Don't forget those of us who come to HN primarily to post comments about why the linked article is obviously stupid and wrong, or is right but just saying things that we've been aware of for a while now.
This is why I hate being around a good deal of "smart" people (or atleast, people who have smartness attached to their identity, which seems to be rarely the same group). Every statement, every conversation, every fact is just another opportunity for them to put something down or puff themselves up.
Only, things ranging from people going on doomed escapades and startups, via mountaineering accidents up to and including the Eschede train disaster can be at least partially attributed to people being afraid of expressing criticism. Of course there is a valid criticism of how many people express said criticism, but that's another matter.
In fact, what I do see, is a lot of people who are so attached to their own opinion, that even after an amount of statements intended discern between the opinion and person expressing it, they still become angry when facing criticism.
One of the actual reasons I come to HN is to read dissenting views. I may disagree with them, but without them this site would be useless.
At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
The one good quality such people might have is as a continual Devil's Advocate, in the sense that by disagreeing with all conventional wisdom they might make you take a second look at your own beliefs. But I really feel like it's everyone's responsibility to be their own Devil's Advocate; relying on other people to fill that role isn't constructive.
I guess what I'm really getting at is that there's no shortage of negativity or contrariness out there, and contrariness without insight is no better than agreement without insight. In fact, it can easily lead you astray if you're not careful.
Well, I did get sick of it after yet another discussion on HN went into the 'stop raining on the parade' comments.
> At least, that's how I interpreted the comment you were responding to. Maybe you've never met people like that; if so, you're lucky.
I've met many people who dismiss any criticism with complaints of negativism. I've even seen that happen when I complained about how they were dissing others, as if me suggesting they should be more understanding was negative.
In fact, I see a lot of negativity with insight, and a lot of yes-men attitude without any reflection. It's a far more common disease.
What you've described is normal human behavior irrespective of their level of intelligence.
I took a plane ride to Wisconsin for instance, for a three day conference of Christian apologists because they are hard to get a hold of online, and I had serious questiona.
Is there anyone else motivated by this like me?
Analytic philosophers tend to be.
In terms of "people who are unable to engage in reasonable discussion and yet are worth talking to for what they know ... they nitpick at things which should be logically obvious", I would counsel toward assuming good faith on their part, and just not engaging them. If you'd like to benefit from what they know, it's fair that you should try to hear their arguments charitably and even entertain that what you consider "logically obvious" may be more cultural than logical.