Comment by Causification | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Causification | Hacker News Reader

I am amazed that someone would write so much so thoroughly yet completely miss the point that some people don't give a damn about UPP or identity. Want to know what my reputation is? Too bad, it doesn't exist. Excepting the handful of close, personal friends, everyone who communicates with me is forced to judge me based purely on the merits of what I am saying, and not any sort of accumulated respect.

That's exactly the way I like it, because it's honest. If I say something stupid, I want people to say it's stupid. If I say something intelligent, I want them to say it's intelligent. The concept that I would be dishonest or hold my tongue instead of saying exactly what I thought for fear of what the listener would think of me is little better than lying to their face. The world would be a healthier place if everyone was called out on their stupidity, every time, by everyone there.

Anonymity enables honesty. Rigid identities are for people who are afraid of what they might hear if there was nothing protecting them from the truth of other peoples' thoughts.

Do you think this comment is the most ignorant, idiotic thing you've read today? Then tell me so, without being influenced by who I am, or dissuaded by anything I might do or think in the future. I welcome your honest opinion, for I know it is based purely on what I have said.

You're ignoring something important: Talk is cheap, and listening is expensive. Judging only the merit of ideas is nice, but it is only applicable within a small community. Once you have more people than you can easily listen to (even on a cursory level), it becomes a search problem. I don't have time to seek and consider opinions from all 7 billion people on the planet whenever I want an opinion on anything — particularly the kind of large topics where I'd generally want someone else's opinion — so I will focus my attention on people I know to be helpful. If I can't identify you as somebody who might have something to say, most of the time you'll get mentally lumped in with the teeming masses who don't even have an informed opinion on the matter.

Doesn't that ignore the fact that it is possible to have a pseudoidentity? A handle? That is enough to support a reputation and hence to enable you to focus your 'attention on people I know to be helpful?'

Talk is cheap, and listening is expensive. Judging only the merit of ideas is nice, but it is only applicable within a small community.

Even in a small community attention can be expensive. I've worked with a number of developer groups. Within each I would eventually reach a point where people knew enough about me that I could ask what might initially seem a stupid question but often lead to some interesting discussion because I was trying to a) make sure I understood this or that assumption and b) see if some assumptions were just plain wrong.

And the group knew I wasn't just dense or playing games; I might be wrong about this or that, but I was sincere and likely had at least some insight to offer.

I'm sure there are various ways to get these same kinds of group discussion going but reputation saves a whole lot of time when trying to explore a counterintuitive idea.

Even in small groups people have lots to do, so having an "in" based on reputation is important.

BTW, I do share the OP's point about bluntness, and I've been fortunate to work with people who, after considering something I've suggested, would give a direct, matter-of-fact opinion.

But this may be another case where personal knowledge helps; most people respected each other well enough to understand that there's a difference between dumping on an idea and dumping on a person. The nice thing was that no one thought you stupid because you said or did stupid things (if your overall reputation was for general non-stupidity) and it made communication easier.

I don't think you are wrong in your overall point. My post was an analysis of the social evolution of self-expression. That was its direction. Your points relate to the actual utility of having no identity. The merits of your points (while anonymous) exist, but I would argue that they could not exist if not for the experiences derived under a rigid identity, perhaps not even without the experiences derived from having an identity on the web anywhere. How do you know that you care about identity or UPP or not if you did not experience both the "have" and "have not" have not at some point? Your opinion comes out of the in-between, and knowing both ways.

Edit: upvote for your throwaway, new account to prove your point. I imagine it would not have preceded a real account that you care about.

I think you wrote an article that kind of ignored the real point of controversy, which is whether UPP is actually valuable. Does having a rigid identity tend to magnify the reactions of people to the things you do an say? Yes, absolutely. Your article almost wholly pertains to arguing that it does, but that's not what people would disagree with you about. They would disagree on whether UPP is desirable at all. As far as I can tell from your definition of UPP, it's little more than an accumulated distortion of logical merit based on superficial characteristics. The distortion may be to your material advantage, but I still do not see why it is desirable.

Edit: I don't actually have a "real" account. HN may not support anonymity, but signing up and posting doesn't require email confirmation, so I make a new account about every other article I choose to post a comment on.

Correct. I wrote a post which avoided controversy by analyzing the social evolution of identity instead of taking a stance on the issue which cannot be backed by a model. To make this relevant, I involved Moot's point and showed how it is moot when taken together with the model. Is UPP good or bad, desirable? In relation to who? The answer changes depending on who responds to the output of UPP. Personally, I find UPP desirable because it has the potential to shake things up. I'm a big fan of shaking things up, but not the extent where it removes foundations and collapses a working system.

Whether it is desirable would depend on your values and objectives. I fail to see why UPP is desirable to anyone except the person who wants more accolade for a particular statement or action than it actually deserves. I do not think that an admirable desire.

Your UPP is what enabled you to make an account just to respond to this thread. Maybe we're unclear on definitions here. UPP facilitates the desire to make comments whether read by anyone or not, because it is made so abundant by technology as to devalue it as social currency in the first place. Regardless, it adds or subtracts from the UPP of people who took the time to read it (namely my own), and caused a reaction at the expense of my own. It's a force and currency, not an issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com