Hacker News Reader

Comment by edw519 | Hacker News Reader

Condescending feedback says more about the speaker than the listener. It is almost invariably about their own insecurity. This is true is almost all fields of endeavor, not just programming.

Just a few examples of my own:

Insecure bridge player: The queen of spades was a stupid play. What's wrong with you?

Excellent bridge player: The queen of spades would have been a great play against a 4/2 split. But since you had a 3/3 split, what do you think would have happened if you had played the ace instead?

Insecure public speaker: You look like an idiot playing with your hands like that.

Excellent public speaker: You talked about a lot of cool things. I bet I would have been even more interested if I wasn't distracted so much by your hand gestures.

Insecure parent: If you can't keep that baby quiet, you should just stay at home!

Excellent parent: Here's something that has really worked well for me when my kids cried in public...

Insecure programmer: How lame. I can't believe you <insert almost anything you could have done>.

Excellent programmer: I see that works. I have found a few ways to make it work even better. Let me know what you think.

View on HN

It has taken me half a lifetime to grow a "thick skin" against comments like this. It's lame to admit, but I've abandoned half a dozen really cool projects in the face of feedback like this. Being a parent has made me realize that there's a word for people who react this way: bully. In teaching my kids to cope with it, I'm teaching myself, too. They were pretty surprised to hear that bullies act out of insecurity.

There was a post here a little while ago from the 37signals blog "There's no room for just shitting on someone else's work" in response to the "read the fucking hig" website.

In that post, the author says "... they're creating something, and that's awesome".

I became a parent (nearly) 1 year ago and when I read this phrase it really put this whole "geek wars" thing into perspective. If my child grows up to be passionate enough to create anything I'll be so pleased. I wouldn't even care if it were good or bad. There are so many worse things that a person can do in the world than create things, we should all just be heaping praise on each other for even trying to do something great.

Being a parent does wonders for your perspective on life :)

> They were pretty surprised to hear that bullies act out of insecurity.

"We hate in others what we see in ourselves."

I find that old chestnut rings more true every time I find my ire rising.

Good point. I kinda like the one that goes: "We are what we speak". If I don`t have something nice and encouraging to say, then I just don`t anything. I give my best to accomplish this.

Condescending feedback says more about the speaker than the listener.

I'd take this even further: feedback, period, says more about the person offering it than the person it's about. Hell, anything anyone does, whether about or in response to someone else or not, is about the person doing it.

If I say something and you lambaste me for it, that's about you; I'm just a convenient excuse for you to manifest your dick-nature. If I do something and you give me props for it, that's about you; I'm just an opportunity for you to share another aspect of yourself. Love someone or hate someone, what you say or do has nothing whatsoever to do with that person. It's all about you, all the time, every time. Full stop.

Life gets a lot easier when you remember that other people's behavior is about them acting out their individual dramas, in whatever form that happens to take. Sure, some kinds of responses feel better than others; everyone loves to be praised, and probably doesn't much like being excoriated. That's exactly the point, though: how you feel about what someone else does — and how you respond to it — are about you, not that person, and not what they said or did. That person, and what they say or do, are just excuses (or opportunities) for you to manifest your baser or higher nature.

We've all been pricks, and we've all been saints; we always have a choice in how we behave. So stand up and take responsibility for yourself. That doesn't mean you have to stop being a raging asshole, if that's what you want to be. But you made that choice, and re-make it every time you're rude to someone, denigrate them, or talk shit about them. Own it. And if someone's an asshole to you, instead of being an asshole back, think about how much it must suck to be a person who feels the need to go around being an asshole at other people.

Vociferous opposition is not the same as condescension, though.

There are some people who care deeply about a subject and just lack social tact. They'll jump on you for a variety of subjects, but they don't have ill intent.

Then there are the people who are dicks and want to crush people who they disagree with. It's the point at which one starts displaying schadenfreude and denigrating others that the line has been crossed.

