

Hacker News Disease - sant0sk1
http://mattmaroon.com/2009/05/01/hacker-news-disease/

======
raganwald
Matt, good fellow that you are, this post had many excellent points about the
music industry and how last year's executives were incented to _not_ get it.

However, I must take issue with you singling out "intelligent" people for
thinking other people with expertise are idiots. I invite you to have a drink
(on me) at any sports bar in Toronto and we will trip over people who think
that various professional players, coaches, and analysts are idiots.

And likewise if we seat ourselves on any transit bus or train we will have no
trouble earwigging a dozen conversations in which people with no experience or
expertise in government will denounce their elected representatives as idiots,
and then toss in the unelected civil servants as being twice as dumb.

I suggest what you are seeing on HN is a fairly common phenomenon. So while I
liked your insight into the executives and their entirely rational behaviour
in beating a reluctant and bloody retreat, I take issue with the title.

It's simply Peanut Gallery Disease.

~~~
mattmaroon
Very good point, and I'll be taking you up on that whenever I get back to your
lovely city.

~~~
raganwald
I look forward to it. And by the way... The people second-guessing Toronto's
Mayor David Miller? Obviously they're idiots!

------
pg
The curious thing is, this post is an instance of what it complains about.
Matt is not so far as I know a formally trained psychologist. So to the extent
he's right, he disproves his own argument.

The truth is, while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted
into it. In fact that would do fairly well as a definition of intelligence.

And in any case, credentials aren't knowledge either. Ultimately you have to
judge any argument by what it says, not who said it.

~~~
michael_nielsen
"while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it."

For subjects with depth, this is wrong. And I think that's part of the reason
why HN discussions of many subjects with some depth (politics, finance,
economics, legal issues, and so on) often seem shallow. I'm not an expert in
any of those areas, and maybe my judgement is wrong. But I am an expert in the
physical sciences, and Matt's post looks pretty spot on as a diagnosis of
what's wrong with some of the HN threads related to the physical sciences.

None of this is to say that HN isn't still a great forum. But it remains at
its best on the subject of startups and (to a lesser extent) related technical
subjects.

~~~
Rod
I wholeheartedly agree. Intelligence can only be rapidly converted into
_superficial_ knowledge. I've never heard of anyone who became an expert in
Quantum Field Theory in a couple of years without having a background in
Physics, that is for sure. I know people who became reasonably good
programmers in a couple of years, though... but programming is more of a skill
than true knowledge.

Hackers should focus on hacking and be more humble when treading on unknown
territory, imho.

~~~
kurtosis
To get an idea of the amount of work required to gain "depth" consider these
famous lists:

HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST

by Gerard 't Hooft

This is a web site (still under construction) for young students - and anyone
else - who are (like me) thrilled by the challenges posed by real science, and
who are - like me - determined to use their brains to discover new things
about the physical world that we are living in. In short, it is for all those
who decided to study theoretical physics, in their own time.

<http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html>

See also:

Herring Brain Box <http://large.stanford.edu/herring/brain/>

~~~
Rod
I knew Hooft's page already. Thanks for the other URL. I did some work on
Experimental Physics years ago, then discovered that I was more into Applied
Math. No plans to become a theoretical physicist, but I still read some stuff
on it once in a while, just for kicks...

~~~
kurtosis
I'm not sure if the t'Hooft page is a joke or not. Looking over the Herring
Box is a humbling experience. A common hope that a lot of children have is
that even though there was no way that anyone could _read_ every book in the
library it might still be possible learn everything by choosing only the good
books. The herring box makes me feel like even this goal is impossible. People
really are discovering valuable knowledge at a faster rate than any one
individual could learn and comprehend it all.

~~~
tokenadult
_I'm not sure if the t'Hooft page is a joke or not._

It is no joke. Nobel laureate in physics t'Hooft wrote the page to give
serious advice to people who aspire to understand theoretical physics.

------
thorax
Hacker News Disease? This issue is as old as the oldest of: armchair coaching,
backseat driving, parody ballads, cocktail parties, in-laws, or op-ed columns.

