I suspect you're confusing the quality of commentary with the quality of a commenter's expertise. Someone's comment can read as if they know what they're talking about, being well written and civil, without that commenter actually knowing what they're talking about.

Also, Reddit is not 95% funny one liners in technical or programming forums, and the guidelines for those often also discourage pointless and inane commentary. Go look at /r/askhistorians for one example. Reddit does have a higher tolerance for humor and memes than HN, but humorlessness is not necessarily an indicator of quality.

To your second point, I agree, but I was comparing specifically the common top posts ("front page") to one another. HN is obviously more niche, but the ways in which its niche is defined are what I contend do, in fact, result in a better quality of discussion.

To your first point, I also concede that this phenomenon certainly does happen, but would counter with the notion that this probably happens with every conversation ever, with it perhaps tapering off in materials science discussions amongst experts.

I'd assert that it's happening right now, given that neither of us are likely informed enough to empirically support our assertions here. We're merely sharing our rather vague impressions.

>I'd assert that it's happening right now, given that neither of us are likely informed enough to empirically support our assertions here. We're merely sharing our rather vague impressions.

That's fair. A lot of what happens here can probably be described as anecdotes sparring with other anecdotes.