People who lack social tact need to be taught it. They aren't stupid, generally, they can be taught, if it's made clear that they must.

Treating people badly is a great way to drive out those who don't have the ability to deal with flamewars and shoutiness. And many of those people have a lot to contribute.

Have you ever heard the song Your Friend Wil by MC Frontalot, nerd rapper extraordinaire? Your post is basically a perfect two-line summary of the lyrics!

http://frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=68

They should learn it themselves. There are books & training courses on the subject. But people rarely seek these out because they are so defensive about their deficiencies that they turn even those into a contention -- they say "this is just the way I am, take it or leave it."

Think of it as evolution in action. (And I shall take this whole post as a call to clean up my act.)

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic. Surely it has a large social aspect (i.e. can't be "bread out")?

You seem to imply that being an asshole is genetic.

Only to people who have a shallow understanding of evolution. (Left as an exercise to student.)

(i.e. can't be "bread out")?

Unfortunately, no. [irony captioned for the impaired]

The tone of this post seems to indicate your effort to "clean up your act" isn't going very well.

Well, some cases are more difficult than others. High amounts of stupidity are more challenging.

So all we have to do it just wait a few generations, and...

Hopefully just one generation as being an ass may stop them from getting along with the opposite sex and reproduce...

Unfortunately being an ass is frequently a great way to get laid. Nice guys finish last and all...

This is such BS and makes me sigh every time I hear it.

It's not being an ass that gets them laid, it's the other characteristics that an asshole typically has that gets them laid. Things like confidence, not coming off desperate and having experience not just approaching a girl but being able to hold a conversation... and the many more things that increase attraction but these are the basics.

These characteristics in a nice guy will get him laid more than the asshole and he'll have opportunities with girls that see right through the asshole (and some would say these are the more desirable women).

I wish this were true. Well, you're not completely wrong- An outright asshole is getting by on confidence alone. But a guy who is polite but disarmingly arrogant, condescending in subtle ways, is much more desirable than a confident nice guy.

> [...] disarmingly arrogant, condescending in subtle ways [...]

Nice guy equivalent: playful teasing and flirting. Someone eavesdropping might even take it out of context and interpret it as arrogant or condescending but it's just a little game -- not in some "pick up artist" sense; it's ideally very natural. Works for me.

While we can argue all day long about what makes for the most desirable man, I still contend that you can have more (desirable) women want you than you could possibly ever get around to and be a nice guy.

Sure, lots of men ('cause programmers are male, right?) get positive female attention by publicly insulting people who know less about programming and computers.

Meanness is always unattractive. Always.

On the other hand, that may be the cause instead of a side-effect, at least in a number of cases. (e.g. "You need to get laid, bro")

"Then there are the people who are dicks and want to crush people who they disagree with."

The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushing them is often a necessity.

When you're in a situation where there is a lot of potential for damage and the other person isn't willing to have an intellectually honest debate about the facts then there isn't really much choice but to make them look like a moron.

That comment:

"The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushing them is often a necessity."

Is exactly the type of thing that comes from the hive mind, and is why it's impossible to be a dissenter. It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home.

"...bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home."

And that's often a good outcome. Consider for example this article published recently by a Connecticut state senator on why she wants to put people in jail for having 'fake weed'.

http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/fake-pot-a-new-threat-to...

The entire article was riddled with sloppy thinking, and thoroughly plagiarized, so I got all of reddit to utterly destroy her until she deleted all of her comments and wrote a followup stating that the issue was no longer a top priority of hers. I tried to engage her respectfully first, but since she wasn't willing to engage in an intellectually honest debate then going out and fucking up her day seemed like the second best option. Overall I'd consider it a win. Sure it would have been better to get her to change her opinion, but once it becomes clear that no amount of facts or logic her will persuade her then embarrassing her until she shuts the fuck up becomes the best option left on the table.