What he's really saying is that he doesn't like hearing people's opinions when
they're not experts, especially if they're condescending, dismissively rude,
or disrepectful. I feel the same way, but not enough to write a long post on
it-- I'm more of the type to provide my own comment for temperance or move on
to a thread where people are being less judgemental and know-it-all-ish.

I think his best bet, on a site like Hacker News, is to avoid reading the
comments for border-line inappropriate posts about YouTube takedowns, Disney
acquisitions, international trade, etc. All the hacker-specific topics are
bound to have some experts floating around here, though.

When there's not an expert on a given topic, I do like to hear polite advice
from other smart people that may have had an alternative idea in mind that
didn't occur to me. This site has always been good about that. It's one of the
benefits of having smart people floating around since knowledgeable people
aren't always handy.

~~~
billswift
I hate the term "judgemental". It is almost as stupid and self-contradictory
as "opinionated".

~~~
beta
So much for maintaining objectivity...

------
mechanical_fish
Not a disease at all. Playing around with objects and concepts that you don't
understand is perhaps the very definition of "hacking".

Why dabble in things that you don't understand? Why treat the world as if it
were one big toy? Why pretend that duct tape is a reasonable substitute for
the correct part, as designed by an expert? Because it's fun! And educational.
As many people know, a good way to learn how to do things correctly is to
begin by doing them wrong, and then let experience, the laws of nature, trial
and error, the advice of friendly, expert onlookers, and the guidance of your
peers guide you toward something better.

Obviously you can take this too far. There's a difference between armchair
lawyering and actually practicing law, just as there's a difference between
armchair quarterbacking and actually playing quarterback. But every
quarterback started out as someone having fun, and every expert, trained
lawyer got their start by being an inexpert, untrained, full-of-crap college
sophomore with an interest in the law. Hacker News isn't a law firm. Its knobs
aren't connected to anything vital. [1] Why not fiddle with them? You might
learn something.

\---

[1] How would you recognize someone on HN who probably _is_ a real lawyer, or
law student? They take pains to explicitly _disconnect_ the knobs before they
frob them, by saying something like: "I am a lawyer, but this is not sound
legal advice. Blah blah blah highly meaningful defensive boilerplate blah blah
blah." Usually the disclaimer is three times longer than the post itself.

~~~
tokenadult
_How would you recognize someone on HN who probably is a real lawyer, or law
student?_

Often enough, by their very reluctance to contribute opinions in threads that
are discussing legal issues. I AM a lawyer (although I'm not particularly
experienced about many of the legal issues that show up most on HN). I often
don't hazard an opinion at all, because the thread leaves me feeling I have
too little sure knowledge of the relevant facts to offer an opinion. Someone
who spouts off an opinion instantly after reading an "Ask HN: . . . ?" post
is, as you correctly suggest, almost certainly not a lawyer.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_I often don't hazard an opinion at all, because the thread leaves me feeling
I have too little sure knowledge of the relevant facts to offer an opinion._

Which is very sensible of you, of course. As a professional, you have to act
with a certain degree of professional detachment and care. Your words _matter_
in ways that mine do not. You charge _money_ for your words, because they have
a power and authority that mine lack.

But what you seem to be saying is that we, the general public, have a choice:
We can discuss legal issues amongst ourselves. We can not discuss them at all.
Or we can abandon the discussion of legal issues to lawyers and people who can
afford lawyers.

Does anybody really think it would be a good idea for the public to just be
quiet and leave the issues of IP law to credentialed experts? Isn't that just
how abominations like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act happened in the
first place? It turns out that large media companies can afford to hire a lot
more experts than the EFF can. And that just because a lawyer understands more
about law than you do doesn't mean he's more inclined to use that power in
your interest than you are.

Lawyers understand the law. But citizens _make_ the law (very indirectly, of
course). And citizens suffer the consequences of laws. So it's our job to care
about laws. Even if our mental models of how they work are a little... rough.

(Of course, it would be great if the public had better grounding in legal
education, just as it would be great if we all knew more quantum mechanics.
This is why so many people love Larry Lessig in the first place -- the guy
writes books for non-lawyers.)

