When writing, don't mention people who've criticized you | Hacker News Reader

When writing, don't mention people who've criticized you

twitter.com

13 pointsamrrs18 comments

It's a sign of deep thinking to address valid criticisms in your writing, especially if you want to make a compelling case for something [1]. Almost never is somebody completely right or completely wrong. Nuance exists everywhere and it is better to acknowledge it rather than risk having your work being dismissed as simplistic.

Maybe he means the type of writing intended for social media that optimizes for short attention spans and engagement, but many would argue that has not been a good thing for public discourse.

[1] If something seems distracting but worth addressing, put it in a footnote.

You can name the sin and not the sinner and get the benefit of a rebuttal.

I think Paul Graham is wrong about this. I am mentioning his name because it is good, helpful, and reasonable to do so.

I don’t know this guy. I don’t know his background or how he came to believe that, apparently, we should sever all connections between a person and his words if what we have to say is critical, rather than fawning and congratulatory. But maybe some reader does know, and will be better able to process my critique.

Personally, I find it frustrating when people criticize what are obviously my ideas, yet don’t name me. It makes it much harder for people to check the sources and decide for themselves.

If you are interested more in marketing and politics than truth and understanding, of course you should avoid saying the names of your nemeses. Otherwise, be strong and do what’s right.

Interesting, my take is that criticizing ideas rather than people leads to better discourse, primarily because it automatically makes things less personal, which tends to keep the tone of conversation neutral. That is not to say that ideas should not be attributed to people, but I always try to frame my writing as "argument X is wrong" rather than "you are wrong" because it is more specific and feels less like a personal attack.

If you argue with someone who is drunk and don’t realize it, getting ever more annoyed at the bad logic, and then a pal takes you aside and says “dude, that guy is wasted… he probably doesn’t know what he’s saying right now” do you say to him “Ah my friend one should not criticize a person, but only his ideas!” and go back to the argument?

If a restaurant serves food that makes people sick, should the health department not shut them down because one should only care about the food itself and not consider the unsanitary practices which produced it?

Of course ideas are ultimately the concern of thoughtful people, but to avoid wasting precious time, we must consider the process that produces those ideas. This is why reputation matters.

All that aside, sometimes people are up to no good. There really are cheaters and fakes out there— and more of them than you might think. My field is full of bullshitters. I just saw an ad for an AI-based test tool that they say makes “manual testing” obsolete. I think the people behind that tool have no care at all for responsible behavior. They want to cash in on the hype.

You might have misunderstood the context of his thoughts. An entrepreneur who does everything to promote his idea and succeeds still has the gnawing effect of everyone who told him he was wrong. “Don't mention them” he says.

If those people were right, then no one is reading what you have to say.

Anyone who wants a case study in referencing detractors can read Pale Fire by Nabakov. It’s a beautiful 80 page epic poem with 200 pages of footnotes by the author’s less talented and insecure colleague.

Lenin's works are essentially rebuttals to his critics and yes there's something to his arguing against figures who ended up on the garbage heap of history. But the ideas of his critics live on, with new advocates. For example, he wonderfully critiques anarchists and terrorism. We still live with right and left terrorists who think they will make a difference. They will not. And so on.

Charles Darwin did. He came out alright. New editions of On the Origin of Species addressed the criticisms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Publi...

Charles Darwin will still be remembered long after Paul Graham is forgotten.

> if you are wrong, no one …

… No one cares about what you are saying, so it doesn’t matter anyways.

David Drake used to Tuckerize one of his critics in an unflattering way. PG is wrong

What if you have criticized yourself?

Don't name yourself seems like sage advice especially in this case.

Just sayin'

Mentioning other relevant work is normal. You can do it without being a jerk.

His ideas border on the sociopathic. They are certainly arrogant and quite simplistic.

Better not working in academia then, cause you will have a plagiarism accusation coming for you.

You can fail to mention critics without copying anyone. For example, doing nothing at all satisfies both conditions.

Maybe you meant failing to cite authors you quote? That's not what the OP is talking about.

You don't have to quote someone to have to cite them. It is sufficient to reproduce the ideas (eg. by paraphrasing them).

Of course you can just not write about your critics in the first place, but I don't think that's OP's intent, as that would be a huge nothing burger of a tweet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com