Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruseom | Hacker News Reader

Why do authors insult their listeners with "You're Doing It Wrong" titles like "You're Not Listening"? How does he know this about me? How can he possibly know this about every one of his readers?

I suppose they do it because it catches attention. A slap in the face catches attention too. For me the two work similarly. (At least I think they do; I can't remember being slapped in the face.)

Usually I just grin and bear it and feel like a schmuck for giving them their damn pageview, but this case is interesting. It's not only rude, it's incongruent in a post that ostensibly is about how to treat people decently. Evidently the author's highly developed empathy doesn't extend to his readers. Once you see that, the whole post appears coated in a thin slime of managerial manipulativeness.

View on HN

This is a pet peeve of mine and I think the problem extends past "You're Doing it Wrong" titles. I haven't been reading HN long enough to know the trend but I will say the current state of blog titles is pretty bad. Taking a quick look at the front page one may be surprised to find out that: Hardware is Dead, You're Not Listening, Actually YOU Don't Understand Lexical Scope, and Everything's Broken and Nobody's Upset. Give me a break.

Definitely agree. I'm not sure if the OP is the author, but if he is and if he's trying to draw attention, then the motive shifts from sharing insightful lessons to personal "winning" (getting the most karma points, getting the most page views, etc). This seems to be the recent trend, and I'd like to see less emotionally charged titles for better reader engagement, even if it comes at a cost of less overall views.

The OP is not the author (in case it helps).

I know, I find this condescening tone infuriating. I stopped reading articles with this kind of titling some time ago; it's the new 'verbing the noun'.

My suggestion: read more of Rands' oeuvre before you ascribe manipulative psychopathy to three words in a title.

Once you see that,

You should have said "if you see that." Here's what my eye saw as I was scanning the HN news page:

  ...
  ...
  Blah blah (randsinrepose.com)

Click!

You've distorted what I said beyond recognition.

irony: n. ...

I see we also have different definitions of slap, slime, empathy, and manipulative.

So, some people talk this way. You can decide to dismiss all information available from these kinds of articles. You can decide to focus on (and talk about) the style they use to get their point across. You can even decide to feel it is like a "slap in the face".

Or you can decide to not do any of those things. I honestly think that's the choice that will serve you best in the long run.

P.S. Why do people talk this way? It is a style people have for many reasons, mostly because it is more effective - where effective can mean "Makes more people understand quicker", "Gets my point across more succinctly", "Makes people agree with me", or even "Gets more pageviews". You might not like all the reasons, but there are probably at least some valid reasons for talking in this way. Why assume the worst from the author?

> Why do authors insult their listeners with "You're Doing It Wrong" titles like "You're Not Listening"? How does he know this about me? How can he possibly know this about every one of his readers?

He can't, but he's probably right for 9 out of 10 readers. That's just Sturgeon's Law, applied to listening skills in the general population.

I think it is a very rare thing to encounter someone who truly listens.

Agreed, but since the author implicitly ascribes this rare status to himself, he owes his readers the same respect. It's interesting that he begins with the worry that he might seem like a douchebag, but not the kind of douchebag that the post makes him seem to me.

I guess I'm emphasizing a lesser point at the expense of the greater one (how to listen), but somehow the two feel related. Both have to do with habit.

I normally would agree with you. Here, though, the author arguably presents his case to go beyond the common definition (a.ka. hearing noise=listening). So, the article is more about "doing reconnaisonce" and putting info in context so that the noise makes sense. That's not a trivial line of attack for the purpose of a blog article. He could word it differently:"Youre not listening, unless you're doing reconaisance." Or "How to listen better: tips on...situational awareness" or whatever. After you read it, you shouldn't feel insulted though per-se. (If you are listening to what he has to say.;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com