> If you question the idea that this place is anything but some kind of algonquin round table for the techno-elite then you’ll get a stern rebuke from the moderators.

I note the absence of any such stern rebuke in reply to your comment, yet you did exactly what you said.

The issue isn't questioning HN. The issue is the tone. People who question HN, on HN, often do so very hostilely, veering into personal or group attacks and various other behavior that is against guidelines. That gets you a stern rebuke from the moderators.

> But the most interesting thing to me is the cognitive dissonance, ego, obstinacy, and single-mindedness of the discussions.

Sigh. Yeah. People who can't change their minds, and who will argue to the ends of the earth. I find it annoying and frustrating rather than interesting, though...

> But the most interesting thing to me is the cognitive dissonance, ego, obstinacy, and single-mindedness of the discussions.

Can you illustrate your points of complaint with examples, please?

> It’s just as funny to me as browsing /r/SubredditDrama or any other hobby forum.

I think no community should take themselves too seriously. People are people at the end of the day. :)

IMHO: Stack Overflow was (and perhaps still is) a toxic place, and I am not alone with this sentiment:

https://insights.dice.com/2019/10/17/stack-overflow-moderato...

I find HN way better in that regard (friendliness).

> Can you illustrate your points of complaint with examples, please?

No.

Start with any discussion about one of these topics: nutrition, James Damore, exercise, marketing, health, equality, racism.

With the greatest of respect, a response of "illustrate your points of complaint [about us] with examples" is kind of case in point. You phrased it very politely and I promise I'm assuming good intent, but it is kind of funny. I don't think anyone needs convincing that there's plenty of egotism and single-mindedness here.

Personally I would point to, very broadly, any discussion at all on finance or multilateralism.

The top comments on HN tend to have a very poor understanding of what the EU even is, how it works, what value it provides, and what it can and (especially) can't or shouldn't do.

Similarly, there isn't a huge amount of sophisticated discussion around banking and finance. I actually detect a hint of sulking some of the time, that there's this other difficult and well-paid field that the average HN commenter just does not understand. This was a bit more obvious a few years ago when Quantitative Easing and Bitcoin were in the news more often, but it still occasionally bubbles up under Matt Levine articles too.

My apologies. Yes that was perhaps a little weird from me. (But I am a socially awkward person anyway. :))

My intention was to inquire why person X came to that conclusion. Many people have different experiences throughout their lives. Some rich people wouldn't be perhaps able to empathize with poor people (making less than 10k a year). Some of them don't know (most of the time) what it is like to live with 10k a year and trying to make ends meet.

Louis CK expressed that sentiment in a clever manner: https://youtu.be/P3jLufZx3IM

So why did I come up with the "rich people example"? Well, I am trying to illustrate that we all have our blind spots somewhere. Different people, different experiences (and with that different levels of empathy/understanding).

Anyway, thanks for your input, paulcole & ploika! I think, I can see your point/sentiment better now.

> The top comments on HN tend to have a very poor understanding of what the EU even is, how it works, what value it provides, and what it can and (especially) can't or shouldn't do. ... similarly, there isn't a huge amount of sophisticated discussion around banking and finance

Are these subjects you're particularly knowledgeable about? I find also for certain subjects I know a lot more about than most subjects (e.g. for me, music, philosophy, chess) each time I read a page of HN comments on the subject I swear it will be the last. The page is filled with misinformation, people who know nothing about the subject miscorrecting others, people just guessing aloud at length etc. I didn't want to be that guy who brings up the Gell-Mann amnesia effect yet again, having seen it mentioned on here so many times in the last few days! – but I then wonder if discussions that are opaque to me, because I know nothing about the subject, are as low-quality as those where I can judge the quality. Mostly I just trust they are far better. I'm sure on tech-related subjects the quality is higher.. But maybe every page seems woefully bad, to an expert in that subject, I don't know.

I have the feeling this comment has been written thousands of times before on HN.