Since when does being wrong revoke someone's right to express said wrong opinion?

This: "I got all of reddit to utterly destroy her" is the exact type of mentality that myself, and as I estimate, the OP, have a problem with.

"Since when does being wrong revoke someone's right to express said wrong opinion?"

No one's revoking her right to express an opinion, we're just revoking her right to make shit up. If she was familiar with the facts and she was still against marijuana reform then no one would begrudge her of that, but she doesn't get a free pass to lie to the public.

I'm probably in the minority with this, but...

If someone's ignorance cannot be altered or at least reasonably discussed, I think that's perfectly okay. That just means it's time for me to move on.

I don't see how attacking or embarrassing someone would make you feel better about your side of things. I'd much rather let that person enjoy their own ignorance.

Note: I tend to lack/block out very strong emotions

Non-infectious ignorance can be left alone. A state senator with a PR platform, using it to spread ignorance of a sort that ruins millions of lives, cannot be left alone in good conscience.

You have a moral obligation to be less wrong: http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-...

Regardless of reach, I still don't believe attacking or embarrassing someone is the answer.

My conscience is better off letting someone have a right to their own opinion (albeit a poor one), rather than attacking them for it.

In other words, I'd rather choose to understand where their point of view is coming from and accept it, than to try and change it.

But unfortunately points of view aren't innocent things that everyone is entitled to. They can cause SERIOUS damage to the lives of other people.

If I have a point of view that binder clips should be made illegal because they're hideous, and manage to make that a law, then A: My point of view is making regular stationers criminals, and B: I might have put people who make binder clips out of work.

Everyone has a point of view, but not all of them are reasonable, and simply having them can screw other people up.

I agree with you in the sense of allowing people the space to disagree, but in this particular case, someone's bad opinion, if left unchallenged, could result in other people going to jail. It's the principle of reciprocity.

Think of it this way: he's not attacking the politician for her opinion. He's attacking her for attempting to make her stupid opinion into a matter of public policy.

Everyone is welcome to have their opinions. When one attempts to act on those opinions in a way that's harmful to other people, one cannot but expect others to oppose.

Let's say I believe that three-year-olds can fly if only they're forced into a situation where they must do so in order to save their lives. It's a stupid opinion, but it's harmless if it's just a thought sitting in my head.

Now let's say I decide that I need to teach a bunch of three-year-olds to tap their innate flying ability by throwing them off a bridge. Is stopping me from doing so disrespectful of my opinion? Would that actually give you pause in stopping me?

Respecting someone's opinion is fine and dandy, but your inalienable right to your opinion stops when it starts motivating action involving others; at that point, the general rules regarding your rights when interacting with other people apply.

The "hive mind" works both ways though. You can find examples of posts with a correct position being bullied and forced out by a mass of self-confirming, yet incorrect posts. "Geeks", who often can't let inaccurate statements stand unchallenged for fear of it self perpetuating in this manner, will fight back in kind. Public forums are often very democratic, in that the majority wins even when the majority is ill-informed. (I'm not justifying the behavior, just proposing a theory as to why this seems perfectly acceptable to many "geeks")

> It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home.

I agree that if it's just that kind of content-free junk, it's pointless.

However, if the beatdown comes with a factual and logical refutation of the idiot's points, or at least a link to a site that has such a refutation, then it performs the inestimable service of educating the lurkers.

For example, let's say we had an anti-vaccinationist come here and start spreading lies about vaccines. We would, rightly, be dismayed at such utter lunacy at work in our forum, and we would (hopefully) post multiple refutations of that dangerous nonsense. Ideally, the lunatic would find that we are not amenable to that kind of idiocy and would leave, sadly uneducated (most likely) but at least doing less damage. The real benefit to such actions may come months later, when someone unsure of the facts about vaccines discovers a dead thread that has all of this wonderful information we used to refute the idiot.

(And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen.)

> And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen.

