Hacker News Reader

It is my opinion that the article does not suggest that "it's so terrible that I'd rather watch, say, a deep-sea fisherman risk his life than try deep-sea fishing myself." It actually directly chastises, in the following quote, the people who make such claims.

  There are men who feel that the entire problem with males today is that they’re
  too obsessed with college and professional sports. But that’s as wrong-headed
  as thinking that indulging in a straight diet of passive entertainment carries
  no ill-effects whatsoever. Rather than suffering from spectatoritis, these men
  are inflicted by high-horse-itis.

The writers further clarify their position in the paragraph following the above one. They insist that "a problem only arises when instead of being a supplement to your life," it becomes "a substitution, a way to feel better about something you personally lack."

I'm a fourth year undergraduate at a university in Boston, MA. I have had roommates who watch television many hours a day, do their homework with no passion or interest, and then proceed to drink and party all night. I will not argue that any of these actions are individually "bad," but I will argue that a life consisting primarily of these activities is devoid of creative output and is qualitatively "bad" under my philosophy.

A life of raging all night at a party and, assuming an impressive alcohol tolerance, waking the next morning to start creating something is not a a life I'd call "bad."

I believe this is a faithful interpetation of the article's position.

I really like your comment, but I don't think we should judge an odd philosophy on the basis of one of its most banal articulations. The article belongs to a genre with a pretty decent tradition, but its relation to that tradition is derivative in the worst sense (in fact, it's at least a second derivative, so to speak, rehashing an already bastardized rehashing of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). Every age diagnoses the malaise of the age, but not every age does it equally well. One problem with the modern era is that we don't have a Kierkegaard or Nietzsche to write our critiques of average modes of existence.

He doesn't have a problem with passive entertainment. He even says that he goes to concerts sometimes. He just thinks it's bad that people do it too much, which is a very uninteresting point.

> Living vicariously is the essence of being human.

I think this is the exact point the author is trying to disprove. The articles isn't saying that all viewing activities are bad, in fact he point out the "high-horse-ness" of people who say they are. Instead he is saying that the essence of being human is in being in the area, not passively viewing it.

While there is much to learn from watching, reading, ect, real life takes place when you are the doer, not the viewer. Teddy Roosevelt's very famous "It's not the critic that counts" speech (Full Version: http://www.leadershipnow.com/tr-citizenship.html ) comes to mind instantly.

While History is the study of things that you will never be able to do, it is immensely valuable, if that knowledge can be translated into ideas about what we should do. Winston Churchill was a student of history, and his life was meaningful because he acted on this knowledge to stop the German advance and save the free world.

You are right about the fisherman-soldier analogy. But I think the article's main point is that creators (read doers) are of much more value to society then consumers (read viewers).

This is why we should have "One thing in which [we are] a doer, and not just a viewer."

You are using a cherry-picking argument.

There is a big difference between the mentality of the creator and the consumer. This should not be news.

Hacker News, exists, in part, as a monument to creating.

At this point, I thought it was a forgone, forknown point, especially here, that being a creating being is better than a consuming being.

The popularity of iOS around here, a consumer-centric platform blatantly hostile to tinkerers, makes clear we don't have such a consensus now if we ever did.

Okay, I'll bite. :-)

It's important to separate the ethical, technical, and business concerns and look at them one by one.

iOS offers me a few things. As a user, it offers me a smooth widget experience, no hard crashes, and a ginormous store full of toys and a few useful widgets. As an appliance, it is sterling. My music player works as reliably as my toaster. Exactly what I want, actually. I have no need to tinker with my appliances; they do exactly what I want, and I free my mental cycles to do things like work on my Master's without fiddling around with configuring my toaster. As a developer, it offers me a simple delivery platform, delivered to people with spare cash who have been trained to purchase software. It's a pretty sweet gig, in my opinion.

Apple really should open up the hood to tinkerers, in the ethical sense. It does us as a society no good to have a society of 'couch potatoes' and spectators. We need doers & thinkers, people who can get the job done and also reflect on their existence. I strongly believe that Apple should incorporate that awareness into product policies: there should be something like a 'enable tinkerer mode' in my iPod system settings. However, their corporate DNA goes against that, from the early 80s on. They really want to provide a unified and 'beautiful' experience for their customers. Tinkerers open up the hood and cause variety and divergence from the norm. (Think all the weird kludges in Windows because it has to support such a variety of hardware).