Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbrandy | Hacker News Reader

I find your approach distasteful. And that's putting it charitably, to be honest.

The idea that you would feign solidarity in a social experiment with real consequences so you could screw fellow students surreptitiously is just as bad (I would argue worse) than the intimidation you are presuming existed. In fact, even under the presumption that intimidation occurs, you are admitting to happily screwing over other students who would have been happy to take the test, but for the intimidation. So the fellow victims of the "crime" get punished once by them, and then again, by you.

If you actually want to take a principled stand, you'd have to do something shocking like.. be honest with everyone with what you intend on doing, and why.

View on HN

As someone who has been bullied in school for actually, you know, trying to learn and take the tests I find his approach perfectly ok. You don't know what intimidation is like until you've been on the receiving end of it and a whole class of people your own age telling you you can't do what you came to school for can be pretty intimidating.

Ya! Its way too easy to get caught up in a crowd/mob even if its not something you really believe in. There is just pressure to follow. The really brave people is the one who boycotts the exam on his own without any expectation that others will follow them, and with the expectation that nothing will really happen and they'll just get a zero. You know, real consequences with little upside. Then you are being principled!

> As someone who has been bullied in school for actually, you know, trying to learn and take the tests I find his approach perfectly ok. You don't know what intimidation is like until you've been on the receiving end of it and a whole class of people your own age telling you you can't do what you came to school for can be pretty intimidating.

"Wanting to learn and take the test" (let's call it the education principle) is every bit a principle worth standing for. But so is honesty. There is far more education going on here than what is on that test. I'd argue if you are actually willing to surreptitiously screw your fellow classmates, bullies and bullied alike, for the sake of both "taking the test" and avoiding intimidation, I'd hope you are self-reflective enough to realize what this teaches you about yourself.

The way I see it: "the education principle", honesty, and easy. You get to pick two. And I'm going to criticize any (ostensible -- in the case of the students themselves) adult who advocates picking the dishonest path. At some point we put away our childish things and we solve our problems like adults.

People who cheerfully exploit mob dynamics to intimidate others don't have a claim on the honesty of those they attempt to intimidate. That argument reminds me of bullies who complain when they meet an unexpected defeat that their intended victim was not 'fighting fair'. The willingness to initiate force, whether individually or in a group, does not confer any sort of moral authority whatsoever. Indeed, the physical authority garnered from the exercise of force is often sought as a substitute for the lack of moral authority.

> At some point we put away our childish things and we solve our problems like adults.

I hope that doesn't mean you'll wait for me near the bike stands.

How does honesty come in if there are two frat boy thugs standing outside to prevent anyone from going in?

The inmates are running this particular asylum.

I wouldn't feign solidarity; if coordination occurred ahead of time, I'd indicate that I didn't plan to skip the exam. I just said that I'd rather not try to push past the picket line at exam time.

What obligation does he have towards his peers who he feels are pressuring him in such a manner?

He owns them nothing, not his cooperation nor his honesty.

Logically speaking, you are correct, but human beings are rarely logical; even less so when there's a group of them.

Taking the test may provide self-validation, but it will do so at the expense of all of your classmates failing the course. In the end all you'll prove is that you were so inept (socially) that you were willing to sacrifice all of your peers for nothing more than pride.

Pride? No, partially a desire to actually get all of the education you are digging yourself into debt for, partially out of annoyance of a childish prank, and even more partially out of annoyance at a childish prank that assumes your cooperation.

If they want to be a bunch of clowns, that isn't my business. If they choose to make their clowning my business, then I am not responsible for the fallout when I don't fall into step with them.

And make no mistake about it, there was without a doubt social pressure and coercion in this situation. Your response to me demonstrates that quite clearly. If a cornerstone of your prank is your peers not being "squares", then your prank is coercive.

Agreed. If this is really about checking your knowledge, it would probably not be hard to convince the prof or TA to let you get feedback on a practice final, for no grade, without screwing over the rest of the class. Or you could just use what you learned to code a project and put it online for real peer review.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com