also increases the odds that something new can emerge in discussion, which makes HN more interesting, and may be (though it's better not to think too much about this) the only way to long-term resolution.
You asked me about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19857878. I don't think that comment broke the guidelines in the way that the later comments did, so it's on the right side of the most important line. However, it's problematic in a more subtle way, which I'd like to try to articulate (though I haven't found the best language for it yet). To me it reads too much like a list of pre-prepared points. Such comments feel more like speeches than conversation. We all know what it's like in conversation when someone insists on going through their list before pausing to hear others: it sort of stops the communicative flow. This often happens when there's an asymmetry in the room: one person feels more urgently than the others and knows more about the topic. They have a lot of good information, but they lose connection with listeners after the first bit or two, and there's no longer the sense of a shared discussion. It feels like they are determined to plough through their points irrespective of what others are taking in. That's a bummer and it reduces the chemistry of the conversation. Or, an opponent turns out to be in the room, someone with opposite strong feelings and opposite facts. Then the two go after each other and get stuck in a tit-for-tat that alienates everyone else.
What makes better conversation is when we react not only from pre-existing feelings and facts, but also from what's going on in the moment: what else has been said, who else is present, what sort of connection we can make with them. Then the comments have more resonance and are less one-sided. That draws others into making richer contributions.
The more in what others have said that I can really respond to, the more surface area a conversation has to stand on. Often we take in and respond to just the one bit of information in a statement that triggers our pre-existing feelings. That's low connectivity, even if we pour out a lot of information in response. Good conversation needs more connectivity.
I'm writing this for myself as much as anybody, since I've noticed this pattern in my own comments. And I noticed an interesting test to apply. After writing a long comment with many paragraphs, I go back and read the first paragraph and ask: could I just stop there? Have I actually made my real contribution to the conversation at that point? It's surprising how often the answer is yes. Sometimes I delete the whole rest of the comment; mostly I don't, but it's surprising how often I find I've been piling on, trying to get a bunch of stuff out, even though it probably weakens the communicative effect of what I'm saying.
I don't think we can reach a solution by discouraging conversations on these topics—they're too relevant to people. It would be asking people to exclude too much of themselves. That can never work. Even if it did, it would constrain conversation into an artificial space, too separated from what's coming up in life. That would make HN less interesting. But we do moderate how much oxygen hot topics are allowed to consume on HN. Otherwise they would take over completely, which also would make HN less interesting. And we try to steer so when topics do come up, it's in the context of a substantive article with new information, as opposed to just predictable points being repeated for the nth time. That has a regulating effect on how quickly and how hot the flames burn. New information means something else is available for discussion besides pre-existing thoughts and feelings, which tend to be intense and painful. Those will come up no matter what—they need to—but it helps if there's a context besides them. That has a moderating effect. It also increases the odds that something new can emerge in discussion, which makes HN more interesting, and may be (though it's better not to think too much about this) the only way to long-term resolution.
You asked me about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19857878. I don't think that comment broke the guidelines in the way that the later comments did, so it's on the right side of the most important line. However, it's problematic in a more subtle way, which I'd like to try to articulate (though I haven't found the best language for it yet). To me it reads too much like a list of pre-prepared points. Such comments feel more like speeches than conversation. We all know what it's like in conversation when someone insists on going through their list before pausing to hear others: it sort of stops the communicative flow. This often happens when there's an asymmetry in the room: one person feels more urgently than the others and knows more about the topic. They have a lot of good information, but they lose connection with listeners after the first bit or two, and there's no longer the sense of a shared discussion. It feels like they are determined to plough through their points irrespective of what others are taking in. That's a bummer and it reduces the chemistry of the conversation. Or, an opponent turns out to be in the room, someone with opposite strong feelings and opposite facts. Then the two go after each other and get stuck in a tit-for-tat that alienates everyone else.
What makes better conversation is when we react not only from pre-existing feelings and facts, but also from what's going on in the moment: what else has been said, who else is present, what sort of connection we can make with them. Then the comments have more resonance and are less one-sided. That draws others into making richer contributions.
The more in what others have said that I can really respond to, the more surface area a conversation has to stand on. Often we take in and respond to just the one bit of information in a statement that triggers our pre-existing feelings. That's low connectivity, even if we pour out a lot of information in response. Good conversation needs more connectivity.
I'm writing this for myself as much as anybody, since I've noticed this pattern in my own comments. And I noticed an interesting test to apply. After writing a long comment with many paragraphs, I go back and read the first paragraph and ask: could I just stop there? Have I actually made my real contribution to the conversation at that point? It's surprising how often the answer is yes. Sometimes I delete the whole rest of the comment; mostly I don't, but it's surprising how often I find I've been piling on, trying to get a bunch of stuff out, even though it probably weakens the communicative effect of what I'm saying.