The Positive Programmer(rdegges.com)
rdegges.com
The Positive Programmer
http://www.rdegges.com/the-positive-programmer/
118 comments
It is too easy to get caught up in the idea that "everything is bad" when all you focus on is negatives. It sets the tone for your day, and alters your overall opinion on things.
A better alternative would be to have a clear, accurate, and wholly representative understanding of the situation. This means focusing on the good just as equally as the bad.
I understand where you're coming from though. I used to think the same thing about not focusing on good, and only directing attention to the bad. It made me feel like I was selective, like I had good taste, and knew things that other people didn't. I even suspected I was a little like Steve Jobs must've been, because surely he had good taste. I got to the point where I was starting to be known as a grumpy guy, and so I took a step back and realized what the negativity was doing to me, my mood, and to those around me. And thats when I realized a complete picture is better than a purely negative one.
With a complete picture, I'm less negative. When I'm less negative, Im more likely to have positive thoughts running through my brain. When I have positive thoughts running through my brain, I'm happier. When I'm happier I'm more productive, people like me more, I talk more, and all of those things lead to me being more successful. It was an obvious choice for me!
Maybe you aren't there yet, and maybe you won't ever be. However, I imagine a lot of people are somewhere close, and I hope they find this comment useful.
A better alternative would be to have a clear, accurate, and wholly representative understanding of the situation. This means focusing on the good just as equally as the bad.
I understand where you're coming from though. I used to think the same thing about not focusing on good, and only directing attention to the bad. It made me feel like I was selective, like I had good taste, and knew things that other people didn't. I even suspected I was a little like Steve Jobs must've been, because surely he had good taste. I got to the point where I was starting to be known as a grumpy guy, and so I took a step back and realized what the negativity was doing to me, my mood, and to those around me. And thats when I realized a complete picture is better than a purely negative one.
With a complete picture, I'm less negative. When I'm less negative, Im more likely to have positive thoughts running through my brain. When I have positive thoughts running through my brain, I'm happier. When I'm happier I'm more productive, people like me more, I talk more, and all of those things lead to me being more successful. It was an obvious choice for me!
Maybe you aren't there yet, and maybe you won't ever be. However, I imagine a lot of people are somewhere close, and I hope they find this comment useful.
I see no issue with acknowledging good or positive things, but perhaps you should clarify what you mean when you say you should "focus" on them. To me, to "focus" on something means you invest a significant amount of time and brain power into understanding and evaluating them. If something is good and isn't broken, why, as a problem solver, would you spend valuable time going "oh isn't that nice?" when you could be addressing other problems?
Obviously there are things to be learned from the things that aren't broken (so that you know the difference between what works and what doesn't, and a potential solution when you come across something that IS broken), I just don't see the point of focusing on the good. It's good. Yay. Now move on.
I also find it interesting that both you and OP associate negative outlooks with big egos. You both mention how negative people tend to think of themselves as better or more deserving. I wonder if this is an association that really holds water.
Obviously there are things to be learned from the things that aren't broken (so that you know the difference between what works and what doesn't, and a potential solution when you come across something that IS broken), I just don't see the point of focusing on the good. It's good. Yay. Now move on.
I also find it interesting that both you and OP associate negative outlooks with big egos. You both mention how negative people tend to think of themselves as better or more deserving. I wonder if this is an association that really holds water.
I don't think there is any contradiction between being a problem-solver and having a positive outlook on life, as long as you are a competent problem solver and getting a lot of problems solved. Successful problem solving provides both an immediate joy from a "mission accomplished" feeling, and a long term positive outlook that comes with the feeling that because of you, there are less unsolved problems in the world, therefore life is better.
Don`t people become problem-solvers because they enjoy solving problems? And if that is a case, than being presented with a host of unsolved, yet potentially solvable problems should make a problem-solver scream with glee, right?
Don`t people become problem-solvers because they enjoy solving problems? And if that is a case, than being presented with a host of unsolved, yet potentially solvable problems should make a problem-solver scream with glee, right?
I find that people who tackle problems are those who are never quite satisfied. Even after solving a problem, they put it in their rear view and switch to the next problem to solve. There's always more work to be done.
I guess it depends on the depth of your compulsion.
I guess it depends on the depth of your compulsion.
I think you are confusing a problem-solver with a perfectionist. One solves problems because he or she enjoys it. The other because they live in a world that will never match an ideal they hold. The second is doomed to misery no matter what, and I think that is what the OP was saying he moved away from by focusing on the positive.
Or we just have different definitions of what a problem solver is. I define a problem solver as someone who, once taking note of something they identify as a "problem", feels a compulsion to solve said problem. Someone who identifies problems as inherently wrong and solvable. Your definition may be more lax than mine.
Also, I don't think he talked about moving away from perfectionism. He talked about moving away from "how unfair things were, how I deserved more, how other people were causing problems for me, and how I was vastly superior to everyone else." That isn't being a perfectionist, that's being a prat.
Also, I don't think he talked about moving away from perfectionism. He talked about moving away from "how unfair things were, how I deserved more, how other people were causing problems for me, and how I was vastly superior to everyone else." That isn't being a perfectionist, that's being a prat.
The joy of having solved a problem is short in comparison to the unpleasant process of actually solving it.
Ignoring the negative aspects of reality is also not compatible with the mindset of a problem solver.
Ignoring the negative aspects of reality is also not compatible with the mindset of a problem solver.
> Personally, I feel the whole "positive attitude" thing is a detriment. People with "positive attitudes" tend to ignore problems because they don't want to upset others or make waves.
I think I know the kind of people you're talking about, but please don't think all "positive" people are in that same category. I think constructive criticism is great, and in no way do I want to stop giving it or receiving it.
But there's a lot of criticism that goes out of its way to be mean or condescending. And there's a lot of criticism with only one purpose: to make the criticizer look smart. These are not useful and they drown out the constructive feedback.
Sometimes being negative is appropriate! I'm not happy all the time. But it SHOULDN'T be a habit - negativity like that is not helpful to the person doing it and it's not helpful to those around them.
I think I know the kind of people you're talking about, but please don't think all "positive" people are in that same category. I think constructive criticism is great, and in no way do I want to stop giving it or receiving it.
But there's a lot of criticism that goes out of its way to be mean or condescending. And there's a lot of criticism with only one purpose: to make the criticizer look smart. These are not useful and they drown out the constructive feedback.
Sometimes being negative is appropriate! I'm not happy all the time. But it SHOULDN'T be a habit - negativity like that is not helpful to the person doing it and it's not helpful to those around them.
Criticism and complaint are one thing, but I think it boils down to what certain people are able to see. For example, if we're working on a project and I tell you "Hey, I don't think this solution is going to work. There are too many points of failure and something's going to go wrong. We need a plan for when these things go wrong." As a negative person, I focus on all the way things can go wrong. I've envisioned what would happen with each one. But as a positive person, you don't see them. Or, if you do see them, you think they're so unlikely that you don't consider them serious.
Now, if we planned for things to go wrong (as a negative person would) and things go right, all we lose is a little bit of time that was spent creating backup plans. But if we planned for things to go right, and things do go wrong, we're in a situation where we have to scramble.
That's why I think positive attitudes can be detrimental. If you err, I feel you should err on the side of caution, and that typically requires a negative outlook (because positive people won't waste their time on it).
Now, if we planned for things to go wrong (as a negative person would) and things go right, all we lose is a little bit of time that was spent creating backup plans. But if we planned for things to go right, and things do go wrong, we're in a situation where we have to scramble.
That's why I think positive attitudes can be detrimental. If you err, I feel you should err on the side of caution, and that typically requires a negative outlook (because positive people won't waste their time on it).
> As a negative person, I focus on all the way things can go wrong. I've envisioned what would happen with each one. But as a positive person, you don't see them. Or, if you do see them, you think they're so unlikely that you don't consider them serious.
That's interesting, we seem to have wildly different definitions for these words. I view it like this:
As a programmer, I plan for things to go wrong. As a positive person, I try to express it in a constructive way. Caution and forward thinking is not necessarily tied to being negative!!
Planning for when things go wrong isn't just something a negative person would do, it's also something a cautious or sensible person would do. Or an experienced software developer! If I've learned anything from programming it's that no matter how unlikely an error condition seems, it WILL happen sooner or later.
