I don't understand how those two sentences are related. I've never heard a political or ideological battle explained as being "curiosity destroying".
This is obvious if you observe how people behave in ideological battle. They do not receive information from one another and then change. Rather, they wield their points as weapons to try to overpower the other side.
When the goal is to win rather than to learn, each side resorts to its best weapons over and over. In other words, each side behaves repetitively. Repetition fries curiosity. Since HN is for curiosity, we have to try to minimize repetition. [1]
In battle, repetition is crucial because there are only so many ways to hit the other side and you need to do it over and over in order to win. If you don't repeat, you don't survive. But curiosity looks for something new over what has already been said or done. Curiosity wants diffs [2].
Imagine software that could compare two HN threads A and B and output only the logical diffs of what was said in A vs. B. I don't mean diffs between the exact words used, but differences in the thoughts/feelings expressed. How much output would it produce when A and B are flamewars on the same subject? Virtually zero. That's the issue for HN. The best HN posts are the ones that can't be predicted from any previous sequence [3], and flamewars are the most predictable from previous sequences.
The issue is not politics as such [4]. To the extent that one can have curious conversation about political topics in which people exchange information, learn from each other, reflect on what the other says and take in any truth in it instead of getting triggered by it, and don't simply repeat things, such conversation is within the site guidelines. It's not easy for such threads not to collapse into a high-indignation-low-information state, but that's what we ask of users here, and what the site guidelines are getting at. We have to, because if we don't, the forum will burn—and scorched earth is not interesting [5]. Flamewars, especially political flamewars, have many secondary effects, and the chance of getting into a destructive feedback loop is high.
We've found that accounts tend to fall into a bimodal distribution: those that are using the site primarily for intellectual curiosity (and occasionally post about divisive topics as part of the mix), and those that are using the site primarily for ideological or political battle. It's not hard to understand why the distribution would be bimodal like this, because curiosity and battle are basically disjoint states. In battle you can't afford to be curious, and when curious, battle is not interesting.
In battle mode, the nervous system goes into fight/flight mode, which triggers reflexive responses. You can observe this by sensing how you react when you encounter the weapons of the opposing side on the internet. This state is incompatible with curious exchange, in which we learn new things from each other and adapt. Human beings require a certain relaxation in order to be open to each other in this way—again, anyone can observe this in the difference between when they're angrily defending vs. playfully interacting. The difference between the two styles of conversation—reflexive vs. reflective, closed vs. open—is palpable. They can't happen at the same time and on HN we want one and not the other [6].
[1] Curiosity withers under repetition: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu..., and generic discussion is intrinsically repetitive: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2] Curiosity is interested in diffs: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[3] The best HN posts are the ones that aren't predictable from any previous sequence: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[4] Some interesting topics inevitably have political overlap, and that's fine, as long as discussion remains substantive and curious: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[5] Scorched earth is not interesting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu..., so we need to protect the forum from burning: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[6] Good HN posts are reflective, not reflexive: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This can (and frequently does) lead to flame wars and useless discussions, which are directly curiosity destroying. HN is better than most forums at keeping this in check, but that's at least partially because when these discussions get out of hand they get shut down.
As a quick heuristic, if there are more than 150 comments, there's a high probability that it's descended into either an ideological battle, or an obtuse snark-fest over semantics or edge cases.
It’s a symptom of an imperfect commenting system.
With a better system, just like in real life, I would more easily be able to only pay attention to the things I want to pay attention to.
totally agree, but I'd love to see a technology that's even better than real life like a discussion site where for each post, users could navigate a 'discussion topology/taxonomy' (i don't know the real terms?). There wouldn't be a need for adding comments that are just restating a position, you would just 'vote' for the position. You could add a new position, a new reason for a position, or new evidence for a reason for a position. The meta discussion the topology itself would be interesting. It would rarely achieve conflict resolution, but it would force us to better define our positions/reasons/evidence/core beliefs, and maybe help us understand others
I've written about the pros and cons of the non-siloed format here, if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098. It leads to a rather paradoxical situation.
Or are we talking about the values prescribed by the proprietors of HN?
If so, it needs to be operated in a way that preserves it for that mandate. The default outcome is certainly not that, so we expend a lot of energy trying to stave that off, as one must when trying to escape entropy.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
The idea of "black American experiences conflicting with curiosity" strikes me as a bizarre formulation.
BLM and its concerns for justice is considered a very political topic. Black issues in America aren’t about to become an unpolitical issue.
An oft repeated argument is that political activist speech kills curiosity. There’s no transparent line to know when political speech is curious enough not to violate site rules.
Also, where does the mandate of the site come from? The president of YC? My worry is that the prescriptions of the site don’t seem to have any story for evolution.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23540162
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564048
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23772359
There's plenty of curious conversation there. There's also plenty of flamebait and flamewar, unfortunately, but that's unavoidable when the society at large is divided on a topic—or rather societies, since we have the added dimension of being a highly international community to deal with. The HN guidelines are written in such a way as to encourage the former and discourage the latter, but there are limits to what's achievable.
HN's mandate comes from how it was created. It has its particular niche. I think it's a good niche that is worth preserving, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community agrees, since that's why people come here. In a way, I like that you're questioning it, though. If the argument becomes "HN should have a different mandate", this suggests that it's doing an ok job of fulfilling the existing one.
The current topics are very interesting even if I cannot always say something useful.
I disagree strongly with a good number of people here but still think I have grown as a human to better understand some of the things I used to feel were totally ridiculous.
At the same time I feel I get some of my own ideas better across (easier to understand, less likely to hurt) so that more people can learn something from me as well, even if they disagree strongly with me.