You could look at it another way and derive an opposite conclusion. A lot of people have a feeling that what they do on Hacker News "matters" in that other people are watching their behavior, and might choose to hire them or co-found with them on the basis of their participation. So a self-interested individual would check their behavior here, instead of indulging.
Hacker News "works" because it's all a big job interview. The job in question is being someone PG thinks is cool. That's the glue that holds this community together and keeps people in line.
"Hacker News "works" because it's all a big job interview. The job in question is being someone PG thinks is cool. "
I have to confess I find this a very strange way of thinking. I respect PG immensely, but I don't care if he thinks I am not "cool" and I am fairly sure he doesn't anyway. And that's perfectly fine -- I don't think I am cool why should he?
Do you really believe that most people here are trying to get PG's stamp of approval somehow? I suspect not.
What brandnewlow describes was definitely and obviously true in the very-early days of HN (then Startup News), like from its public opening in Feb '07 until the next couple funding cycle deadlines. At that time the readership consisted very heavily of YC-hopefuls, and the site was low-volume enough that any given comment had a very good chance of being read by PG. But HN has grown a lot since then, I get much less impression that this dynamic still holds.
Part of what makes Hacker News work is that it's a benign dictatorship. Sites that have curators work better than sites that don't. So there's some truth to what you're saying.
But many of the top posters on this site have no evident desire to work for (or, in my case, even be particularly respectful towards) Paul Graham. So I think you've missed the mark, too.
I don't think it has to do with PG anymore specifically. But rather, if you were to mention HN in a cover letter as the way you heard about a job opportunity, then your Hacker News profile would likely be checked out. I've had it happen 2 out of 2 times so far.
I agree, but not because every participant wants in to YC. PG is the guiding anchor for the site. It's similar to how people speculate Digg would be different without Kevin Rose. These site creators are hosts. It's like going to someone's house; while you may be allowed to wander around your behavior will generally reflect the values of the host. The quality of HN is a flattering testament to the high bar set by having PG as host, as well as deliberate measures implemented to defend against degradation.
Impressing (or at least not disappointing) PG was definitely a big incentive early on, and it lingers to a degree. I think, though, that PG's role in that has been replaced by the community at large. People are civil and thoughtful because they want to live up to the community.
(Incidentally, I think in communities where people are jerks, it's also because they think that's what the community expects.)
Alternative headline: "Hacker News on Hacker News: Hacker News is great!"
Yes, it occurred to me that this might get voted up for the wrong reasons. And, yes, that's probably what's happening now, and I dutifully feel like a karma whore. I thought about it overnight, and that didn't feel like a good reason to censor myself in general. If you disagree, perhaps downvote here as a counterbalance.
Many anthropologists believe great cultures begin to fail when they forget what made them great in the first place. It might be a little far-fetched to call hacker news a culture in and of itself but there is no doubt the site has its own specific personality. By the same rule I don't see the harm in you pointing out what makes the site's personality appealing. In fact I think it does a service and that it reminds us all what makes the site great in the first place.
This lemming doesn't enjoy meta-self-congratulation either, but comments like this even less. Please decline to post them. It isn't hard to keep to a (much) higher standard.
What I like about that mentioned Times article is nothing about religion, atheism or another child abuse related news item, but as an example of the way rich and famous people have the power to do things that ordinary people cannot, but currently rarely do so outside certain 'approved' ways.
It's much more interesting to me to see two people consider doing something unusual like that, than do something more ordinary like fund a school library or join a museum board, or do something like buy a sportscar.
Whether they can or cannot do it, or if it's right or wrong to do so, that they thought "we have a problem with this ex-head of state and world spanning organisation and we don't need to wait for another head of state to act, we might be able to do something about it ourselves" stands out to me.
Does that sort of thing happen a lot, or is it a fairly modern development? I can't think of many other examples.
I see gleams of humanity every so often. Cases like this also show decency and civility even in the face of semi-anonymity.
However, just go ahead and go to walmart for an hour to see what the average person is. We're the outliers and exemplars of thought... And there is plenty of ways to go down.
I just hope easy access to knowledge makes everyone smarter.
> just go ahead and go to walmart for an hour to see what the average person is.