I HAVE seen the kind of person you are talking about though - there are the people who think that just being positive will make bad things less likely to happen, and then people who are just overly optimistic about everything. Not every person who identifies as positive thinks this way though! :)
That's interesting, we seem to have wildly different definitions for these words. I view it like this:
As a programmer, I plan for things to go wrong. As a positive person, I try to express it in a constructive way. Caution and forward thinking is not necessarily tied to being negative!!
Planning for when things go wrong isn't just something a negative person would do, it's also something a cautious or sensible person would do. Or an experienced software developer! If I've learned anything from programming it's that no matter how unlikely an error condition seems, it WILL happen sooner or later.
I HAVE seen the kind of person you are talking about though - there are the people who think that just being positive will make bad things less likely to happen, and then people who are just overly optimistic about everything. Not every person who identifies as positive thinks this way though! :)
It's like employing defensive programming in your everyday. You plan for the unlikely negative event so that you can contain/minimize the impact. . .but you don't dwell on it forever.
> so they focus their efforts on fixing it
Complaining is not focusing your efforts on fixing something. Fixing is fixing. Complaining is complaining. When you complain about a problem instead of helping to build a solution, you become part of the problem.
I don't think this article said anything bad about polite and constructive criticism.
Complaining is not focusing your efforts on fixing something. Fixing is fixing. Complaining is complaining. When you complain about a problem instead of helping to build a solution, you become part of the problem.
I don't think this article said anything bad about polite and constructive criticism.
I'm disagreeing with the articles point of view that the people on Hacker News and other outlets are just complaining about something. Often times people will take any sort of negative discussion and consider it "complaining" regardless of the actual content.
I don't think being positive implies that you're looking the other way when a problem appears. I've noticed recently that my twitter stream is filled with programmers complaining about things not working but... they're not solving them.
The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that you have a problem, isn't it? Drawing attention to an issue is a huge part in getting it solved.
Sure and I'm not disputing that. It's just that there are some prominent programmers that literally only complain for days on end how nothing works.
I'm not sure that quite gets at it, though - because there's there are actually three branches here. Focusing on the problem, pretending there's no problem, and focusing on the solution.
I think that one who focuses on solutions can be positive-focused without ignoring the problem.
I think that one who focuses on solutions can be positive-focused without ignoring the problem.
True, there are three groups of people. But the article posits that just focusing on the negative is problem. I'm saying that it isn't - that you have to focus on the negatives and on the problems in order to solve them. The article specifically says not to focus on the negatives and instead focus on the positives. How do you fix problems (negatives) if you don't focus on them and instead focus on the positives (things that aren't broken)?
There was a spate of articles last yearish that talked about how people who were grumpy or melancholy were actually far better at perceiving reality accurately and were thus better equipped to address problems.
I've worked with programmers who are both positive and care deeply about solving problems. It was very pleasant working with them. I aspire to be as positive as they are.
Also, nothing makes me happier than improving or fixing broken things.
Also, nothing makes me happier than improving or fixing broken things.
I've been working as a developer for about 10 years, and was involved in some tech communities for about 6 or 7 years prior to that (early high school, doing things like LAN parties, Linux install fests, and generally socializing amongst the "nerd" set). If there's an overwhelmingly common personality defect I've seen amongst tech aficionados, it's a proclivity towards the negative.
My observation is that people with highly logical thought processes can often end up developing an outwardly negative approach to most aspects of life. Perhaps it's due to frustrations of dealing with people not as logical as us. Perhaps its a genetic personality defect. While I can't say for certain, I know I'm certainly guilty of it, and though I've made an effort to be better about it (and am), it's still a kind of "default" response I have to the unexpected or things that don't follow the "path" that I imagined. I see a similar pattern amongst many folks in the groups I mentioned.
I will say if anything, the overall demeanor of those groups has become a lot more positive than I remember it being 5-10 (or more) years ago.
My observation is that people with highly logical thought processes can often end up developing an outwardly negative approach to most aspects of life. Perhaps it's due to frustrations of dealing with people not as logical as us. Perhaps its a genetic personality defect. While I can't say for certain, I know I'm certainly guilty of it, and though I've made an effort to be better about it (and am), it's still a kind of "default" response I have to the unexpected or things that don't follow the "path" that I imagined. I see a similar pattern amongst many folks in the groups I mentioned.
I will say if anything, the overall demeanor of those groups has become a lot more positive than I remember it being 5-10 (or more) years ago.
I think using "highly logical thought processes" to excuse (or at least explain) highly negative and antisocial behaviour is an unfortunate, but common, fallacy among some very intelligent people. It's great that you're taking steps to overcome negativity you've seen in yourself.
Did you notice, however, that the only explanations you went to for these negative approaches were "dealing with people not as logical as us" and "genetic personality defect"? What's the common thread in these answers? They're both examples of blame externalization (and thus perserving cognitive dissonance - you're great the way you are!). If it's other people, you're not in the wrong, you don't need to change. If it's genetic, then it's hard-coded, and try as you might, you're going to have a hell of a time fixing it.
Now maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. Who am I to say? Your points aren't invalid, just biased, and it's clear to see where it's coming from. But I think the best way to negate this negativity (ha, ha?) is by having people turn the mirror on themselves, first and foremost, before judging others.
How much of this negativity could be spared to begin with if people just thought about how they would feel in someone else's shoes?
It's awesome that you've seen an upward trend in positivity. You said you've been working on it yourself, you're definitely part of what's making it better!
Did you notice, however, that the only explanations you went to for these negative approaches were "dealing with people not as logical as us" and "genetic personality defect"? What's the common thread in these answers? They're both examples of blame externalization (and thus perserving cognitive dissonance - you're great the way you are!). If it's other people, you're not in the wrong, you don't need to change. If it's genetic, then it's hard-coded, and try as you might, you're going to have a hell of a time fixing it.
Now maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. Who am I to say? Your points aren't invalid, just biased, and it's clear to see where it's coming from. But I think the best way to negate this negativity (ha, ha?) is by having people turn the mirror on themselves, first and foremost, before judging others.
How much of this negativity could be spared to begin with if people just thought about how they would feel in someone else's shoes?
It's awesome that you've seen an upward trend in positivity. You said you've been working on it yourself, you're definitely part of what's making it better!
>having people turn the mirror on themselves, first and foremost, before judging others.
Indeed. In any disagreement you have, there are two people at fault, but only of those faults is in your power to fix.
Indeed. In any disagreement you have, there are two people at fault, but only of those faults is in your power to fix.
I can only speak for myself, but I think the cause is often practical: good things are often baselines that don't need to be changed and can usually be ignored more than the bad things which actually do need to be addressed.
This tends to lead to a very negative outlook, but is more a consequence of pragmatic mental habit than anything.
That said, like everyone else I've noticed that pragmatic negativity doesn't translate well to other parts of life. Switching mindsets from "what's wrong and how does it need to be fixed" to "what's enjoyable" can be quite a leap when you're used to thinking a certain way.
This tends to lead to a very negative outlook, but is more a consequence of pragmatic mental habit than anything.
That said, like everyone else I've noticed that pragmatic negativity doesn't translate well to other parts of life. Switching mindsets from "what's wrong and how does it need to be fixed" to "what's enjoyable" can be quite a leap when you're used to thinking a certain way.
I've got a similar view on the situation - perhaps technical people are trained or enculturated to look out for the things that can be improved/fixed, rather than taking time to celebrate progress and achievement.
Fiction writers tend to be pretty negative people as well. I think writing and programming have one very important thing in common: most people can ignore the ugly parts of humanity. Writers and programmers spend years staring into it. Writers do so to better understand people and write believable characters. Programmers do so to better understand people's behaviors so we can solve their problems.
I work in social games. Nothing makes me more negative than running a user test and finding out that treating your users as if they were mentally deficient 4 year olds results in more people coming back to play again and more people willing to give us their money.
I work in social games. Nothing makes me more negative than running a user test and finding out that treating your users as if they were mentally deficient 4 year olds results in more people coming back to play again and more people willing to give us their money.
I've been around for 30 years and agree with the "proclivity towards negativity" and also with an overall trend towards more positive outlooks.
The more we tolerate this here, the more it will become the norm.
HN's most attractive feature from day one has always been the positive, intelligent, supportive community. Those are not traits you tend to find in your typical 9-5 programmer (in my experience, at least), and are the exact opposite of what you find in the communities that most of our early adopters fled from (Slashdot was already hopeless by 2007, and programming.reddit.com was already headed that way).
