skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the flipside of this is people liking to belong to groups. Most of the time belonging to any group with a properties that are essentially homogenous across the members involves some suspension of disbelief. Once people have made that leap and accepted whatever core values those are, they in turn define themselves in those terms, ignoring the fact that they weren't rationally vetted or arrived at through independent thought on the way in. Then if you've got some logisticians among the group, they'll go to great lengths to systematically rationalize the things that they mostly accepted because they're a part of that group. (I certainly do.) This goes from anything from political activism to religion to free software.

This of course isn't necessarily bad or wrong -- in fact I think society would scarcely function were for it not for a modicum of such behavior -- but it does mean that people aren't having these debates in the way that they would another debate -- because they've already know the answer, they're just trying to convince others that their opinion isn't stupid and wrong.
If it's an option for you relocate. I'm desperate for PHP/Ruby developers in Sydney and I know when I was last in Toronto it was the same way. We just can't find decent developers that aren't already in a great job. Even if moving isn't an option try finding cities with real shortages and looking if you can telecommute?
I'm pretty sure we could argue about Javascript. Just mention Prototype and the jQuery zealots are relentless! :P
This anecdote fills me with hope for what a determined person is capable of. Lately I've been stuck thinking credentials are supremely important. I'm happy that people can challenge this and become successful!
“Breaking bread together every day provides cohesion.”

Me and my team always went out to lunch together, but I only realised how important this was when we were banned from doing so by management. They wanted to give an impression of something being done by always having someone around. The problem is that we got less done as we no longer shared ideas or even had a clear understanding of what everyone was working on.
Can someone who is familiar with CAIDA quickly comment as to whether this is game-changing in any way?
Its posts like this and Paul's "How to Disagree" that remind me of an idea that I keep coming back to again and again.

I've often wondered what would be possible in terms of designing a website that aims to moderate debate in a way that leads to new ideas and conclusions and attempts to negate as many of these types of effects as possible.

Some formal system, that the users would have no choice but to follow, that begins with some one making a statement such as "X is true because of Y and Z" and then everyone debates it, reforms the statement as necessary and at some point it gets locked in as either true or false and then the discussion has to proceed based on that understanding.

People are forced to address each others points and eliminate as much bias as possible in their statements.

You could visually map out the progress that gets made until perhaps some new interesting conclusion gets reached.

Obviously no perfect solution exists but for me its an interesting question of how useful a system could be designed. There's also the obvious problems that a) few people are likely to want to use such a system and b) those that do are probably skewed to favor some particular point of view.

There is just so much wasted energy on the internet not being harnessed for actual progress. There are many blogs etc that have been created with the specific purpose of progressing some cause or area of expertise but people are just turning up, yelling opinions at one another and leaving with very little gained. Such is life I guess...
"Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs."

No, every opinion is not equally valid - there is a range of probabilities into which opinions can be classified. The more improbable the belief, the less valid it is. One doesn't have to prove that a theory is 100% wrong, merely that on the scale of probability it scores poorly against a rival theory.

For example, I may believe the earth is 4,000 years old but it is a demonstrably false opinion. It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe this or that a quarter of the planet's humans believe that.
Similarly, there is one good explanation for how and when life originated on earth, and all the other "competing" opinions are highly improbable.

One of religion's goals is to explain the world, but science does a much better job, and yet people's religious beliefs are expected to be respected, even if they are stupid and childish (which they are most of the time). Another goal of religion is to set a standard for morals, and yet holy books are full of despicable, horrendously grotesque, anti-human "morals".

I think that one of the reasons people have a hard time admitting their religions and religious beliefs are fantasies is that they have been indoctrinated since childhood that faith is a virtue, to not ask WHY. Some of this appears to have its origin in natural selection, because children who believe at face value what their parents tell them are more likely to survive.
Simplifying one's personal identity is a hard path to follow and a good way to get to feeling lost. It takes a lot of faith to put one foot in front of the other when the path before you spans wide, untrodden.

Eckhart Tolle sells a good mindset to carry this sort of work.
I have a friend who, when asked his nationality, will always respond "citizen of the world". He thinks that the answer has much to recommend it and that it is not an identity. He is right in the first respect and very wrong in the other.

Ditto with "Having considered the alternatives rationally, I reject the notion of having an identity vis a vis [religion, politics, etc]".
Microsoft vs. Sony: A History of Trash Talk
I find this very difficult as well (although I am just getting started), but I can only really blame myself for not being more social (as mentioned here). It is just much easier to code up more stuff or work on a new project then it is to really market ones self.
I also worry that I focus too much on learning different things and should instead focus on a just one or two specialties.

