Ask HN: The curious case of asymmetric skepticism on HN | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: The curious case of asymmetric skepticism on HN

8 pointsDrNosferatu15 comments

I've noticed a pattern where well-supported critiques of corporate practices (pharma pricing, tech monopolies, etc.) are often heavily downvoted without substantive counter-arguments, while pro-business claims face minimal scrutiny.

This selective skepticism creates an uneven playing field: critics must provide exhaustive evidence and perfect nuance, while business-friendly assertions are accepted as conventional wisdom.

Has anyone else observed this? Is there a cognitive bias at work when topics challenge the industry narratives many HN users are professionally invested in?

View on HN

Things that have a bias:

1. Making money. Specifically, making a rich person richer; earning you a margin less than the topmost in your risk class in their portfolio.

2. YCombinator, or startup philosophy. Doesn't rule out critiques of corporate philosophy, your approach just needs to tick more boxes.

3. There's this rule: business itself doesn't hold grudges. The smell of grudge means it's something else -- could be lots of other things: sports (Moneyball), politics (Marc Andreesen is articulate about how to remove ethics from politics), signalling network loyalties (Ivy League), but -- worthwhile or not -- those are costs. Be prepared for any business audience to form a consensus on rules; and in the non-business dimensions, individual humans to self-select.

It's interesting to look outside this, though. It's academically interesting when a project succeeds in defiance of these rules, or any academically-evaluated rules.

Cognitive bias as a rationale as to why this might occur implies a singular group who up or down vote topics, where as there is more likely two or more different sub groups of account holders here.

The other thing is perspective of what is well founded critique, such as that which you know to be so, and what others would think would be erroneous or at best flawed since the argument put forward might be deemed correct broadly but does not work with the particular instance due to various reasons like owing to context, morality, practicality ... etcetera.

Yes, I encountered this myself, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264608.

You're deriving 'controversy' and then something about the preferences of forum participants as a whole from the small vote changes (ending with a non-downvoted comment!) of a tropey, generic comment in reply to a very tropey bombastic comment.

I don't think you can really do that accurately from those inputs.

> (ending with a non-downvoted comment!)

Only after I had to comment asking for reasons. Also, it's not the first time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43379510.

> tropey, generic comment

I don't see how it's generic. It's about one specific example of a general trend.

Another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402696

Key expression:

"receiving many upvotes and then downvotes"

It's like, when put into question, they start to cry and can't even articulate a proper response addressing the arguments presented to them - then gang up and downvote.

I thought of a name for these people:

"Prostrating Putative Oligobros" (PPOs)

(...or "presumptive", "wannabe"?)

Ah, if you're primarily observing that, then it's probably that many users see any feed back or back and forth discussion as flaming (or just find arguing upsetting in general -- some people are quite sensitive,) and as such down vote even if they are not experts in that field, they're most likely going by the tone of the comments and punishing who they see as the agitator.

But don’t these people worship Steve Jobs, the agitator and disruptor extraordinaire?

What ever happened to ‘Think Different’?

???

Why not engage with this argument instead of downvoting?

Are you that keen on proving me right?

I am unable to down vote. All of my replies in this thread have been a somewhat neutral tone ... just here to help.

With all your flailing of arms, whaling away at perhaps an imperfect system -- my reply to you has been at my cost as well - demonstrating if any thing the point I was attempting to make.

In regard to your other replies to me, perceived agitator was to mean specifically those users in the thread who have made some critique valid or not. As for crying, no not exactly. Some people are particularly sensitive to online arguments or hot debates. I've long been a moderator at a few different forums, and found myself quite surprised by the last people I'd expect messaging me over hurt feelings or inaction on my part. I'd also point out that in this feed plenty of members would feel they're enforcing a flame free area - they don't necessarily have any side or bias.

I upvoted you :D

People have absolutely every right to have feelings.

But this goes exactly to the point: why do people make it personal, when only facts are being discussed?

Specifically facts about economics - repeatedly reported on mainstream media.

(not here, as I for one, abundantly indulged in irony)

Well I would say a lot of the down voting you're observing in certain responses, most likely isn't about the topic or the which ever members down voting being invested with a strong opinion. In fact I'd guess they are not at all passionate to give a rats, they simply don't care for what they might see as rude behaviour or breaking rules or etcetera ... as an example, say this place HN, was like a library that has a big large notice at the door of one of its reading rooms asking patrons to observe a number of rules. The top of list is no ideological discussions, followed by keep talking to a minimum and if so, quietly - along with a number of other minor rules. For the most part quiet conversions in the room are tolerated even if they do get a little loud at times. However when area's conservation gets much louder others around due to previous arguments, some patrons mostly perceive the louder conservation to be something of the nature of a passionate disagreement of an ideological nature and may seek to inform staff -- while they're unsure exactly of nature of the conservation, they are fairly sure the noise level is not befitting of a quiet area -- they though might miss that one of the people they are complaining about was just a bit deaf and was merely briefly passionately explaining a really good fishing trip to an old acquaintance, it makes little difference to the outcome. The offenders are asked to leave by the staff ... obviously it might feel like some people just didn't care for fishing, but common sense should dictate that it probably wasn't about the fishing trip.

I though had earlier made the point there also surely are some sub groups with vested interests and the nature of how they vote and why is not exactly known -- trying to make sense of the way votes go at time is too hard, sometimes it is as it is. Imagine the above example, their initial conclusion it was about the fish would be right if in fact a large group of vegans or animal cruelty had taken offence that one of the fish landed they felt was mishandled.

Ah - so you mean “crying” then :D

#irony

Reply on news.ycombinator.com