~~~
tokenadult
_Of course, it would be great if the public had better grounding in legal
education, just as it would be great if we all knew more quantum mechanics._

A lot of lawyers do volunteer time and effort to educate the general public
about the law, and I am one of them. I write mostly about the law of parental
freedom in education, my chosen legal specialty, and I welcome questions about
that area of law from anyone.

I think people are more accepting of expert opinion about quantum mechanics
than they are of expert opinion on the law because most people have
preexisting lay opinion about the law before they seek advice. But, yes, we
should all be talking with one another in a democratic republic as the law-
making powers revise laws.

------
tokenadult
"People tend to overvalue the skills they have, and undervalue the ones they
don’t. Even the most knowledgeable, intelligent people around are rarely
experts in more than one or maybe two unrelated subject areas."

Very good point. I might add that people whose expertise provides a
comfortable income are especially likely to think of themselves as experts on
things they know nothing about. I hope that they learn to contribute their
intelligence to doing nonprofit community service and solving intractable
social problems.

~~~
tdavis
I found that quote interesting because I've always considered myself to feel
exactly the opposite. Okay, I can create / run / manage every part of a
website from the ground up, but people who really get Calculus make me feel
retarded. What about scientists who create new chemical compounds and
molecules and crazy stuff like that? Way over my head. Quantum Physicists?
Forget it. Doctors? They have to fix bugs which involve an essentially
innumerable number of variables!

I feel there are all sorts of industries and occupations that are far more
difficult to learn and require far more intelligence than my skills in
programming, design, and systems administration. Most I think I could probably
learn and excel at, given a long enough timeline, but others I feel are likely
beyond my grasp. I see no way I could ever become a Mathematician, for
example.

~~~
trefn
I think it is significant that all of the professions you mentioned are
science based. I feel exactly the way you do about engineering and science
jobs, but less rigorous fields do not have the same effect on me.

I think this might be why we are all willing to judge the efforts of
politicians, managers, etc - what they do seems to simply require having an
opinion and acting on it. In the sciences, though, we know that you have to be
really knowledgeable to be successful.

~~~
tdavis
I feel the same to an extent; I wonder why that is.

At the same time, I don't claim I could walk off the street and build a better
house than a construction worker, or fix broken pipes better than a plumber. I
couldn't even be a better politician; they are better at social hacking such
as faking sincerity. I have a low threshold for that stuff. Still, I consider
sciences harder in general than those, even if that isn't actually true.

------
tsally
As the one who directly responded to Matt about the Lessig issue, I still
stand by my statement. Indeed, many of the thoughts in Matt's post did in fact
occur to me, and I still decided to make the argument that suing Lessig is a
bad idea. I find it amusing that Matt decides to believe with no evidence that
my views and the views of others are not thought out.

On a different note, I agree with the idiocy of arguing about fair use without
any background in it. You will however see that I never brought up fair use in
my writing. All and all, I'd say that Matt has badly mischaracterized the
discussion that went on. I invite you to review it for yourself.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=586154>

Also Matt, something to consider about the Lessig issue. Even if he loses,
Warner's loss will be bigger. The more exposure the public gets to big
business's senseless ideas about copyright, the quicker it will be killed off.
When did RIAA's suits against individuals stop? When some court cases got
serious publicity. The RIAA won the court cases in question, but what mattered
more was the fact that the public was exposed to what was going on. The
current iteration of copyright law and precedent is outdated and eventually it
is all going to change. In the mean time they should just keep quiet and earn
as much money as they can off of an outdated system. Suing Lessig strikes me
as an effort to change the direction copyright reform is moving in. That
simply is not going to happen.

------
randallsquared
"That’s what they did, and it’s what I’d do too, and I have standardized tests
to prove that I’m at least not an idiot. But everyone in the tech industry
just assumes they’re stupid and they don’t get it."

Well, as you say, the alternative is that they're knowingly using the legal
system to bully people into bankruptcy to stave off having to actually produce
value for the money they're getting. We may _hope_ that they're ignorant or
stupid, because the alternative is worse.

------
jmtame
Why did you call this "hacker news" disease? While I read the article and
enjoyed some of it, you're still making a point that has been said many times
before: smart people tend to think of themselves as smart, and think of others
as inferior to them. This happens in a lot of places, it's not just hacker
news. So I'm still a bit puzzled as to why you did this--it seems these days
that sticking "hacker" or "hacker news" in front of a title is meant for
readership and less to make a thought-provoking point that might not have been
made before.

------
estromberg
Very thoughtful post, thanks for sharing. One observation:

If, as Matt describes, an executive at a major music label realized the
emerging trends of the industry but chose the path that would maximize his
stock options over the next 2-3 years at the long-run expense of the
stockholders, this would be illegal, and not constitute the "no-brainer"
decision that Matt describes.

Executives have a fiduciary duty to stockholders to place long-run stockholder
interest above their own. In fact, if this was found to be the case, he would
most likely lose these options as well as suffer other legal ramifications.
(disclaimer: not a lawyer, I just read blogs about lawyers :) You can argue
that executives rarely do this, but nonetheless the legal obligation exists. I
would like to think that those executives who take the attitude of "i just
want to get my money and run, who cares about the long-term state of the
corporation" is the minority, rather than the majority.