I am glad I came across this thread, very good information and advice to really keep motivated. Thanks again for the great advice HN.
Family is also a common subject of small talk ("How is your wife doing?"), which is identity-plus-plus for most people, and the mating habits of snails are topics most people weakly identify with but not commonly used for small talk, so I'm guessing that relationship is a little less persuasive than it seems to be at first brush.
Perhaps all that saves these kinds of conversations from spiraling into "religious wars" is peoples' recognition that these things are arbitrary and ridiculous to get upset about.

For instance, I am a dog person and my girlfriend is a cat person. Occasionally, we start to debate the relative merits of each. And there may in fact be one which is in general "better"; after all, most people would agree that dog ownership is better than man-eating tiger ownership. But since we both recognize that dog and cat ownership is a rather silly thing to get upset about, we don't.

On the other hand, politics (for example) are considered to be important. And while we may realize that it's nearly impossible to find a "right answer", that our discussion will likely lead to nothing, etc., we don't feel silly getting upset about it. That, combined with our identity-based connection with politics, leads to flared tempers and out-of-control discussions.
You can't argue against religion with logic or facts, if that were possible religion would have died a long time ago.

As far as everyone is concerned, all opinions pretty much are equally valid, whether they actually are or not doesn't seem to matter.
Such is the wisdom of Zen and some other Buddhist philosophical flavors.
The key to having a sane political discussion is to remember that the survival of your tribe does not actually depend on the outcome of the discussion. Discuss politics as an observer of a complex and fascinating system, not as a participant trying to influence events. Despite what your grade school teachers taught you, unless you're Paul Krugman or Samantha Powers your political views do not matter.

People act hysterical in political debates because they feel threatened. But the pseudo-anonymous commenter you are debating has an infinitesimally small impact on policy. So stop feeling threatened. While the policy in question may or may not be disastrous, getting angry in a comment thread is not going to make a whit of difference.
Sounds like Wikipedia. :)
Hey pg, here is at least one situation that entirely backs up your theory.

I'm not a Freemason, but one of the rules of Freemasonry is that politics and religion are NOT to be discussed while within the lodge.

This is done in part so that no mason will have to justify their personal interpretation of either (and thus their identity) to any other mason while in the lodge.

Perhaps they were onto something (apart from getting drunk and playing ping pong)
I think it does: belief.
Tests Are Code
Maybe it's not so much religion or politics as it is a matter of open-mindedness vs. close-mindedness. There are extremists on both ends of the spectra on politics and religion. I think a lot of the disputes between humans could be resolved if people were more willing to stop and listen, learn, read, discover, empathize with the plights of others.
Having a "small identity" has cost me a bit as a writer. I once interned at a magazine that was looking for contributors to their politics blog, covering this presidential election. I don't have a political science degree. I never worked in government or on a campaign. So I didn't think it'd make sense for me to start opining on the horserace in the way they were looking for. Other interns were more than happy to leap into the fray despite being in the same boat more or less.

So while I'd rather hang out with people who don't argue about things they know nothing about. I think the market favors the bold, and that includes people leaping into debates about things they know nothing about.
wish I could've had him for physics...
I don't want to control Windows from the command line, I want to control my own applications, access the file system, and run and manage services.

Of course powershell integrates with Windows better than cygwin, the power of cygwin is that it makes Windows a usable Unix, which is far more important to me than controlling Windows.
I think the key here was that the kid called up and said he wanted to play ball. he didn't call to strong arm the admission office, he called and essentially said "what do I need to do to be a stronger applicant next year?"

That's just a winning attitude in general. It shows the guy's got a goal and is willing to do what it takes to make it happen.
I think it's more like: As far as everyone is concerned, their own opinions are more correct than everyone else's. Which is what leads to debate, argument, etc. If everyone believed opinions were all equally valid, they'd just live and let live. There'd be no reason for conflict.

Edit: There's something incongruent about trying to discuss an opinion of how the validity of opinions is determined... Hmm...
Well, unfortunately I have not been able to play with many in person, just the OLPC XO and the Sony Reader. I was basing my opinion on researching them online.

The ones I've looked into whose design I preferred to the Kindle were the Iliad, the Sony Reader, the Hanlin Reader, and the OLPC XO (in e-book mode).