But those other communities are dying, and this place has taken over their role as The Place to Talk About Tech Stuff. So we see a lot of their users coming across, bringing with them the general depressive negativity and inclination to snark and hostility. This behavior sometimes doesn't get swatted down fast enough nor ruthlessly enough and bad comments are left to stand. People see these comments and think they're acceptable. And the standards erode.
There's not much to be done about it, unfortunately. We can't kick everybody out, and it's not yet quite bad enough to form a new community and abandon this place to the rabble.
Still, it's worth at least trying to fight. Flag ruthlessly, downvote comments that don't belong here, based on tone rather than disagreement. Upvote the few good things that do in fact belong here. Write good comments and otherwise behave the way you want to see others behave.
HN's most attractive feature from day one has always been the positive, intelligent, supportive community. Those are not traits you tend to find in your typical 9-5 programmer (in my experience, at least), and are the exact opposite of what you find in the communities that most of our early adopters fled from (Slashdot was already hopeless by 2007, and programming.reddit.com was already headed that way).
But those other communities are dying, and this place has taken over their role as The Place to Talk About Tech Stuff. So we see a lot of their users coming across, bringing with them the general depressive negativity and inclination to snark and hostility. This behavior sometimes doesn't get swatted down fast enough nor ruthlessly enough and bad comments are left to stand. People see these comments and think they're acceptable. And the standards erode.
There's not much to be done about it, unfortunately. We can't kick everybody out, and it's not yet quite bad enough to form a new community and abandon this place to the rabble.
Still, it's worth at least trying to fight. Flag ruthlessly, downvote comments that don't belong here, based on tone rather than disagreement. Upvote the few good things that do in fact belong here. Write good comments and otherwise behave the way you want to see others behave.
I think that there is a clear distinction between pure negativity and "snark" or sardonicism. It is possible to be genuinely, objectively critical of things without being arrogant or sarcastic. Criticism is a necessary facet of discussion, and is indicative of a thoughtful community. "Asshole-sim" is not. I'm of the belief that the discussion on HN tends towards the former.
>This behavior sometimes doesn't get swatted down fast enough nor ruthlessly enough and bad comments are left to stand. People see these comments and think they're acceptable. And the standards erode.
>Flag ruthlessly, downvote comments that don't belong here, based on tone rather than disagreement.
I'm unsure of what you're advocating for. Are you for expunging the hyper-negative, misogynistic near-spam of Reddit, or for doing away with negativity entirely? (My hunch is latter, as fighting spam is trivially excepted and needn't be argued.) The latter is incredibly dangerous and will work to the detriment of the community inasmuch as HN, as a community of generally-intelligent individuals, is capable of analyzing a story to a greater extend than most news organizations or communities; and some sort of assault on negativity would remove the ability for one to introduce warranted skepticism or to dissent from general discussion. Skepticism, contrarianism, criticism, etc. are incredibly valuable tools and are fundamental to HN and to discourse in general. One should not have the merits of their ideas judged solely on the "tone" articulated by them, and HN should certainly not seek to create institutionalized positivity.
>This behavior sometimes doesn't get swatted down fast enough nor ruthlessly enough and bad comments are left to stand. People see these comments and think they're acceptable. And the standards erode.
>Flag ruthlessly, downvote comments that don't belong here, based on tone rather than disagreement.
I'm unsure of what you're advocating for. Are you for expunging the hyper-negative, misogynistic near-spam of Reddit, or for doing away with negativity entirely? (My hunch is latter, as fighting spam is trivially excepted and needn't be argued.) The latter is incredibly dangerous and will work to the detriment of the community inasmuch as HN, as a community of generally-intelligent individuals, is capable of analyzing a story to a greater extend than most news organizations or communities; and some sort of assault on negativity would remove the ability for one to introduce warranted skepticism or to dissent from general discussion. Skepticism, contrarianism, criticism, etc. are incredibly valuable tools and are fundamental to HN and to discourse in general. One should not have the merits of their ideas judged solely on the "tone" articulated by them, and HN should certainly not seek to create institutionalized positivity.
"Skepticism, contrarianism, criticism, etc. are incredibly valuable tools and are fundamental to HN and to discourse in general. One should not have the merits of their ideas judged solely on the "tone" articulated by them, and HN should certainly not seek to create institutionalized positivity."
Completely agree with you. I've seen way too many comments that where downvoted only because of the tone (even though the content itself was very relevant), or because it expressed a dissident, politically incorrect idea. When I see such a comment being downvoted, I automatically upvote it, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the content. I don't hang out here to read opinions I'm already agreeing with. I'm far more interested in intelligently argumented opinions that contradict mine. So, no it's not fun to be bashed by the sarcasms of someone else, but if the opinion contained in the bashing is relevant, then we should just suck it up, and answer to the content.
Completely agree with you. I've seen way too many comments that where downvoted only because of the tone (even though the content itself was very relevant), or because it expressed a dissident, politically incorrect idea. When I see such a comment being downvoted, I automatically upvote it, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the content. I don't hang out here to read opinions I'm already agreeing with. I'm far more interested in intelligently argumented opinions that contradict mine. So, no it's not fun to be bashed by the sarcasms of someone else, but if the opinion contained in the bashing is relevant, then we should just suck it up, and answer to the content.
You're mistaken. A comment with good ideas presented in an insulting/snarky/offensive tone should get downvoted here. In that rare case, it's often helpful to write a comment explaining why it was downvoted (perhaps even with a link to the guidelines), and encourage the poster to rewrite it in a tone that fits the room it was spoken in.
Some people will understand, rewrite, and become productive members of the community. Others will get offended, write back with an angry rant about censorship or something, and with luck find themselves hellbanned. Those are the people who just aren't ever going to be welcome here. Fortunately, the rest of the internet seems designed for them to fit right in.
Some people will understand, rewrite, and become productive members of the community. Others will get offended, write back with an angry rant about censorship or something, and with luck find themselves hellbanned. Those are the people who just aren't ever going to be welcome here. Fortunately, the rest of the internet seems designed for them to fit right in.
Observe this thread for dozens of examples of comments that just aren't high enough quality to be on this site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5453757
Anger, silly jokes, one-liners and memes are all over that thread. The fact that so much of it will still be there at the end of the day is the problem we're facing.
Compare to the discussion on this item, with people stating real arguments using entire paragraphs. Plenty of disagreement, certainly some negativity, but mostly civil (or greyed out).
So no, we're not trying to get rid of negativity. We're just trying to maintain a place where adults can hold civil conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5453757
Anger, silly jokes, one-liners and memes are all over that thread. The fact that so much of it will still be there at the end of the day is the problem we're facing.
Compare to the discussion on this item, with people stating real arguments using entire paragraphs. Plenty of disagreement, certainly some negativity, but mostly civil (or greyed out).
So no, we're not trying to get rid of negativity. We're just trying to maintain a place where adults can hold civil conversation.
Thanks for the link. I remember the first time i made a really silly comment without reading the full story i was put into place (downvoted ruthlessly) by the community and i knew i had done something terrible. This is the post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2825177. From then on i really took sometime without commenting on hn not because i was angry, but because i was scared of being downvoted. It taught me i needed to get my facts right before commenting on hn however much harm i never meant to cause.
You're right this is a cycle I've seen time and again online. I've been using the Internet since before the web, and seen this cycle again and again... newsgroups becoming popular, the negative argumentative types moving in, folks who weren't that way getting dragged into the negativity (I know I've been dragged there myself), then they just become festering shells of what they once were as the nice people move on and just the negativity remains to harshly parody the original community...
The same has happened with web community after web community I've enjoyed only to see them get popular... slashdot was good once. Heck, there was even a time when you could get a civilized conversation in TechCrunch comment threads.
So, with the obvious caveat of http://www.despair.com/dysfunction.html ...I sincerely hope that HN doesn't end up going down that road too.
Long winded way of saying I like your comment and I'm gonna try to take the advice.
The same has happened with web community after web community I've enjoyed only to see them get popular... slashdot was good once. Heck, there was even a time when you could get a civilized conversation in TechCrunch comment threads.
So, with the obvious caveat of http://www.despair.com/dysfunction.html ...I sincerely hope that HN doesn't end up going down that road too.
Long winded way of saying I like your comment and I'm gonna try to take the advice.