~~~
mattmaroon
Does the law specify a timeline? Even if it did, would it be possible to prove
that the CEO knowingly optimized for 3 year gains at the expense of 20 year
ones?

An executive's options sink or swim with the company's share price. If a
company's investors really want their executives to focus on the horizon, they
should adjust compensation accordingly. Lengthen CEO tenure, and give
stock/option grants with 10 year vesting periods.

People will always act in accordance with their own incentives. That's the
fundamental principle behind the free market. The only way to get a CEO to
focus on your long term success is to tie his long term success to it too.

------
carbon8
There's also the huge mistake of assuming that people and organizations always
make well-considered and rational decisions. This is particularly true with
strategic decisions made by large organizations.

~~~
jerf
The argument is fundamentally predicated on this point, which I find extremely
naive. I can and do (and did) extend benefit of the doubt, but the idea that
we must always assume that people are acting rationally, and that mattmaroon
is justified in getting on a soap box when people don't make that assumption,
is not justified.

(Disclosure: I was linked as one of the cite examples, which I've replied to
there as well: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=586345> )

------
tc7
I read it, and kept wondering if he was saying that if we're not formally
trained in whatever the issue is, we should assume it's valid simply because
the people involved are formally trained.

It seems that it would be dangerous to take this view very far. Experts should
be given weight in a discussion because they have better arguments, not simply
because we assume they know what they're talking about...

I may have missed some subtleties, or the whole point :).

------
uuilly
Matt, you might be interested in Thomas Sowell:
[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowe...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowell/)

His entire political philosophy is anchored on the observation that knowledge
is dispersed and that no one person's knowledge of the world entirely eclipses
that of 12 random people.

------
edw519
Let's not forget the culture we thrive in, both here at Hacker News and in
tech in general.

Many of us are mavericks, non-conformists, even revolutionaries. We may be
that way by nature, may have become that way in the field, or more likely, a
little of each.

Why? Because it works.

I know people who have slaved away in the same "paradigm" for years, with a
cynical view of the world, and an "acceptance" of the status quo.

But not so much for us hackers. Especially those of us starting our own
businesses. It's not only acceptable to go against the grain, it's often
_necessary_ for great success.

That certainly doesn't give us carte blanche to question _everything_ , but
questioning _too much_ without benefit of background and experience gives rise
to "Hacker News Disease".

That's the price we pay for pushing the envelope too hard and too often. We
overstep our bounds once in a while and have to be put back into our place.
Frankly, I'd rather have it this way and ruffle a few feathers along the way
than to never make a mistake and fade away into oblivion.

------
cia_plant
Don't all of these points apply to discussions of, say, "energy healing"? My
view of energy healing is that it's obvious bullshit. However, there are a
number of very smart people who believe in energy healing, and they have
studied energy healing much more extensively than I have.

------
aswanson
Speaking of the law, I would advise anyone, whether interested in becoming a
lawyer or not, to buy and work the problems in LSAT practice workbooks. It is
a serious exercise in forming logically coherent arguments that will provide
across-the-board mental benefits.

------
jraines
Symptoms I'd add:

1) Recency bias

2) Mistaking "Easy to have an interesting debate about" for "interesting".

That last one's a fine line, so to clarify, an example might be "Twitter's
impact on X" vs. "Friendfeed's use of MySQL to store schemaless data"

------
sstrudeau
"When you look at it from that perspective, it’s a no-brainer. You sue
everyone and everything you can. If a 65 year old woman’s grandson downloads a
CD of songs from Sesame Street on her computer, you sue her, sue the kid who
spawned the little bastard, take the grandkid to juvenile court, and sue
everyone on their block just for being within a reasonable proximity."

Perhaps not a _stupid_ course of action, but certainly a scummy one. So the
sue-happy recording industry CEO isn't stupid; he's just a scumbag.