It's not the same category, but there are also dev kits available from e-Ink that are supposed to be suitable for building a prototype e-book reader.
The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.
How we built Twittermail in 48 hours
I think what he meant by "weakly identify with" was that people have opinions about these things but aren't hardcore about them. People will identify with the movies they like, what kind of pets they prefer, etc. On the other hand, I feel like very few identify with snail mating at all.

(As a side note, snail mating is actual fairly cool-looking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxejE8HB9lY . I actually like this one of slugs a bit more, skip in to about 2:30 for the good stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSW9kWIRCOQ )
OpenVulture - Multi-Platform Hardware Automation
Write tutorials on your blog. Don't hesitate to share your knowledge. Even if you don't have great writing skills, people are attracted to quality content and tips & tricks. Put a link on your blog that you are available for hire. Publicize your blog through the right medium (reddit, digg, dzone).

There are plenty of wall in the hole restaurants that don't have a good website. Offer to build them one for just $100, it doesn't take more than 3 hours to finish a website for a small restaurant. Some of the mom and pop restaurants don't even know how to host websites, so offer them to do all the hosting and maintaining for them in exchange for free food every week (or an extra fee of say $100). Put a webcounter and keep track of who is visiting and try to publicize it in Yelp, local.Yahoo, local.Google etc. Expand your offer to small businesses (clothing stores or boutiques) and show them your portfolio. Don't just try to impress them with the webdesign showcase. Try to show them how a website for a restaurant had brought more customers to them. Show them some numbers.

Start building something on the side and try to make it popular. It doesn't have to be the next big thing. It can be a small news aggregator or a recipe collection site with some user interaction. Keep your skill set sharp and use it to market yourself. If you truly made a new product that people love you won't even need to find work, you'll be working for yourself.
"This also increases the drive towards universally-applicable themes [...], which is why you see them as being less challenging."

I doubt this. The Sorrows of Young Werther is about unrequited love, after all. I think it is the emotional, moral, intellectual and psychological content of literature that challenges. Not the theme. Pride and prejudice is considered the epitome of the romance novel by many, after all. 55% of the novels in America are sold in the genre. And here's what the Romance Writers of America say about the genre:

"the main plot of a romance novel must revolve around the two people as they develop romantic love for each other and work to build a relationship together. Both the conflict and the climax of the novel should be directly related to that core theme of developing a romantic relationship, although the novel can also contain subplots that do not specifically relate to the main characters' romantic love. Furthermore, a romance novel must have an "emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending." Others, including Leslie Gelbman, a president of the Berkley Group, use a more shortened definition, that a romance must make the "romantic relationship between the hero and the heroine ... the core of the book." In general, romance novels reward characters who are good people and penalize those who are evil, and a couple who fights for and believes in their relationship will likely be rewarded with unconditional love." [1]

In this way, reality is sanitized for mass consumption.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_novel
The thing that politics and religion have in common, is that they have large organizations that actively cultivate emotional responses and ideological conformity.

Organized religions do this because that's how they attract and hold on to followers.

Politicians and interest groups frame issues in emotional, moral, and ideological terms, because emotion and social pressure motivates voters to get off their butt and go to the polls. Rational self interest cannot motivate voters, because the effort it takes to vote is greater than the direct reward. The press sensationalizes politics and stokes fears of "the other" because emotion sells. The polarization starts at the top and trickles down into every internet comment thread.

Electoral/partisan democracy is poisonous. The Venetians had the right idea in using lotteries to select officials.
ideology seems to be a case of the ego boundary being mistakenly extended to include social constructs.
We avoid confrontation on identity-plus-plus topics. Try starting a conversation with, "So your wife's kinda a bitch, eh?"
Yes, but it would be nice if the page just loaded like that instead.
One can argue against (a) religion with logic and facts.

With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)

With facts: for example geological/fossil evidence can be used to argue against creationism. (The best one can do in trying to put forward 'facts' is to put forward what is well supported by the available evidence, and better supported than known alternatives. So, here for example, one would also have to try and find fault with whatever evidence can be brought forward in support of creationism.)

Whether or not those on each side of a debate will give due dispassionate consideration to the other sides' arguments, is another matter, however. Presumably, what you meant was that one can't argue successfully against religion with logic or facts.
It might not just be identifying with something. It doesn't seem that it's completely identify based, at least to me.

I drive a Jeep -- love old Jeeps. It's part of who I am. But if somebody started ragging on Jeeps in a forum I was in I don't think it'd matter. I wouldn't feel threatened. I like Jeeps. So what. I also like puppies.

