Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiggawatts | Hacker News Reader

This is why I go out of my way to praise good work loudly and publicly when I see it.

If everyone merely accepts good work silently, but talks about bad work all the time, then political focus within the org will shift to bad teams and bad people. At the extremes I’ve seen this result in the worst people getting promoted to the highest positions because they were infamous. That’s the same as being famous.

Think about Trump: he got elected because nobody could shut up about him, so to a lot of voters didn’t know anything about any other candidate. They voted for the one they recognised.

“He may have his flaws, but he’s not that bad.” is something I’ve heard at work and in the public sphere.

You’re immune to this effect, you’re about to say?

Name five good things that Hillary has done.

View on HN

> This is why I go out of my way to praise good work loudly and publicly when I see it.

This sounds true. Some people do the boring job of cleaning code and keeping the system reliable never got a praise. But some people, who never care about the quality of the system, fight the incidents and are called "hero".

> Name five good things that Hillary has done.

You got me absolutely confused here. There are 5 good things she had done? I think this proves that a bad alternative can get anybody elected.

I think you’ve just confirmed my point.

She’s worked in public service for decades and has done many good things in that time. Most people can’t name any.

Everybody in the world can name five (fifty!) bad things Trump has done.

That’s why that man lives rent free in our heads. That’s why everyone knows his name. That’s why he got many of his votes: he’s recognisable.

This effect has nothing to do with any specific politicians.

It happens in workplace settings also. The quiet achievers get overlooked. The loudmouth screwup gets attention and even promotions.

I’m old enough to have seen this play out over and over again at every scale.

Or maybe she is as bad as the voters took her for and you are delusional.

You're missing the point.

The point is not whether Hillary is good or bad.

The point is that most people are unable to remember good things that even very famous career people have done, despite this information being in the public record. It's just not covered, repeated, and as memorable as bad things that people have done.

You're focused on "Hillary bad!", not realising that that's the point I'm making. You can only remember bad things.

The exercise is to see if you can name good things. You can't, not because she's unadulterated pure evil, but because good things are not as memorable in general.

Try for a moment to rise above your primitive animal tribal instincts and think like an anthropologist.

Sorry to disappoint you but you're thinking like a Hillary fanboy, not an anthropologist. Democrats had better options available that'd have beaten Trump but people like you decided that Hillary was supposed to be the next president. Not many opponents would be so good at electing Trump.

Do you... hear yourself?

I'm not even American!

I picked an example at random that I knew everyone would be familiar with. I have no skin in this game and who won or didn't win isn't the point. The point is the rules of the game.

> I'm not even American

Which proves the point you have no idea what you talking about. Go ahead then and list 5 great things she did.

I don't agree with your Trump example, but agree with your main point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com