To do so, make sure you only crush the the mistake, without beating the person down. Not easy to do without de-emphasising your point though:

"You say that 2+2=5, but I think you might be misinformed…" The more direct "No, 2+2=4. II+II=IIII. 1,2,3,4." might be perceived as too blunt, especially if the context is emotional (children, programming languages…).

The problem is you can only do that if the categories "What you think you know/What you think you don't know" overlap exactly with the categories "What you actually know/What you actually don't know". And they often don't.

So, doubtless you're laying down the hammer of knowledge in some cases where you think you know something, but you don't. Which means it's not the hammer of knowledge you're dealing, it's just a hammer.

My problem with that attitude is that it's not humble. Not in a false, pretending-to-not-be-good way, but systematically not acknowledging that you may be wrong. Say what you think is correct, but always conduct yourself knowing you may be wrong.

There are degrees of certainties. If for instance one of your beliefs is based on crushing evidence, then changing your mind on that matter will require super-crushing evidence. If someone comes and assert the contrary of your belief without presenting evidence, you should believe the other person is wrong.

Wrong beliefs are often dangerous (an extreme case would be believing that prayers are better than western medicine at curing most illnesses). So your duty is to convince the other person, or at least control the damage.

Now of course, if you do see that super-crushing evidence against your previously strongly held belief, then your duty is to change your mind. The most difficult part here is correctly assessing the weight of each piece evidence, and how they interact.

Making someone look like a moron can be done with tact :) I would say that this is essential and more effective. Doing it without tact makes everything you say easier to dismiss.

Can someone please explain the logic behind "condescending feedback = insecurity"?

And I mean that sincerely. I have been thinking about this for a long time now, and I just cannot come up with any supporting evidence to explain the corelation. It might sound like a stupid request, but I think it is a hard argument to make totally water proof.

I see it this way: The only reason to give condescending feedback is to demonstrate your superiority over the person you're criticizing. If you truly wanted to be helpful, you'd be giving helpful feedback. If you were truly confident in your own abilities, you wouldn't feel the need to demonstrate your superiority.

I'd say that analysis is missing one important group-- the truly arrogant.

These are the people with an unshakable belief in their own superiority, at least in some field. It's not that they feel a need to demonstrate superiority over others through condescending feedback. It's that their superiority is implicit in their world-view. They don't necessarily even realize they're being condescending. It's just the natural order of things.

I can say this with full confidence because I've been that person. As a teenager, I was insufferable. Not only was I a freakishly good at bowling at 15 (making hundreds of dollars per weekend from "pot games" and with multiple 300 games in a single league), but two years earlier, I had also become the youngest person in my state to enroll in college classes. I tried to be nice to people and everything, but I just assumed I had more intelligence, dexterity, constitution and possibly other D&D stats than they did. If people didn't like my attitude, sometimes I actually felt sorry for them, assuming that jealousy was the reason.

Now in my 30's after not having done anything amazing since growing up, I've become less confident and also less condescending. Rapidly picking up coordination based sports isn't really that important in daily life as it was as a teenager. And I certainly don't assume or even believe that I'm any smarter than other people. On the contrary, I'd say I've become tangibly dumber. I might still be condescending from time to time in my weaker moments, but nothing even remotely like what I did unconsciously half a life time ago.

I think this is more a matter of tact than anything. People with good social skills know that constructive feedback demonstrates authority and skill better than condescending feedback. Those who are prone to condescending feedback especially know this, but lack the grace and tact to act on it. That makes them more anxious and more insecure, which in turn increases the lashing-out behaviour.