Slashdot's current state really breaks my heart. Even with the occasional drive-by troll or the "apk" lunatic (what's his deal anyway?) things were tolerable, but lately it seems some of the older posters have lost interest and moved on (maybe to HN? Ha!) or have reverted to petty squabbling and deliberate obtuseness. I mostly go there to read comments from the veterans who've stuck around over the years and only recently bothered with creating an account. Thankfully there are still nuggets of gold among the threads.
There's a tricky Goldilocks zone when it comes to any forum and the biggest challenge is not treating it as a personal blog. You share ideas, yes, but the very platform demands you give up some control. Of how your ideas are perceived, what feedback you get and even weather those ideas are welcome in the first place. And all communities change... away from a Beowulf cluster of X and into the cloud, I suppose.
Trying too hard to hold new members to the light of older burning candles will cause them to flicker out or if you just let them burn willy-nilly, you risk starting a fire.
I'm hopeful we're not all doomed to walled gardens the likes of Twitter and Facebook just to avoid negativity raining on our parade (of course even they're not devoid of doom and gloom either, but "blocks" do give you an umbrella of sorts).
There's a tricky Goldilocks zone when it comes to any forum and the biggest challenge is not treating it as a personal blog. You share ideas, yes, but the very platform demands you give up some control. Of how your ideas are perceived, what feedback you get and even weather those ideas are welcome in the first place. And all communities change... away from a Beowulf cluster of X and into the cloud, I suppose.
Trying too hard to hold new members to the light of older burning candles will cause them to flicker out or if you just let them burn willy-nilly, you risk starting a fire.
I'm hopeful we're not all doomed to walled gardens the likes of Twitter and Facebook just to avoid negativity raining on our parade (of course even they're not devoid of doom and gloom either, but "blocks" do give you an umbrella of sorts).
Slashdot used to be full of field experts discussing ideas and tech, you could see discusions on there from genuine industry and academic luminaries. Most of them have long since left as it devolved into negativity, trolling and fanboyism.
I stopped going there when it became obvious the the first posts on many topics were no longer genuine. Not only were the subject-matter experts gone, but the 'discussion' was being led by paid reputation managers who had prepared statements on various things.
Slashdot is dead so far as I'm concerned.
I stopped going there when it became obvious the the first posts on many topics were no longer genuine. Not only were the subject-matter experts gone, but the 'discussion' was being led by paid reputation managers who had prepared statements on various things.
Slashdot is dead so far as I'm concerned.
> HN's most attractive feature from day one has always been the positive, intelligent, supportive community. Those are not traits you tend to find in your typical 9-5 programmer
I guess this is because HN attracts people that aren't just programmers but also entrepreneurs. A good hacker has to figure out worst-case scenarios. A good entrepreneur, on the other hand, has to look for value in everything to find business opportunities.
I guess this is because HN attracts people that aren't just programmers but also entrepreneurs. A good hacker has to figure out worst-case scenarios. A good entrepreneur, on the other hand, has to look for value in everything to find business opportunities.
Also, many of the issues that the OP touched are serious that need to be addressed by the community (i.e. sexism). Discussing this issues doesn't make us negative people, is just that those are real problems that need to be solved.
Or maybe we complain, to take the example of sexism, because there is a real problem. That needs to be addressed.
And given that the first two items you address are code of conduct & sexism, I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that". To be very clear, not because I think all white males are mean-spirited misogynists. Most of them are pretty nice people, in my experience.
But because being part of the majority blinds people to minority issues. And so, while I agree it's important to keep a positive outlook on life, I suggest that especially for issues that don't affect you directly, you take a deep look if this is really just "negativity", or if there's a real issue lurking beyond that.
And then let's fix them. In a positive way :)
And given that the first two items you address are code of conduct & sexism, I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that". To be very clear, not because I think all white males are mean-spirited misogynists. Most of them are pretty nice people, in my experience.
But because being part of the majority blinds people to minority issues. And so, while I agree it's important to keep a positive outlook on life, I suggest that especially for issues that don't affect you directly, you take a deep look if this is really just "negativity", or if there's a real issue lurking beyond that.
And then let's fix them. In a positive way :)
Author here. I completely agree with you that those are real problems. I have a great wife (and sisters) who have experienced varying levels of sexism in the technical world as well, and it really bothers me.
I didn't mean in my article that we should all be blind to the bad things going on, I just feel like people quickly jump to negative conclusions and go into pitchfork mode all too quickly. Constantly focusing on the negatives can be a real emotional drain. It's a lot easier to focus on the positives and solving problems. For instance, it's quite great that PyCon this year had over 20% female attendees! That's a big accomplishment compared to previous years' stats. In addition, the code of conduct and public outreach made a lot of people feel welcome and safe attending the event, which is a big win for everyone!
When bad things happen, they must certainly be brought to light -- but discussion around these problems could be far more constructive if people were to focus their efforts and energy on resolving issues and working together rather than blaming one another and becoming defensive or close-minded.
The first step to solving problems is always to identify the problem, but the attitude you take to solving problems can make a huge difference both to yourself and to your peers.
Thank you for the comment, I'm really surprised to see so many interesting viewpoints about this topic.
I didn't mean in my article that we should all be blind to the bad things going on, I just feel like people quickly jump to negative conclusions and go into pitchfork mode all too quickly. Constantly focusing on the negatives can be a real emotional drain. It's a lot easier to focus on the positives and solving problems. For instance, it's quite great that PyCon this year had over 20% female attendees! That's a big accomplishment compared to previous years' stats. In addition, the code of conduct and public outreach made a lot of people feel welcome and safe attending the event, which is a big win for everyone!
When bad things happen, they must certainly be brought to light -- but discussion around these problems could be far more constructive if people were to focus their efforts and energy on resolving issues and working together rather than blaming one another and becoming defensive or close-minded.
The first step to solving problems is always to identify the problem, but the attitude you take to solving problems can make a huge difference both to yourself and to your peers.
Thank you for the comment, I'm really surprised to see so many interesting viewpoints about this topic.
> and go into pitchfork mode all too quickly
Oh, I agree with you there.
> but the attitude you take to solving problems can make a huge difference both to yourself and to your peers.
That's an excellent insight, and one that's hard to keep in mind, at times. Especially if most attempts at fixing a problem are greeted by essentially a wave of bile and hate. It's easy to forget that most people are decent, when the Internet makes it easy to only see the loudest ones.
That's where I'd say I disagree with you - it's not easy to focus on the positive. It depends on the reaction of your peers. Yes, we must be the change we wish to see in the world - but emulating Ghandi all the time is something only very few succeed at.
Thank you for the reminder that it's worth trying, though.
Oh, I agree with you there.
> but the attitude you take to solving problems can make a huge difference both to yourself and to your peers.
That's an excellent insight, and one that's hard to keep in mind, at times. Especially if most attempts at fixing a problem are greeted by essentially a wave of bile and hate. It's easy to forget that most people are decent, when the Internet makes it easy to only see the loudest ones.
That's where I'd say I disagree with you - it's not easy to focus on the positive. It depends on the reaction of your peers. Yes, we must be the change we wish to see in the world - but emulating Ghandi all the time is something only very few succeed at.
Thank you for the reminder that it's worth trying, though.
I can't help but think "Of course
a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that"
I've used this particular statement as a rhetorical device.
But yes, yes I do. All the time. I try to catch myself doing it, and not let myself be influenced by it. Having biases/stereotyping is not the issue - we're predisposed to snap judgments. Recognizing it, and deciding how we act upon it is the issue.
As such, I'm still OK with my statement. (Except that I'd re-edit to "majority often blinds people). I call out a condition that actually exists, and ask to take it into consideration - I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser.
And had I followed this up with "and so you can't possibly get it, and you're a $INSULT, and you're intentionally suppressing women", then yes, you should call me out on this and tell me that I'm wrong. (And that my manners need fixing)
Being part of a minority does not excuse bad behavior.
But yes, yes I do. All the time. I try to catch myself doing it, and not let myself be influenced by it. Having biases/stereotyping is not the issue - we're predisposed to snap judgments. Recognizing it, and deciding how we act upon it is the issue.
As such, I'm still OK with my statement. (Except that I'd re-edit to "majority often blinds people). I call out a condition that actually exists, and ask to take it into consideration - I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser.
And had I followed this up with "and so you can't possibly get it, and you're a $INSULT, and you're intentionally suppressing women", then yes, you should call me out on this and tell me that I'm wrong. (And that my manners need fixing)
Being part of a minority does not excuse bad behavior.