~~~
jcl
OK, I can understand Matt's rationale for the RIAA suing file-sharers, but I'm
having trouble applying the same reasoning to them suing a person who doesn't
own a computer at all and is, in addition, dead.
([http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA-Sues-Deceased-
Grandmoth...](http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA-Sues-Deceased-
Grandmother/1107532260))

Experts though they may be, sometimes what looks like a screw-up is actually a
screw-up.

------
jacoblyles
The examples that Matt points out are more examples of tech culture groupthink
than a phenomenon that is unique to hacker news. That is, they are ideas that
are widely and passionately agreed upon within the culture to the point that
disagreeing with them makes you look like a curmudgeon. This happens in lots
of cultures. It is not something unique to hackers, smart people, or Hacker
News.

------
slvrspoon
Wow HN(!) what a discussion. its.. fun.. sort of. Matt: if the philosophical
underpinnings of the country you live in.. (e.g. the constitution) agreed with
you, we'd have no JURY SYSTEM brother :). believe me, i (and many readers
here) share your sentiments often, but respect for formal knowledge must come
from knowledge itself, not prior experience or credentials. Also, as a former
tech analyst who spent a LOT of time working with the labels in 1998-2000 on
DRM and MP3, i can offer you this perspective: the music "industry" as we know
it, only existed for a small amount of time between the first, nearly
accidental, record sales, and the advent of the digital age. Musical artists
as a group have never truly profited much from recorded distributed music -
they have made money from live performance.. where, as you look at recent
trends with companies such as LiveNation, things are predictably returning to.
The execs yachts will be repo'd and among their jury may be the very people
they prosecuted.

rob

------
owinebarger
This actually strikes close to home. Two of the closest people to me are
lawyers, and they hate discussing law with me.

The problem as I see it is that I'm interested in what the best law/result
would be, and they're focused on what's likely to happen in the real world. An
abstract problem for me is making sausage for them. Of course, they might
believe that the sausage is also the best result, and that there is no
platonic ideal solution, or they might have just learned not to care, or
something else. I don't know.

In any case, if you believe in being a responsible citizen in a democratic
society, you should spend some time thinking about how government should work,
and part of that is how the legal system works.

If you think that's all a pile of BS we teach our kids to keep them innocent,
you probably aren't wasting your time on thinking about these kinds of
problems, as it's just how lawyers justify their existence (in terms of making
a living).

------
utsmokingaces
Startup CEOS are forced to learn to be proficient in numerous areas. The 80/20
rules applies well startup CEOS. They don't have to spend years in school in a
specific subject to have great use of it. There is no a way a person can be an
expert in programming, design, finance, marketing, and so on. However being an
expert doesn't mean you have utilized your knowledge in the most useful ways
possible.

Good startup CEOs are able to recognize what is worth learning and how to tie
different aspect of his knowledge together. I would be willing to take advice
in may areas from a good Entrepreneur.

This is why take advice from PG on everything from how to be a great
programmer, entrepreneur, angel investor, and much more.

------
noodle
with respect to point #1, not having knowledge shouldn't preclude intelligent
discourse with full disclosure of knowledge. intelligent discourse tends to
lead towards knowledge acquisition.