I think the sad fact of the matter is that many geeks just have poor social skills. While some are content to just be quiet, others feel the need to overcompensate. Luckily, I haven't met too many of the latter in real life, but you see it everywhere on the Internet. The dehumanizing nature of interacting with a computer screen seems to absolve people of their need to act socially, so they act like fuckwits. On 4chan it takes the form of blatant aggression, although anyone familiar with the place knows it's all part of the joke. On reddit people make snarky replies that make up for their lack of content with the sharpness of their barbs. Here on HN it's more muted. While no one is a blatant asshole, there's a lot more "downvote and ignore" that goes on. This contributes hugely to the hivemind effect, because there aren't arguments given as to why someone is wrong, you just have comments that don't jive with the rest of the community getting hidden. This, in turn, causes people to self-moderate, so that they only post opinions they think the rest of the community will agree with. Obviously these are oversimplifications, and the issues I mention aren't particularly common, they're just how the same issue manifests itself in the different communities.

I think condescending feedback = insecurity is a bit of a generalization.Maybe sometimes it is true but not all the time - for example Linus' "feedback" on CVS was pretty condescending but I doubt that was because he was insecure

It's definitely a generalization; it just seems to be a reasonably reliable one :).

I suppose the insecurity doesn't have to be about domain knowledge, either - it could be about communication skills. Perhaps some people giving condescending feedback don't feel like they are able to communicate in any other way. They experience the desire to contribute, but aren't confident in their tutoring skills and don't want to risk sounding stupid by bungling an explanation.

This is admittedly pure speculation...

And let's not confuse real condescension with blunt truth that's interpreted as condescension but is not inherently malicious. I think a lot of people may seem condescending because they are more direct than most people are accustomed to.

I've heard stories that Steve Jobs can often be a condescending asshole. I'm certain the same is true for other highly accomplished folks as well; if condescension were linked to confidence, wouldn't highly accomlished individuals such as this be amazingly generous and helpful?

I think the bit about superiority may be true: it is a way to demonstrate superiority, but I don't believe that immediately indicates low confidence.

Some of the most successful people are very insecure. That's one of the factors that drives them relentlessly forward - the fear that everyone will find out their not actually good enough.

I think "drives them relentlessly forward" is a part of the conversation we're missing out on. Useful feedback can come from anywhere, even an asshole. Waiting for insight from only expert communicators seems like a way to slow down one's progress.

To use the cliche'd car analogy:

People driving ferraris generally don't go around trying to race people with honda civics. They know that they have an absurdly fast car, they don't need to tell you.

But the 17 year old kid with the modded civic wants to prove himself, so he's much more likely to try and race everything that moves.

If you're Mark Zuckerberg, you don't need to point out that you're more successful than I am, it's obvious, and everybody already knows it.

Since we're talking about giving feedback, I think a more apt analogy is what happens when people with Honda Civics want to race.

Australian billionaire Kerry Packer was a notorious gambler. A legend about him is that at a poker tournament, he was challenged to play a high-stakes game by a Texan who bragged, "I'm worth $60 million." His response was to nonchalantly pull out a coin and ask, "Heads or tails?"

At the risk of sounding dense...

So did he imply that he was betting $60 million on the flip of a coin? I don't get why he would do that?

In the world of high-stakes gamblers, you're judged more on how much you're willing to gamble than how much $ you're actually worth. So that was an FU on multiple levels.

Given that typically "how much you're willing to gamble" << "how much you're actually worth", he basically equated the other guy's whole worth with a single bet of his (which was true).

Would be fun to see the guy's reaction.

According to wikipedia, he was worth 6,5 billion. So probably the $60 million just didn't matter to him so much.

But that means it's not a fair bet. Had I been in the situation and had some idea of his value I would have said: "Very well, all my money versus all of yours. I choose tails."

Because betting $6.5 billion to win $60 million (and vice versa) is fair?

That aside, fairness has nothing to do with it.

> Can someone please explain the logic behind "condescending feedback = insecurity"?

If someone has low status, this may cause them to criticise others, in an effort to cause the others to have even lower social status.

This may explain only the one direction of the equivalences: "low status" => "insecurity" => "condescending feedback", not the inverse. We can all come up with examples of high status individuals demonstrating condescending behaviour.

