

Public comments considered harmful - akkartik
http://madhadron.com/public-comments-considered-harmful

======
zmmmmm
He seems to be trying to portray himself as a victim here, but he acknowledges
that he was the initiator - he spoke out stridently, insultingly in violent
and profane language against a whole field. He then explains how terribly he
was treated (even though in most of his actual numbers there's a pretty good
balance between positive and neutral comments), and characterises it as a "low
quality discourse"

His solution is to keep doing it but avoid "public unmoderated fora" because
then he can initiate all the monkey dances he wants and apparently he believes
people will then civilly discuss what he has said.

I would propose he continue to post publicly (there were valuable things in
what he wrote) but if he avoids profanity, insults, extreme and disrespectful
statements then he probably won't initiate monkey dances.

NB: the thread about "only two computationally difficult problems" is worth a
read as there is definitely more there than his characterisation would leave
you to believe:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5123746>

~~~
pdonis
_He seems to be trying to portray himself as a victim here_

I don't see that; it doesn't seem like he cares about the comments at all
except as an indicator that it's not worth his time participating in public
fora. Which is a judgment call he's entirely entitled to make for himself.

 _he spoke out stridently, insultingly in violent and profane language against
a whole field._

Intended for an audience that was used to his rants, and could take what he
said in context. He wasn't the one who posted it to reddit.

 _avoid "public unmoderated fora" because then he can initiate all the monkey
dances he wants and apparently he believes people will then civilly discuss
what he has said._

Which is what the group he intended the rant for did. In other words, what he
did was not a "monkey dance", and his "belief" was based on actual fact.

------
bloaf
"I agree with the author on all points" is a much less interesting post to
write than "I think the author is wrong because X." Indeed, even if I agree
with an author, I will occasionally post some criticism, unconsidered edge
case, or even try to defend an opposing/unpopular theory. I usually hope that
by doing so, I get some criticism of my criticism; I'm really just interested
in mentally exploring the topic.

If you asked me the question "When would I ever want to seek public comment?"
I would answer "Whenever you want criticism." I will also add that the tone of
your writing __will __be reflected in the responses. If you say to the
internet: “Fuck you, bioinformatics. Eat shit and die.” Expect the general
reaction to be "Fuck you too" regardless of how right you are.

~~~
lotharbot
> _"even if I agree with an author, I will occasionally post some criticism
> [etc]"_

I would classify that as positive or neutral. It seems the original author
would also classify "substantive criticism" (his words) or "constructive
criticism" that way. But he notes that none of the criticism he received was
of value, consisting mostly of insults and straw men, which are rightly
classified as negative.

His tone may at least be partially to blame. But I've witnessed the larger
pattern in plenty of circumstances where tone is not a problem -- it's easy to
get insulting, empty criticism from strangers, but it's hard to find
_substantive_ criticism except in places that intentionally foster it.

------
the_cat_kittles
I think the concept of "group monkey dance" is a good one- mainly, I think its
insightful to point out that people will collectively be much crueler to
someone than any of them would be on their own. This is something us nerds are
intimately familiar with from uncomfortable social settings in highschool, but
it didn't occur to me that the same dynamic might be at work in big internet
discussions.

~~~
pdonis
_it didn't occur to me that the same dynamic might be at work in big internet
discussions._

Really? How many "big internet discussions" have you participated in?

~~~
the_cat_kittles
My point was that it didn't occur to me that people might be meaner in big
online discussions because of the group monkey dance.

~~~
pdonis
I understand, but my question still stands. I've been participating in online
discussions for many years now, and I saw this pattern very early on. I didn't
call it the "group monkey dance", but that just means I didn't know that name
for the pattern. The pattern itself was obvious.

------
dizzystar
If you only look at what you are looking at, you'll get discouraged. I've had
a few items on sites that got completely destroyed in the comment sections,
but a month later, I still have several visitors from those sites on those
same articles, and many of them are returning visitors. So, while your initial
analysis is correct, I think you will find the long-term surprising. The
finding is that despite all the negative comments, the vast majority of the
readers actually do like it, but they aren't going to speak up against the
maelstrom.

------
philwelch
In this thread: People posting negative comments with no sense of irony.

~~~
nandemo
I don't see the irony. I don't agree with the whole premise that people
reacted negatively in public because of the monkey dancing thing.

Another explanation, IMO much more likely, is that people who disagreed with
his claims simply chose not engage him in private due to the tone of the rant.
Maybe his coworkers and collaborators find it very well to be told to "rot in
your computational shit heap", but for most outsiders this sort of thing
doesn't signal a willingness to have a polite conversation.

Besides, the top 3 comments on the reddit thread, while "negative" and not
thoroughly polite, also addressed some of OP's points and provided information
for people interested in the field.

------
ComputerGuru
I must say I find the ratio of positive:neutral:negative comments on Reddit vs
Hacker News (1:16:24 vs 21:119:21) to be spot on. It's one of the reasons I
absolutely love HN (going meta here and a little off-topic!): well-phrased
dissenting views are just as likely to be featured and upvoted as the "common
take" and on _most_ topics, there is no substantial "group think" effect.

It's also my biggest problem with Reddit, you get instakarma for simply being
a d^H jerk or off-topic. I'd like to see this kind of comparison more often,
esp. with more data points (17 comments on Reddit is not enough).

Also interesting would be a fourth category being "off-topic" for comments
that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but somehow propagate like
wild fire on certain forums. (Ironic, since this very post is off-topic, no?
:smirk:)

~~~
paulnechifor
That ratio is misleading for Reddit since it was posted on a bioinformatics
specific subreddit. Of course they were going to be more negative.

------
zby
People copy frustration from each other [1] - that is why public speaking and
writing needs to be careful. In general people know the rules and they used to
speak and write differently depending on the audience and they used to put a
lot of work into public speaking/writing to avoid provoking the 'monkey
dances'. The internet somehow blurs the distinction, there is so much public
writing that we don't have time to put that extra effort, and also it feels
like it is private writing - that is why we have flamewars
([http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/online-conflict-in-the-
light-o...](http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/online-conflict-in-the-light-of-
mimetic-theory/2009/11/25)).

It was a mistake that his rant addressed to his friends was posted publicly,
but I am also sure that with some effort it could be made less flamebaiting.

1\. See the mimetic theory by Rene Girard -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard>

------
rooshdi
People are inherently critical. Maybe it's some evolutionary effect for human
survival, but either way we're all prey. No one is going to agree with you on
100% of the issues, 100% of the time. That's not how the world works. All of
us have different influences from different lives and draw different
conclusions. A majority may disagree with a minority, but that doesn't give
the majority the right to silence opposition. Difference is fundamental to
discourse.

------
fnordfnordfnord
I really like the advice he left at the bottom of the post.