------
Hexstream
"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen someone post a legal question on
Hacker News, and get dozens of replies from people who aren’t attorneys."

The only problem I could see with that is if the one posting the legal
question has any expectation that he'll get replies from attorneys. I think
that's unlikely.

The part about dozen of replies from people who aren't attorneys is completely
expectable given that it's Hacker News, not Attorney News.

~~~
Gibbon
Not to mention the fact that "legal" posts on HN are more likely to be
prefaced with "I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my advice seriously".

------
10ren
_The CD is plainly marked for extinction, to be replaced by digital downloads,
most of which will be traded from one person to another for free._

You made me realize that we don't really _know_ this. It does look like it,
but what if networks and PCs (Windows) really were universally filtered?
(Which is happening) It's unlikely, bad - but possible. Prediction can be
tricky, particularly of the future.

------
billswift
I think the reason for the upper quartile underestimating their abilities
relative to the others is related to the fact that bright people tend to
overestimate the intelligence of people they have casual contact with. Which
would result in lowering their own self-appraisal relative to the others.

------
baddox
Doesn't he mean mistaking knowledge for intelligence?

~~~
TJensen
No. There is another interesting issue there, but in this case, it is really
smart people thinking that smarts trumps domain expertise (knowledge).

------
andrewljohnson
This is a boring, windy, piece of garbage writing.

------
radley
Any chance I can earn points for not responding?

------
ahoyhere
Pretty good, and true in its way, altho like many things on HN, it just
touches the surface and doesn't go further down to the core issue.

Which is:

Intelligence (capability) is not knowledge (facts), AND knowledge (facts) do
not equate to wisdom (judgment).

Many people here on HN pretend to have knowledge they don't, that's true. But
they also do not have or exercise wisdom, or reason.

For an example, just go back to that thread where I baited that misogynist
jerk time_management into revealing his true colors.

He may have been stating facts up to that point, and people defended his
statement of facts or debated their factualness, but nobody else questioned
that _selection_ of "facts" -- and the motive behind stating them.

If only other people would study the art of rhetoric.

------
pageman
I felt I needed to comment on this because it hits too close to home and I
qualify - 1) dealt with IP vs. another music lable (hint!) 2) we have our own
IP lawyers 3) the music labels want you to assume they have a "battery" of
lawyers 4) they probably do but they're entangled in other litigation issues
or they don't want study the finer points so they issue pre-emptive attacks or
don't do anything at all 5) even on our side of the fence, the best IP
lawyer/s don't want to study the finer points of the argument (you'd wish
they'd do that) 6) in the end, it becomes a question of will and who has the
war chest. I understand where Matt is coming from but it looks different when
you're neck deep into this.

------
c00p3r
There was a similiar discussion not long ago about 'everyone is a damn
expert'. It could be described as copy-and-paste sindrome. Read in one tab of
the browser and write in the next, without digesting or even understanding.
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V for faster scoring.

------
sscheper
Honestly, the technology sector is better than every other sector

------
philh
I only skimmed "The Future of the Recording Industry", but it seems to be a
case of exactly this.

"Though not mathematically proven (which would be virtually impossible) it
logically seems as if DRM must actually cost artists and labels money on
recorded music sales."

So recording industry execs could increase short-term revenue - which is what
they care about - by changing their strategy. How does this sit with "they're
not stupid, and they know the situation far better than you"?

And now you claim that the industry is doing what you advised/predicted. So it
seems that intelligent people can analyse situations where they are not in
possession of as many facts as other intelligent people, and still come out
with a more correct answer. (Or at least, an answer that appears more correct
given the industry's actions at the time. Possibly it already had the correct
answer, and was just moving slowly.)

Maybe these intelligent people will be wrong more often than not, but looking
at incentives: if you're right, you look like a prophet or at least get to
feel self-satisfied. If you're wrong, everyone forgets; you lose nothing
except the time spent thinking and writing, which was probably fun and
educational anyway. You probably don't even need a reward for being right to
make this worthwhile.