Some subjects make people feel threatened because to talk about them, in any fashion, is to personally criticize their judgment and their intelligence.

It's the degree people feel threatened. Most people, when you poke around at their politics or their religion, realize their is something deeply irrational going on in their head. They don't take kindly to having people mucking around in there, questioning their sanity -- their value as a fellow person. Religion and politics are topics where the fact that emotions drive reasoning is very close to the surface. It makes probing difficult.

As a further example, I disagree with Paul's opinion on languages. Inevitably we get into a discussion of what "best" means. At the end of the day, "best" usually means whatever I personally value. To criticize that is to criticize how I make opinions. Paul values terseness. Bob values availability of programmer. Joe values available libraries, etc. Once we start questioning judgment -- especially for programmers -- it gets personal.

I've been in the consulting biz for a while -- long enough to move from code monkey to trying to help managers make better decisions. A lot of this is like poking around in a minefield: on some topics people feel their character/intelligence/judgment is a lot more at stake than others. These are the topics you don't want to go bringing up in a forum, online or not.
Randy Pausch put it best:

"The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something."

If you haven't heard this phrase, you really should watch his "Last Lecture": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo
Doodle Kids app created by a kid
I suggest you read the book "What is Intelligence?" by James Flynn himself. It's a cautious and erudite work, and the theory they float does seem to resolve quite a few of the mysteries. Perhaps most importantly, the data do not bear out universal and generic intellectual ascension.

They contend that the rise in IQ has been spurred on by a change in cognitive environment over the past century, and I think the existence of a shift in cognitive demands of a massive scale is something tough to deny.

Here's a paper where they discuss the theory, if you can't get the book. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/rev1082346.pdf
I think Paul Graham is mistaken that large identities are the problem. I think plenty of programmers have big egos too.

I propose the difference is the traditions about how to argue politics and religion, which don't apply as much to arguing javascript. Even people with low egos can have fruitless discussions about politics, because they are so accustomed to making certain kinds of statements which replay the same scene the other guy also knows how to have. Persuading anyone takes more lateral thinking than that.

I do agree that strongly identifying with ideas is a bad thing. As Popper said, we should let our ideas die in our place. We can change our minds! If you identify as someone who cares about the truth and isn't attached to any particular idea, that is best.
Actually, the two are much closer than you think. All major religions achieved their growth and status by becoming the ideological arm of state power. Both politics and religion are fundamentally about how people think about the rulers.
can you succeed with both of them at once?
For one thing it is not obvious how to contact you. Your blog has one ambiguous link for email but it doesn't even load. Maybe obvious, but you need to make it simple for someone to reach you.

Nevertheless I am actually looking for RoR help. Hit me up: sam dot huleatt @ yahoo dot com
"I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity"

This essay doesn't touch on what it actually means for an idea to become part of someone's identity. I think I have a rough notion of what was intended, but understanding how it works better would be more enlightening.

The essay also attempts to separate science from things like politics and religion. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Lots of things that masqueraded as science, medicine, and rationality in the past look ridiculous to us now. In fact, history should tell us that any system of thought that looks so obviously right probably has big blind spots.

To use the example in the essay, the label "scientist" might not help you in negotiations or politics. There, you have to understand what the opposition wants in order to get things done. Identifying yourself as a scientist doesn't prevent empathy, but it can if you use that system of thought when you shouldn't.
Well yes, except that wikipedia doesn't lead to new and interesting conclusions as far as I'm aware. It does a good job of converging on good truthiness for a lot of things but avoids the harder stuff for which these types of problems make impossible to deal with.
Stimator - Real Website Value Estimator
Hey, @johnboxall just put a few more minutes into it, looks a lot better. Check it out and give us more feedback! Thanks
I think the problem isn't necessarily identity itself so much as when people react to criticism of things they identify with as if they were physical attacks on territory. Something in the animal brain feels threatened, and at that point the conversation turns into a confrontation.
Right, but the thesis is that it is unsafe to even mention identity because it invites catastrophic conversational degradation. The observed ability to talk about family without someone saying uncharitable things about your wife cuts against the thesis.
Thoughts on building prosperity
Hmm... I wonder if pg is going to start getting emails/calls after the next YC cycle asking how to remedy the the Bs in unsuccessful applications.

Or maybe he already does...
I would argue that for most entrepreneurs studying machine learning has greater marginal utility than studying complexity theory, but to each his/her own I guess.