I spent five years working in various discount supermarkets as a cashier. The average person there is struggling with challenges that make typical hacker problems look trivial.
- They either have very unfulfilling jobs, or none at all
- Many people they meet pre-judge them as weak or stupid because they're poor
- The community that does support them also holds them back, by criticizing attempts to get ahead and condoning self-destructive behavior
- They have no safety net for when they screw up. Failures like a marriage breakup or losing a job have massive and immediate impacts on their lives
- On top of all this, they're often raising kids in the same environment, desperately hoping they can escape
Don't take too much comfort that we're 'outliers and exemplars of thought', actions and attitudes that we regard as obviously stupid have a strong internal logic in their world. Religious fundamentalism is a joke? I agree, but for a woman who's had a family devastated by marriage breakups and substance abuse, its tenets are pretty damn attractive. Smoking or overeating? If the rest of your life is unfulfilling, at least you can be guaranteed a little pleasure in your day.
I don't really think so; one of the reasons I often speak out against articles like that appearing here is that most of us are perfectly capable of getting into nasty arguments on the internet. Perhaps more so than average people who might just walk away rather than getting upset that "someone is wrong on the internet!".
>most of us are perfectly capable of getting into nasty arguments on the internet. Perhaps more so than average people
I agree, and I think that's what TheAmazingIdiot means by outliers. The intelligent thinkers that frequent HN have such a command and understanding of some topics that they would feel compelled to provide, er, 'helpful input', but not when the consequences of doing so might be more destructive than constructive. I may be wrong, but I think such people are outliers.
>I just hope easy access to knowledge makes everyone smarter.
I wouldn't count on it. At the very least, I think it will make everyone smarter, but those at the bottom, many of whom place little value on expanding their knowledge, will get slightly smarter, those at the top, most of whom love learning and find random Wikipedia articles genuinely interesting, will get a lot smarter, and even though the world is a less stupid place, we'll be even more frustrated because the gap will be bigger.
So it will probably get a little better on an absolute scale, but it will seem to us like it's getting worse.
So it will probably get a little better on an absolute scale, but it will seem to us like it's getting worse.
Reminds me of the fact that one study indicated that less than 0.5% of Americans are "poor" by the standards of people in India but America routinely identifies 12% to 14% of the population as living "below the poverty line".
As for humanity, I am pretty personally burnt out of late on the way I've been treated (in some circles, I guess). Yet, more objectively, I still think most folks mean well much of the time. A lot of conflict grows out of difficult circumstances and tragic misunderstandings and isn't originally rooted in malice. Malice typically takes root later, in part because most people seem to routinely believe that if they got hurt, then there was malice. Initially, that is very often not true. It isn't terribly satisfying to realize that but it does make it easier to not be grudging.
A very similar line occurs in a Robert Heinlein story.
Edit: Googling around, I ran across the following quote from a German general which was cited as an antecedent to the above. While it only vaguely resembles that idea, it is a marvelous specimen of that distinct microgenre, witty aphorisms by dudes from European military history:
I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!
Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon) states that it's been widely attributed to Bonaparte as well. I wasn't under the impression that that means it's a mistaken attribution, but I could be wrong about that, and if it isn't supposed to be read as I did, could you clarify?
The internet is full of cuckoo quotes being wrongly attributed to famous people. It's an easy way for memes to propagate. For example, ever hear the quote from Gandhi along the lines of "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."? Cool line, which has made it onto T-shirts with Gandhi's photo, but Gandhi never said it. It's been traced back to a speech by a garment workers' union official in the early 20th century. Anyway, there are zillions of examples, many being propagated by spam websites supposedly specializing in quotes. Because of this, online references that say "attributed to Bonaparte" (or whomever) are worth nothing. In fact, they're evidence to the contrary, because if Bonaparte really said it, it wouldn't be "attributed", it would be sourced.
The rule of thumb is: if a famous person said it, it will be easy to find a precise textual citation on Google. So if you can't find the precise text, it's likely inauthentic.
Wikiquote is pretty good at distinguishing between sourced and unsourced quotes and providing precise references for the former. Take a look at their page on Napoleon (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Napoleon_I_of_France) and see how many of them are traced to his letters. (By the way, the "never attribute to malice..." one is listed under misattributions on that same page.)
