It would be good if we understood this phenomenon better, why we do it and how we can be more balanced in our approach to what others say online.
This is tied to the societal confusion that wrong is the same as bad. Culturally it's bad to be wrong, so we are made to feel ashamed when we're wrong. Really, we should be grateful because it gives us the chance to learn and grow. Being wrong isn't bad, staying wrong might me.
And then you tie in a societal misperception that some people hold that life is a zero sum game, and you can only get ahead by tearing someone else down, and you get the modern internet.
If I'm conversing with someone in real life, and they say something I strongly disagree with, I can disagree, and we can discuss and perhaps they tell me that I misunderstood them, or they articulated themselves incorrectly, or we are proceeding from different assumptions, etc. I'm reading something online, and I reach a sentence that I strongly disagree with, I essentially have to stop reading at that point, because from that point on I have diverged from being in alignment with the perspective of the author. And there's no back-and-forth to be had, so I need to state my point as clearly as possible - otherwise someone will just do the same thing back to me.
I dunno, I kind of feel like I'm probably the type of person that's being described here, but I don't really intend to "make OP wrong". I just don't see any other option other than to state my disagreement as plainly as possible, so other people can pick it apart.
I agree, but I think it has more to do with how online comments are presented. Start with that word, comments. The very word suggests a response rather than a dialogue.
Or look at it a different way, look at it from the perspective of how content is presented online. Have you ever noticed how the host of some YouTube videos invite people to comment with a prompt, such as soliciting information? It is meant to encourage positive conversations. Unfortunately, this is relatively rare with written content. People who have positive things to say may say those things, but negative comments are usually going to win out because the people who make those comments feel that it has to be said. Of course, you are going to have extremes on either side. A community of disciplined readers may keep things positive against all odds and a community of trolls are going to troll, but the lack of a prompt to encourage dialogue is simply gambling on the outcome.
This is a great insight. I always wondered why video platforms seemed to have much more positive comments than text platforms, but now it makes sense. Most videos have some prompt ("leave a comment below if you have X" or "if this made you remember a funny time in your life leave a comment on my video") to answer whereas most text doesn't which primes folks to respond negatively.
Folks say "I'm making it all about me," and maybe they're right, but it sure beats the usual "drop trou, and drop grogan" style of many folks.
And according to the golden rule, this means I should also focus on negative comments. If someone told me an important NEW-TECH-1 downside in the past, and I see NEW-TECH-2 and I know its downside (maybe because I had to try it at work, maybe because I am an expert in the area), then I better hop in and post that.
Positive experiences are also useful, but they feel redundant: after all, if OP is positive about NEW-TECH, it likely already mentions all the good things already.
(note that "OP" is original post, not original poster. Arguing against people on internet is almost always a bad idea. Arguing against specific posts is much better.)
It's a fine line. A culture too positive and you get shills and "+1 that looks great" repeated endlessly. A culture too negative and you get tangential rants disguised as criticism.
The focus is not really on making some nebulous "OP" wrong, as if anyone thinks about anything but themselves. The focus is compelling the software to give a result in response. The more obtuse a comment is, the more likely the algorithm will deliver.
> why we do it
Because there is no value in writing a comment that doesn't offer a result. You'd write in your private journal instead if that is what you were looking for. Different tools for different jobs.
> how we can be more balanced in our approach to what others say online.
No need to try and make your hammer a screwdriver when you can use an actual screwdriver just as easily instead. That experience is found in not being online and going outside to talk to people rather than software instead. Use the right tool for the job, as they say.
Comments like “^ This”, are generally frowned on, because they don’t contribute knowledge to the discussion and we have votes to show agreement. Constructive criticism does. I think this is a good thing, on forums like HN I prefer constructive criticism over unconstructive praise.
However, it doesn’t explain unconstructive criticism (“how OP can be interpreted as ignorant or illogical or immoral”). Maybe people don’t know how to criticize gently and helpfully*, or being rude correlates more with expressing your opinion.
* My advice would be: make objective points and focus on the content, don’t make subjective points or attack the commenter.
- Constructive criticism, but worded nicely. "This is a cool project, it would be cooler if..." is a nicer way (with some praise) of saying "This part isn't very good: ... [inverted]"
- Appreciating a specific part of the project, which I think is the technical definition of "constructive praise". "I especially liked X". This is useful because it implicitly suggests what to emphasize or elaborate (the part being praised) and what to improve or change (other parts). Unfortunately this may be the rarest, especially on HN; it's at least rarer than constructive criticism.
- Suggestions for new features. Actually these are pretty common on HN. I was lumping them with criticism ("you don't have X") but that's just a reinterpretation, and any constructive feedback can be reinterpreted as criticism ("I especially liked X" => "Every part was bad except X"). That's probably why I didn't address the other kinds of feedback, but thinking about it more, criticism is only the feedback that's phrased negatively.
I'd call it the "Duty Calls Law" after https://xkcd.com/386/
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
(I'm really hoping you were intentionally setting up the straight line for that joke; if not, sincerest apologies).
Outcome | Helpful | Contrarian
-----------|------------------------
Contrarian | Contrarian Contrarian
Helpful | Helpful Contrarian
But it almost doesn't matter whether contrarian attitudes really are "very common". Absent a force that mitigates this unbalanced outcome matrix, it's almost an asymptotic statistical certainty that any Internet thread with enough participants will have enough contrarians in it that the entire thread (and the dominant strategy for anyone who wants to participate in the thread) devolves towards contrarianism.
However, HN is also one of the few places where it's not uncommon for me to see people push back on it. And often comments that "pounce on a few words" are offering valid criticism on only that part IMO, while still accepting the larger work that's been posted.