>I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser
1. Drawing the category is in itself an act of segregation.
2. Claiming to know each person in a class of people better than they know themselves is inherently treating them as lesser. It is the definition of claiming superiority.
"Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!"
1. Drawing the category is in itself an act of segregation.
2. Claiming to know each person in a class of people better than they know themselves is inherently treating them as lesser. It is the definition of claiming superiority.
"Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!"
This is a good example of focusing on the negativity. It could have been interpreted in so many different ways and I am sure your interpretation is not what the author meant.
Before responding any further please re-read your message , then read it one more time.
Before responding any further please re-read your message , then read it one more time.
I'm sorry, I don't play the new age game. Facts are facts and if you have an actual rebuttal I'd love to hear it.
In the nicest way possible: You are coming off as extraordinarily abrasive. If you think that doesn't matter because "facts are facts", you must be new to human society.
I don't mean to come off as _extraordinarily_ abrasive, though I do mean to convey my sentiment strongly. I do not think that overlooking the actual content of what somebody says in the name of "thinking positive" is good, or healthy, or itself positive at all.
When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. Yet the person explicitly stated that (s)he did not segregate. That is a contradiction.
I get what OP was probably trying to say, but (s)he emphatically did not say that. I see it all the time on HN and elsewhere: trying to fight one form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misogyny) with another form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misandry). As though this leads to some sort of mystic equilibrium where poof! all discrimination disappears. If human history can teach us anything it's that this equilibrium never happens. So maybe instead of allowing sloppy categorization and overlooking it in the name of staying positive, we should admit when we draw faulty distinctions and take pains to not make draw in the future.
When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. Yet the person explicitly stated that (s)he did not segregate. That is a contradiction.
I get what OP was probably trying to say, but (s)he emphatically did not say that. I see it all the time on HN and elsewhere: trying to fight one form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misogyny) with another form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misandry). As though this leads to some sort of mystic equilibrium where poof! all discrimination disappears. If human history can teach us anything it's that this equilibrium never happens. So maybe instead of allowing sloppy categorization and overlooking it in the name of staying positive, we should admit when we draw faulty distinctions and take pains to not make draw in the future.
> When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said.
So, look, here's the problem: that never happened. I shouldn't have to quote something that's just a few comments up, but here it is: "... I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that". To be very clear, not because I think all white males are mean-spirited misogynists. ... But because being part of the majority blinds people to minority issues."[0]
Mind you, that's not the post you responded to. The post you responded to was a bit of a backpedaling from that utterly inoffensive statement. From that you read, quoting again, "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!"
That sentiment or anything like it exists nowhere in anything that was said. That goes quite a bit farther than simply not assuming good faith. I used the term "extraordinarily abrasive" quite deliberately, since where your parent reads as reasoned and contrite, you come off as slightly psychotic.
If that's the sentiment you intended strongly to convey, you have succeeded.
[0] Neither here nor there, but as a white male I find nothing the least bit challenging in that. It's completely true (if a bit oversimplified).
So, look, here's the problem: that never happened. I shouldn't have to quote something that's just a few comments up, but here it is: "... I can't help but think "Of course a white male programmer wouldn't see an issue with that". To be very clear, not because I think all white males are mean-spirited misogynists. ... But because being part of the majority blinds people to minority issues."[0]
Mind you, that's not the post you responded to. The post you responded to was a bit of a backpedaling from that utterly inoffensive statement. From that you read, quoting again, "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here, let me tell you what's up!"
That sentiment or anything like it exists nowhere in anything that was said. That goes quite a bit farther than simply not assuming good faith. I used the term "extraordinarily abrasive" quite deliberately, since where your parent reads as reasoned and contrite, you come off as slightly psychotic.
If that's the sentiment you intended strongly to convey, you have succeeded.
[0] Neither here nor there, but as a white male I find nothing the least bit challenging in that. It's completely true (if a bit oversimplified).
>So, look, here's the problem: that never happened
Yes it did. You quoted the very sentence. Twice. Now try parsing it.
>From that you read...
Because that is what it says. Here, let me break it down.
"Of course": of course
a white male programmer": a person who fits in the categories "white" and "programmer"
"wouldn't see an issue with that" can't see sexism or code of conduct violations.
The category: white male programmers. The attribute: blind to sexism and code of conduct violations. Necessarily.
>The post you responded to was a bit of a backpedaling from that utterly inoffensive statement.
That statement is orders of magnitude more offensive than making a joke about a dongle. Classifying an entire sex and race and telling them (or others) what they see is the road to atrocity. And it wasn't a backpedal, it was a rationalization/justification referring directly to the OP (>I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser.).
>That sentiment or anything like it exists nowhere in anything that was said
That sentiment is the _basis_ for what was said. OP felt (s)he had superior knowledge and insight to white males and used this position to explain to them how they perceive the world.
I'm not even going to comment on your trivialization of mental health issues. Nice one!
>but as a white male I find nothing the least bit challenging in that
Okay then, enjoy your life. Stay positive!
Yes it did. You quoted the very sentence. Twice. Now try parsing it.
>From that you read...
Because that is what it says. Here, let me break it down.
"Of course": of course
a white male programmer": a person who fits in the categories "white" and "programmer"
"wouldn't see an issue with that" can't see sexism or code of conduct violations.
The category: white male programmers. The attribute: blind to sexism and code of conduct violations. Necessarily.
>The post you responded to was a bit of a backpedaling from that utterly inoffensive statement.
That statement is orders of magnitude more offensive than making a joke about a dongle. Classifying an entire sex and race and telling them (or others) what they see is the road to atrocity. And it wasn't a backpedal, it was a rationalization/justification referring directly to the OP (>I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser.).
>That sentiment or anything like it exists nowhere in anything that was said
That sentiment is the _basis_ for what was said. OP felt (s)he had superior knowledge and insight to white males and used this position to explain to them how they perceive the world.
I'm not even going to comment on your trivialization of mental health issues. Nice one!
>but as a white male I find nothing the least bit challenging in that
Okay then, enjoy your life. Stay positive!
I'm not sure what to tell you, except that, like the post you replied to said, "Of course [you] would think that" is a common rhetorical device in idiomatic English that in this context really, really does not mean what you seem to want it to mean. Your parent clearly does not think nor did express any statement of the form "all X are Y", and took great pains to make that, and their actual point, clear, and your "parsing" of that one sentence to make it into something close is exactly what the damn blog post is about.
I'm sorry that you feel I've trivialized mental health issues, but I will say that I've known psychotic people IRL, and again, I used the phrase "slightly psychotic" quite deliberately.
I'm sorry that you feel I've trivialized mental health issues, but I will say that I've known psychotic people IRL, and again, I used the phrase "slightly psychotic" quite deliberately.
I think you need to read the post again. It's not unreasonable to think that white males don't necessarily understand minority issues as they are vastly the majority in this community. He never claimed it was inherent or universal or even insurmountable. I don't even view what he said as negative, just trying to remind people of their potential biases.
Anyway, get off your high horse. We all stereotype, it's natural, and it's often very useful for seeing patterns in populations and hypothesizing a cause or correlation. There are definite trends that aren't just people stereotyping: men don't generally wear dresses, women don't generally go around topless to the same extent men do. Those are complete stereotypes that're pretty essential for understanding society.
Anyway, get off your high horse. We all stereotype, it's natural, and it's often very useful for seeing patterns in populations and hypothesizing a cause or correlation. There are definite trends that aren't just people stereotyping: men don't generally wear dresses, women don't generally go around topless to the same extent men do. Those are complete stereotypes that're pretty essential for understanding society.
[deleted]
> white male programmer
> And then let's fix them.
Ok, so stop with your sexists & racist stereotypes.
> And then let's fix them.
Ok, so stop with your sexists & racist stereotypes.
White male programmers do have a tendency to be tone deaf to discrimination. Not because they're white or male (that would be a sexist/racist stereotype), but because white-and-male is the dominant demographic in our society, and people who are part of the dominant demographic tend to be less aware and conscious of the comparative disadvantages faced by people who are not part of that demographic.
Amazing, first paragraph defines sexism as problem, second paragraphs defines very gently male-whites as pigs (but not all of them of course).
Reminds me a job ad I had seen recently. In first paragraph: "we support equal opportunities for minorities, if you are X,Y,Z or W please apply". Just under it was age limit 45 years. This was desk-based administrator position for major government agency.
