Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiggywiggy | Hacker News Reader

What makes it worse is, whistleblowers are trouble makers often. They are difficult people, at best like Snowden, they lay low. It makes it easier to dismiss them. Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation, like the NSA, you have to be a pain in the ass. I don't mean that in a bad way. Normal sociable people just don't do that.

So when a whistleblower breaks out, and they get chastised there almost is never support from within the organization for them.

View on HN

> whistleblowers are trouble makers often ... Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character.

Most "troublemakers", as you call them, that I have known are people deeply moral and worried about their peers and society. I have seen two types, thou. Some have such a strong moral compass that will fight for what is right even knowing that it will have consequences. And the naive ones that think that, as they are morally right, the structures of power will recognize their sins and correct the situation. None of them were anti-social.

But that is just my personal experience.

>Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation, like the NSA, you have to be a pain in the ass. I don't mean that in a bad way. Normal sociable people just don't do that.

You're making way too simplistic a generalization here. Some sociable people can be sociable and friendly with a group until that group changes and they decide that it no longer fits their morality. They can still be contrarians, and then make waves anyhow. You absolutely don't have to be an introverted, hard nosed loner to end up being a whistleblower or contrarian troublemaker. This sounds a bit more like wishful fantasy for people who are socially inept trying to paint it as more noble.

If anything, a sociable, open person is more likely to have the kind of self assured personality that makes them decide it's not a problem to disagree among their peer group whenever it becomes necessary. Read more history, it's full of troublemakers who were also sociable.

A very social person is probably less likely to speak out against their peers because they have become friends with them and their power somewhat lies in those people liking them.

I also think it's part of their character to be agreeable, not just that they are friends.

Good mention. Recently I was saying a gal I know's friends are "all yes men" when they discuss personal issues w/ each other. I was suggested a better term is that they are "supportive". Same thing, but yeah, they just agree with the person. Critical thinking takes a back seat to making the other person feel validated.

> Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character

That’s an interesting observation, and in my experience working in small businesses and large enterprise organizations, it’s entirely and totally wrong. Some of the worst people I’ve ever known in the workplace kiss up to the boss and to people in power while running the company into the ground. These are not good people. It’s actually a kind of evil in a way, as they present a likable "go along to get along" persona and facade while doing a terrible job. I would much rather be surrounded by humble yet candid truth tellers, who tell it like it is with empathy and compassion and care.

I think parent comment meant good with the group as in "follows the social rules without questioning them and does what is expected of them", not as in morally good.

I agree. I think GP meant "good" like you'd use it to describe a dog. obedient.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

At times it's justified to be unreasonable

It’s rarely the comfortable choice however.

Are they really? And frankly, I have seen enough amoral contrarians, contrarians just for the sake of having fun to understand why they are dismissed.

And actual real world lite "whistle-blower" I have Deen was not like that.

> Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character. To whistleblow against a very powerful organisation... you have to be a pain in the ass.

I am confused - people who are good and social have no principles and value? They have no backbone to stand up for them?

This is like the worst definition of social - like amoral sociopaths desperate to fit in.

If Nazi Germany produced anything of value at all, one can hope it was clear evidence that a large portion of the population does indeed meet that definition. Certainly enough to run a state, prosecute a world war, and run a massive economy rivaling other world powers.

> Why? Because people who are good and social with the group do not have a contrarian character.

Where does this line of thinking come from? It isn't true because e.g. MLK, Malcolm X

It sounds like you're trying to psychologize whistleblowing or activism

Where did you learn this from? Did you grow up in an authoritarian regime or something?

Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN in the intended spirit?

You broke the rules pretty badly here, and also in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35766457. We're trying to avoid flamewars to the extent possible. You can make your substantive points without doing that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com