You're right, but you can't "prove" condescension implies insecurity in any rigor. I think it's reasoning along the lines of A => B, we see lots of B, so probably A.

It's because feeling that one is better than other people, and feeling worse than other people, are two sides of the same coin. Once you accept the ego's lie that anyone is better than anyone else, you are stuck with both sides of the coin.

Mind you, I don't think one should feel any pity for people who are condescending. I think one should challenge them on their tone and attitude. The fact that they are also insecure may help explain their behavior, but doesn't excuse it.

There's two ways to be better than other people; to rise above them, or to drag them down. Bullies want to feel important just like everyone else, but they are not confident in their own abilities, so they are afraid to try growing themselves, because they fear they will prove to themselves they are as stupid as they fear they are. (the ol', too afraid of failure to succeed) They are naturally left with either accepting they are a failure, or throwing other people under the bus.

I'm not sure what the exact quote was.. but it was something like:

"If you try to drag people like [them] down, they'll win on experience"

You should always aim for the rise above IMHO, but sometimes you can do some verbal Aikido and deal with them in style. ;)

The evidence is this: Words can alter perception. This is the purpose of rhetoric. For condescension to be successful the speaker must appear above his subject. Someone insecure assumes he's the worst or near the worst. By using condescension he can with words alter the perception such that he's not as bad as the subject. Thus definitely not the worst.

This isn't a water proof argument, however. A waterproof argument for human emotion isn't yet possible.

Each of the `Excellent xxx' response you give differs in two important hitches from the `Insecure xxx':

1) it requires much common context, understanding, experience.

Everybody will understand a ``this sucks'' response, regardless of the reasoning behind it being clear.

Understanding a, and building better solution on, an involved response requires common understanding, common experience, between the parties of communication. (What the heck is a 4/2 split? I dunno, honestly; this response only serves as a distraction to me at that very moment).

Lacking common experience is a communication barrier hard to climb, thus frustrating. It may be that very precise subjects (like computer science) provide for more such barriers, thus more frustration.

2) the ``This sucks'' response lets you vent anger. Now there are two conflicting theories about controlling strong emotions... ;-)

> What the heck is a 4/2 split?

OT, but in case you're actually wondering, it refers to the number of cards of a given suit held by each of the defenders. In bridge, there are four players, conventionally called North, East, South, and West; after the auction, one player becomes declarer; let's say that's South. In this case, North, across the table, is dummy, and East and West, on either side, are defenders. Dummy's cards are turned face up so everyone can see them; declarer plays both her own hand and dummy's.

When declarer sees a total of seven clubs (let's say) in her own and dummy's hand, she knows that the defenders have six clubs between them, but she doesn't in general know how many each defender has; this is called the "split". A 3/3 split means each has three; a 4/2 split means one has four and the other has two. Usually, even splits favor declarer while uneven splits favor the defenders, but there are exceptions.

Thanks, now I understand why I should stick to Texas hold 'em for now ;-)

</OffTopic>

Reminds me of this Discworld quote:

    "DID YOU SAY HUMANS PLAY IT FOR FUN?"
    "Some of them get to be very good at it, yes. I'm only an amateur, I'm afraid"
    "BUT THEY ONLY LIVE EIGHTY OR NINETY YEARS!"
            - Death discusses the difficulties of bridge

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Popular/SciFi/Ter...

2) the ``This sucks'' response lets you vent anger. Now there are two conflicting theories about controlling strong emotions... ;-)

I realise that this is intended for humour, but more seriously, I have experienced much better anger reduction when actually chatting amiably with someone and making a friendly recommendation. ``This sucks'' just passes on the negativity to others.

> I have experienced much better anger reduction when actually chatting amiably

Great for you, but not everyone is you; some people need to vent to feel better.

I seem to recall that there are studies showing that venting isn't an effective tool to make you feel better, despite the popular "catharsis" meme. I can't find them right now, but here's a quote: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/a-few-more-things-pop-psychology-h...