Reminds me a job ad I had seen recently. In first paragraph: "we support equal opportunities for minorities, if you are X,Y,Z or W please apply". Just under it was age limit 45 years. This was desk-based administrator position for major government agency.
I remember sitting in a meeting some years ago and we were discussing a new issue tracking system that was being demoed on the projector. The editor component took a full 10 to 15 seconds to load into the page every time. So I said "that editor sucks". It was one of the few things I had said during the meeting.
The manager was very irritated and said something like "We don't tolerate that kind of negativity here". And continued, as if I had said something awful. He said something like "unless you have a solution to a problem" something something in the process of explaining why I shouldn't say that.
So five minutes after the meeting I found out how to disable the slow graphical editor and then the issue tracker became usable for normal people.
Well, I guess I am a negative person then. If it sucks, it sucks.
I will try to take some of this advice constructively though, because I do spend a lot of time focusing on problems that need to be solved. But I can't help but think that the reason a lot of people aren't so critical or 'negative' is that they have just given up on fixing things, or are just so generally ineffective at problem solving that they naturally accept everything as it is.
I would rather be a negative bastard who identifies and solves problems than a happy ineffectual drone who just goes along to get along and accepts the status quo no matter how broken.
The manager was very irritated and said something like "We don't tolerate that kind of negativity here". And continued, as if I had said something awful. He said something like "unless you have a solution to a problem" something something in the process of explaining why I shouldn't say that.
So five minutes after the meeting I found out how to disable the slow graphical editor and then the issue tracker became usable for normal people.
Well, I guess I am a negative person then. If it sucks, it sucks.
I will try to take some of this advice constructively though, because I do spend a lot of time focusing on problems that need to be solved. But I can't help but think that the reason a lot of people aren't so critical or 'negative' is that they have just given up on fixing things, or are just so generally ineffective at problem solving that they naturally accept everything as it is.
I would rather be a negative bastard who identifies and solves problems than a happy ineffectual drone who just goes along to get along and accepts the status quo no matter how broken.
The problem isn't that you raise the issue, the problem is the aggressive language "sucks". Not has problems, not is limited, "sucks".
The guy writing it probably knows it has problems. He's probably working really hard on it. Maybe he stayed late at work to try to improve it, instead of seeing his girlfriend. And you come along and just say "sucks". Even if he wasn't there, you're still having a go at him in front of other people.
Being polite, diplomatic, calm and considered is not being an "ineffectual drone". You're falling into that mindset that you have to be a cunt to get stuff done. You don't.
The guy writing it probably knows it has problems. He's probably working really hard on it. Maybe he stayed late at work to try to improve it, instead of seeing his girlfriend. And you come along and just say "sucks". Even if he wasn't there, you're still having a go at him in front of other people.
Being polite, diplomatic, calm and considered is not being an "ineffectual drone". You're falling into that mindset that you have to be a cunt to get stuff done. You don't.
This is exactly the kind of thing the article is complaining about. You could say "that long load time is going to be bad for productivity", it's a valid criticism and deserves a response by whoever is explaining the tool. But you don't, you say "that editor sucks". It's aggressively negative language which doesn't even specify a problem.
Whoever is recommending this system is likely nervous, and very invested in what people think of it, so you saying "it sucks" will feel like a personal attack. It's completely unnecessary.
Whoever is recommending this system is likely nervous, and very invested in what people think of it, so you saying "it sucks" will feel like a personal attack. It's completely unnecessary.
If you solve problems, negativity isn't as much of a problem. If you spend all your time finding problems that other people should be solving, that is more problematic.
I think we tend to be negative, especially wrt software, because we know how it could be. So we apply that filter without also applying the "what did it take to get where it is" filter.
I think we tend to be negative, especially wrt software, because we know how it could be. So we apply that filter without also applying the "what did it take to get where it is" filter.
> The first (and only) thing that immediately came to mind was that I wanted to be a better person: I wanted to be smarter, more successful, and happy.
When I read this, the first thing I thought of is, "Well that's your problem."
To me, based on my experiences and what I've read and observed from other people, many people find the most happiness from focusing less on oneself, and focusing more on others.
What can I do to enhance the life of someone else? What can I do to make a positive impact on others? What can I do to make a difference on the well being of society?
But instead, it seems like the thought of the quoted sentence is focusing more on benefiting oneself -- make me smarter, make me more successful, make me happier.
Don't get me wrong, I'm talking to myself as well, because I often find myself too focused on me. But I feel that when I instead start to focus on having a positive impact on someone else, that's when I start to experience genuine happiness. That's what I feel makes me a better person.
When I read this, the first thing I thought of is, "Well that's your problem."
To me, based on my experiences and what I've read and observed from other people, many people find the most happiness from focusing less on oneself, and focusing more on others.
What can I do to enhance the life of someone else? What can I do to make a positive impact on others? What can I do to make a difference on the well being of society?
But instead, it seems like the thought of the quoted sentence is focusing more on benefiting oneself -- make me smarter, make me more successful, make me happier.
Don't get me wrong, I'm talking to myself as well, because I often find myself too focused on me. But I feel that when I instead start to focus on having a positive impact on someone else, that's when I start to experience genuine happiness. That's what I feel makes me a better person.
It's a little bit of a Catch-22, but focusing on self first definitely improves happiness. About 9 years ago, I had terrible anger issues, over weight and all the stereotypes of the computer dork. One day, after sitting on WoW for 4 hours waiting to buy Arena points, I thought "What am I doing with myself?" and shifted gears to working out.
That moment of selfishness, is what helped pull me out of whatever rut I was in. 8 years later, I have a black belt in one martial art, a blue in a second, and I'm offering nutritional tips to friends and family.
Happiness doesn't have to be volunteering at the soup kitchen every week, but the general "Don't be a dick to anyone" can really boost your mood. I'm not saying be a doormat, stand your ground, but don't be a dick about it either.
That moment of selfishness, is what helped pull me out of whatever rut I was in. 8 years later, I have a black belt in one martial art, a blue in a second, and I'm offering nutritional tips to friends and family.
Happiness doesn't have to be volunteering at the soup kitchen every week, but the general "Don't be a dick to anyone" can really boost your mood. I'm not saying be a doormat, stand your ground, but don't be a dick about it either.
> About 9 years ago [...] after sitting on WoW for 4 hours waiting to buy Arena points
I don't doubt your story, but your timeline is off. Arena was introduced with BC, which was Jan 2007 -- 6 years ago, not 9. It would have been impossible to buy arena points 9 years ago because they didn't exist.
That aside, I don't see that as selfishness, just introspection. If selfishness is doing something for your own benefit, then you did an unselfish thing. You made the lives of everyone around you better, and contributed more to your family and society. That isn't selfish!
I don't doubt your story, but your timeline is off. Arena was introduced with BC, which was Jan 2007 -- 6 years ago, not 9. It would have been impossible to buy arena points 9 years ago because they didn't exist.
That aside, I don't see that as selfishness, just introspection. If selfishness is doing something for your own benefit, then you did an unselfish thing. You made the lives of everyone around you better, and contributed more to your family and society. That isn't selfish!
You're right, my math was way off, thanks for catching that. It was still Arena points, cause I remember quitting the next day.
Yeah, I think my original point got lost. I certainly agree that you have to work things out within yourself before you can start to focus on others.
The main point of my post was a reaction to the point I quoted. Based on that quote, it sounded like the OP was focusing on parts of self that may not result in happiness or becoming a better, positive person -- success and intelligence.
I know many people that are successful and intelligent, but aren't happy or positive -- at all.
The main point of my post was a reaction to the point I quoted. Based on that quote, it sounded like the OP was focusing on parts of self that may not result in happiness or becoming a better, positive person -- success and intelligence.
I know many people that are successful and intelligent, but aren't happy or positive -- at all.
> What can I do to have a real impact on the well being of society?
From my own experience, it is infinitely easier to make me better than to discover what I can do for society. I'd love to make products that help society, but damn it that's hard. Maybe if I just focus on myself I can make me happy.
So far it's worked. I'm still looking for something I can do to help society. Until then, I'm working on things that help me level up to a point where I can execute on grand ideas.
From my own experience, it is infinitely easier to make me better than to discover what I can do for society. I'd love to make products that help society, but damn it that's hard. Maybe if I just focus on myself I can make me happy.
So far it's worked. I'm still looking for something I can do to help society. Until then, I'm working on things that help me level up to a point where I can execute on grand ideas.
But not even in the scope of society. I agree, that's hard, and if you can pull it off, you will reap great rewards.
But I'm also talking about being a positive influence on others around you. To your friends, coworkers, family, significant other, etc. These are the people we can feasibly impact. Truly think about and focus on these relationships, and be a "better" person for the benefit of these people.
But I'm also talking about being a positive influence on others around you. To your friends, coworkers, family, significant other, etc. These are the people we can feasibly impact. Truly think about and focus on these relationships, and be a "better" person for the benefit of these people.
Just curious - why not jump on the grand ideas now? (I would assume the usual reasons.. financial, time, etc.)
Reach. And to an extent money.
Money is easy-ish to get, but reach takes time to build.
MOst importantly though, I don't have any ideas I would consider good. Or possibly ideas I would consider myself able to carry out. Probably both.
Money is easy-ish to get, but reach takes time to build.
MOst importantly though, I don't have any ideas I would consider good. Or possibly ideas I would consider myself able to carry out. Probably both.
Maybe try the altucher approach: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/02/how-to-be-the-luckiest-...
Basically he picks random topics and writes lots of ideas about them every day in order to train his mind to think in that way.
True, but for car to move ahead - engine needs to be cleaned first of inner garbage (eliminating emotional pain and replacing negativity with positive personal attitude).
Once engine is clean - the car can move. Forward (aiming to help others) or backwards (trying to please oneself which cause accumulation of inner garbage again).
Once engine is clean - the car can move. Forward (aiming to help others) or backwards (trying to please oneself which cause accumulation of inner garbage again).
Oh yeah, I definitely agree with that.
But to me, personal "maintenance" has more to do with introspecting on things are stopping you from moving forward as a person.
Intelligence and success, I think these aren't part of that maintenance. For example, I can think of many people that aren't profoundly intelligent and/or successful, but have a great impact on others, even society, and thus are very happy, positive people.
But to me, personal "maintenance" has more to do with introspecting on things are stopping you from moving forward as a person.
Intelligence and success, I think these aren't part of that maintenance. For example, I can think of many people that aren't profoundly intelligent and/or successful, but have a great impact on others, even society, and thus are very happy, positive people.
I agree but for that to work "others" need to be people that you believe need/deserve whatever it is you are doing.
That is hard to do if you actively dislike the company you work for.
That is hard to do if you actively dislike the company you work for.
"...many people find the most happiness from focusing less on oneself, and focusing more on others."
My experience confirms this...
Reference: Wittgenstein, Tractatus 6.43, and below.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5740
and some quotes
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
My experience confirms this...
Reference: Wittgenstein, Tractatus 6.43, and below.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5740
and some quotes
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
Focusing on others is great, if it gives you purpose and it's of your own volition (of course most people will preach to you to be selfless - your selflessness might indirectly benefit them...).
Loved this post.
I've noticed many of the characteristics Randall described about his "old" self, and in the past few months I have made it a goal for myself to be less negative, and make a conscious effort to notice when I am being very negative.
I've noticed many of the characteristics Randall described about his "old" self, and in the past few months I have made it a goal for myself to be less negative, and make a conscious effort to notice when I am being very negative.
This is stupid and nobody likes it. Go back to your terrible life as a terrible person who nobody likes.
But in all seriousness, I think you do have to take the negative with the positive, so long as both are constructive. It'd be stupid to take something sexist and cast it aside and make jokes about it as if it doesn't matter. Because it does matter. The technical community is negative because it has certain requirements that are not met. The government is doing bad things, as are private corporations. We cannot ignore these things because they are negative. But I agree that we should find positives. The trick is that, in good discussion, positive and negative are unimportant. What matters is constructiveness.
Saying 'This is great!' is just as useless as saying 'This sucks!'. Positive conversation is fine, but it is not necessary in intelligent discussion, because not every topic is inherently positive.
But in all seriousness, I think you do have to take the negative with the positive, so long as both are constructive. It'd be stupid to take something sexist and cast it aside and make jokes about it as if it doesn't matter. Because it does matter. The technical community is negative because it has certain requirements that are not met. The government is doing bad things, as are private corporations. We cannot ignore these things because they are negative. But I agree that we should find positives. The trick is that, in good discussion, positive and negative are unimportant. What matters is constructiveness.
Saying 'This is great!' is just as useless as saying 'This sucks!'. Positive conversation is fine, but it is not necessary in intelligent discussion, because not every topic is inherently positive.
> "Accept the behavior of others as it is, and don't allow yourself to project your desired behavior onto others."
If you could only read one sentence in TFA, this should be it.
To it, I would also just add: "Instead, show others how you would have them behave by behaving that way yourself."
If you could only read one sentence in TFA, this should be it.
To it, I would also just add: "Instead, show others how you would have them behave by behaving that way yourself."
I wholeheartedly agree. I've noticed it a lot over the last while where many people in the software industry who write blog posts or contribute to forums just have an air of negativity about them. That being said, I'm sure no matter where you look there will be plenty of people who focus on the negatives in life, that's just in their nature.
My preference is to be a positive person and focus on making my life (and hopefully other people's lives) happy and reading blog posts by similar minded people only reinforces that.
My preference is to be a positive person and focus on making my life (and hopefully other people's lives) happy and reading blog posts by similar minded people only reinforces that.
There's a nice book about positive attitude, "Bright Sided" by Barbara Ehrenreich (IIRC). Follows the history of positive thinking from the epoch of calvinism up until today. Will be useful to read for you.
Sure, frustration reduces happiness.
However, many things were created (or fixed) exactly because of frustration (sometimes it is the best motivation for solving real, burning problems, instead of artificial ones).
Likewise, perfectionism is almost always painful for both the person in charge (as things never get perfect) and co-workers, family, etc. But many times the effort is worth it, and afterwards it is better to look back at a masterpiece born in pain, than a slackly and broken thing created in a laid-back way.
Perhaps it is why many creators (both in tech and arts) were depressive, but still able to accomplish a lot (though, sure, it is not a requirement). And sure, it is a matter of balance - one one hand to be able to spot real problems, on the other - still be motivated enough to finish them (spotting but being not able to fix is the worst state of mind, arguably).
However, many things were created (or fixed) exactly because of frustration (sometimes it is the best motivation for solving real, burning problems, instead of artificial ones).
Likewise, perfectionism is almost always painful for both the person in charge (as things never get perfect) and co-workers, family, etc. But many times the effort is worth it, and afterwards it is better to look back at a masterpiece born in pain, than a slackly and broken thing created in a laid-back way.
Perhaps it is why many creators (both in tech and arts) were depressive, but still able to accomplish a lot (though, sure, it is not a requirement). And sure, it is a matter of balance - one one hand to be able to spot real problems, on the other - still be motivated enough to finish them (spotting but being not able to fix is the worst state of mind, arguably).
It's also important to note how important positive behavior is on those around you. One thing I've learned since programming professionally is that it's a team sport -- doesn't have to be, but in most cases you'll develop along with others. When you develops habits of cynicism and negativity it spreads. To those junior, to your direct peers, and especially to non-technical teammates.
I've found that by setting a positive tone, especially in somewhat negative situations, speaks volumes. Cynicism is easy. Pushing those feelings aside and remaining stoic in tough times helps tremendously.
I've found that by setting a positive tone, especially in somewhat negative situations, speaks volumes. Cynicism is easy. Pushing those feelings aside and remaining stoic in tough times helps tremendously.
Whats up Ran!, Great read on a day of bad news. But I agree with Jader201, its hard to be happy even if I'm personally successful. There are so many struggling. Maybe its cause I grew up playing competitive team sports. But seeing so many smart engineers out of work or pushed around is a shame. Its a choice to help others and make their happiness a priory. There are just so many people having a hard time right now. Personally, It hurts to see.
I just cant put blinders on and focus on myself. Wish I could.
I just cant put blinders on and focus on myself. Wish I could.
Well, there are people plain dumb who needs me to be angry and help them correct their behaviour - they might not even be aware of that yet.
In a more serious manner, drama is one thing that gains attention and strong, opinionated, emotionfull articles are getting attention. Add some mediocrity to the article by choosing a general, unspecialised subject on which everybody is able to express an opinion and that's it, you have a front page article.
In a more serious manner, drama is one thing that gains attention and strong, opinionated, emotionfull articles are getting attention. Add some mediocrity to the article by choosing a general, unspecialised subject on which everybody is able to express an opinion and that's it, you have a front page article.
As a natural cynic and old ex goth, let me say that being positive is really hard work. But worth it.