In any case, if somebody feels the need to vent, I hope they don't do it where I end up reading them. ^^

It doesn't matter if it's effective or not (I agree that's it's not), people vent because they feel it helps them. Feelings are generally stronger than logic, even when they lead you down the wrong path. Most people are ruled by their emotions, not by their rational mind. Showing someone a study that says their feelings are wrong, will rarely, if ever, convince them to change how they feel.

BTW, I'm not a venter, and I wasn't talking about me when I said some people.

There was an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit that pretty much says the same.

If you have Netflix streaming, it's Episode 10 here: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Penn_Teller_Bullsh_t_Seaso...

Elliot Aronson mentions a few studies in his "The Social Animal" book starting on page 263. I'll just briefly list the studies mentioned, in case anyone is interested:

- Bushman, B. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger and aggressive responding. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724-731

- Patterson, A. (1974, September). Hostility catharsis: A naturalistic quasi-experiment. paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Assiociation, New Orleans.

- Geen, R. (1981). Spectator moods at an aggresive sports event. Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 217-227.

- Glass, D. (1964). Changes in liking as a means of reducing cognitive discrepancies between self-esteem and aggression. Journal of Personality, 32, 531-549.

- Davis, K.E., & Jones, E.E. (1960). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 402-410.

The conclusion seems to be a resounding no. Venting anger does not help, neither verbally nor physically.

Penn & Teller? Talk about being condescending and passing on negativity!

But what's the point of making a response that everyone understands if you're not really saying anything?

I am insecure in every area you mention above, and I do everything in my power to approach advice exactly as you phrase it. Perhaps this is because I am insecure (all I know is that no one really knows everything), I choose to phrase things that way, often also seeing if they know something I didn't.

I don't think there's as close a tie between condescension and insecurity-- but perhaps in some cases that happens. I'd rather people just never be condescending, regardless of what position they're coming from.

judging from media reports/biographies, a lot of our "tech heroes" would then have counted as "insecure"?! don't know about that.

i've gotten to know some people who i consider brilliant or at least very, very good at what they do and, judging from my own small sample, they've been all over the place in terms of manners/considerateness. i don't think this is a valid classification scheme...

You can be very, very good at what you do and still be insecure.

This sounds almost like a tautology or a "no true Scotsman" argument. If "insecure" <=> "condescending" by definition or "well, if he's bad mannered he can't be really secure", there's not much to argue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

true, but the juxtaposition should then have been between "insecure" and "secure", not between "insecure" (personality trait) and "excellent" (skill level).

It's possible that you just may be insecure about your comfort zone of categorizing things ;)

So true. And to develop the argument further, why are so many geeks insecure and nervous, as they then must be, assuming the OP is correct?

I think it's because they are smart. Smart minds make a lot of internal noise, commenting loudly on every experience, making it harder for geeks to 'hear' their own finer feelings, including conscience. This makes them nervous, insecure and guilty. The guilt is unbearable, and they unconsciously attempt to project it onto other geeks with things like condescending feedback.

However, the good news is that there is a minority of geeks who have broken through this barrier, e.g. by meditation. They are a formidable sect, possessing both Bene Gesserit and Mentat powers.

I would say that some fields use it as a tool to weed out those that cannot act under pressure. There are some activities in life where if you cannot deal with condescending feedback then you probably cannot work in the field at all.

This seems circular to me.

No, not really. If, while teaching the basics, they break under the criticism then it isn't worth their going on.

You could probably make your excellent personas a little less cynical. In cases where you want to point out a flaw it's best to not act as if you think you know everything. Start your sentences with "you could probably".

There's a thin line between constructive criticism and a backhanded compliment, though.

Its surprising how rarely you find any of the mentioned Excellent's in daily life

A tablespoon of whisky in their milk, that usually does the trick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com