I noticed one day in an old job that two distinct things happened when management presented an idea to the engineering teams. Nearly everyone (self included to a greater or lesser extent) would start racking their brains for reasons why this, whatever it is, is a terrible idea that must be argued against, or why it just straight out couldn't work.
All except one guy, a friend and one of the brightest sparks on the team, who would start thinking of how he could implement it and what new, interesting tech he could use to get there. Sometimes he would come to the conclusion it was a bad idea, or impossible, but he didn't look for that first. As a result he did more novel, interesting work than the rest of the team(s) who generally spent their time mumbling and complaining.
That's when I decided to try and be that way too.
I noticed one day in an old job that two distinct things happened when management presented an idea to the engineering teams. Nearly everyone (self included to a greater or lesser extent) would start racking their brains for reasons why this, whatever it is, is a terrible idea that must be argued against, or why it just straight out couldn't work.
All except one guy, a friend and one of the brightest sparks on the team, who would start thinking of how he could implement it and what new, interesting tech he could use to get there. Sometimes he would come to the conclusion it was a bad idea, or impossible, but he didn't look for that first. As a result he did more novel, interesting work than the rest of the team(s) who generally spent their time mumbling and complaining.
That's when I decided to try and be that way too.
Reading this article reminded me of this post from Myles Recny:
http://edu.mkrecny.com/thoughts/be-nice-to-programmers
Both that article and this one resonated with me on a certain level. Software development can be such a hypercritical field, involving so much self-recrimination.
That, in turn, reminds me of Alan Cooper's characterization of Homo Logicus in The Inmates Are Running The Asylum. Programmers are forced to look at all possibilities, and are trained to point out even extremely unlikely cases. This emphasis on edge-cases is confusing and counter-intuitive to non-programmers, who tend to think in terms of probable cases.
Perhaps too much concentrated attention on possible cases is turning us all sour.
http://edu.mkrecny.com/thoughts/be-nice-to-programmers
Both that article and this one resonated with me on a certain level. Software development can be such a hypercritical field, involving so much self-recrimination.
That, in turn, reminds me of Alan Cooper's characterization of Homo Logicus in The Inmates Are Running The Asylum. Programmers are forced to look at all possibilities, and are trained to point out even extremely unlikely cases. This emphasis on edge-cases is confusing and counter-intuitive to non-programmers, who tend to think in terms of probable cases.
Perhaps too much concentrated attention on possible cases is turning us all sour.
I feel like most programmers have trained themselves to expect the worst. Pessimism forces you to write robust code. I'm not saying it's the only way to produce robust code, but it definitely helps. I think that's why a lot of HackerNews posts are pessimistic (negative).
Despite not getting into programming until I was 26, having come from an arts background of study, I've been programming applications that are used by hundreds of people since then. I don't code through the night, am not good enough to be hired by a start up or use rails or the latest tool the bullies of the tech world are going on about. No one I write for gives a flying fuck about anything except an application that is easy to use and does everything they asked for. Any of the incredible languages out there are capable of giving users what they want right now so no need to keep banging on about the latest version or giving out about the other camps.
It's a culture thing, and mob mentality. A few leaders set the tone and then everyone runs with it, eager to make their mark. Every major event, especially those with strong emotional content, starts with a trigger post, followed by a deluge of "my take on X" posts, complete with 600+ thread comments, after which it slowly fades away, with only a few hardcore people shouting "why doesn't anyone care about X anymore!?"
That's human. That's culture. The negativity will eventually fade once the general startup mood improves from massive infusions of cheap money again, at which point the same fad cycle will continue to occur, but with a much rosier tint.
That's human. That's culture. The negativity will eventually fade once the general startup mood improves from massive infusions of cheap money again, at which point the same fad cycle will continue to occur, but with a much rosier tint.
Am I the only one who feels this post is also negative, but only in a meta- sense?
Highly recommended books: [Think on These Things](http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/think-on-these-things) and [The First and Last Freedom](http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-first-and-last-free...) by Jiddu Krishnamurti
People differ. Different people are also valid and can get things done, and may have unique strengths. Lincoln was classified as "melancholic." Pessimists may have more accurate views of many things. Do we really have to demand that everyone have the same personality as ourselves?
There's no sort of demand in the article. The advice there is to be a passive observer of human behavior rather than getting angry and engaging in flamewars.
Given the current climate I see on HN, this advice is spot on.
Given the current climate I see on HN, this advice is spot on.
Great post! especially after the week-long PyCon rants on HN front-page.
Snap out of that filter bubble, programming community != hacker news and hacker news != programming community.
Upvotes for scandal outrages don't mean we've all become grumpy.
Upvotes for scandal outrages don't mean we've all become grumpy.
This is NOT new. You could see this same problem on usenet in the 80's and on Slashdot. Programmers are often negative, it's pretty much an archetype.
The How of Happiness is a research-backed yet very practical/usable book describing several techniques for finding happiness in life.
Thank you for this very enlightening post.
There is so much irony in this post and these comments. Pretty funny if you ask me.
pro tip : To gain the twitter followers start tweeting positive views .
When I discovered Hacker News, I loved it because it seemed to be 100% about technology and internet startups. It doesn't feel like that to me any more.
I've been involved with other sites where the political discussions overwhelmed the core topic, and the audience just collapsed in a tailspin of high emotions.
I hope Hacker News doesn't go that route.
I've been involved with other sites where the political discussions overwhelmed the core topic, and the audience just collapsed in a tailspin of high emotions.
I hope Hacker News doesn't go that route.
I kind of like the mixed bag that Hacker News seems to be.
I'm pretty new here, but I enjoy reading about the future of programming languages alongside posts about Marcus Aurelius' writings. It just seems that it's mostly content about being the best you that you can be and having a broad range of knowledge.
I'm pretty new here, but I enjoy reading about the future of programming languages alongside posts about Marcus Aurelius' writings. It just seems that it's mostly content about being the best you that you can be and having a broad range of knowledge.
Do you think the recent "Inappropriate comments at Pycon 2013 called out" thread contributed to that mixed bag in a good way?
I worded that carefully. I don't want to draw out sides on that thread topic, just whether it contributed to an educational atmosphere and meaningful discussion on HN.
I worded that carefully. I don't want to draw out sides on that thread topic, just whether it contributed to an educational atmosphere and meaningful discussion on HN.
You can help by flagging submissions on (mostly US) politics that are off-topic. I rarely flag, but do in such cases as those threads suck a lot of oxygen out of this place.
I do as well. This place is definitely changing recently (past two years), but it's not all bad. The political stuff is the worst of it.
The politics on HN is gender/diversity politics, and IMHO HN has been somewhat riven by it. Witness the heated discussion on this very thread.
To me all politics is off-topic - I'm interested in the technology discussions.
To me all politics is off-topic - I'm interested in the technology discussions.
The internet is dehumanizing. I see the effect in myself. We'd never say half the things in person that we say online. The instantaneous nature of computers has made us all impatient brats.
Especially you.
Especially you.
I read that and felt that it was a negative post about negative posts.
Thanks, weeaboo
Vacuous, Zig-Ziglar-esque handwaving with an unnecessary bad anime drawing.
Way to get on HN, though. Everything else looks really educational in comparison, so I'm sure the rest of the authors appreciate it.
Way to get on HN, though. Everything else looks really educational in comparison, so I'm sure the rest of the authors appreciate it.
Alright Debbie Downer.
If something isn't broken, okay, great, no need to focus on it. But if something is broken, to a problem solver, this is inexcusable. Things that are wrong need to be fixed. So when you see people complaining about things like startup culture or sexism in tech or whatever else, it's because these people see a problem that can be fixed, so they focus their efforts on fixing it. Most people who comment on these types of things aren't just complaining, they're offering solutions or their thoughts on what the "real problem" is.
Personally, I feel the whole "positive attitude" thing is a detriment. People with "positive attitudes" tend to ignore problems because they don't want to upset others or make waves. These problems tend to fester until people like me (problem solvers) get so tired of it we just leave.
If all you want is to be happy, fine, be happy, do your thing, ignore the problems. But if you want to make an impact, if you want to fix things and make them better for yourself and others, you have to focus on the things that are wrong and you have to complain and offer solutions and build solutions and piss people off until things get better. Making things better is always a fight; it's always a struggle; and you're unlikely to be very happy while trying to improve or fix broken things. Some people think it's worth it, others don't.