

A long review of the social network that digresses into the hacker sensibility - alextp
http://reviewsindepth.com/2010/11/the-social-network-the-end-of-intimacy-and-the-birth-of-hacker-sensibility/

======
endlessvoid94
This is an excellent piece. I'm afraid it's too long for most folks to read,
which is really a shame. The whole time I was reading, I kept wondering how
the web has affected our ability to focus and read, for example, long
articles. 25000 words? Or a top 10 list?

Hack the planet.

Also, I think Richard Feynman is relevant here. In one of his Messenger Series
lectures (I think it was the one about the distinction of past and future), he
talks about how he believes the deepest understanding of humanity, and the
universe in general comes from examining every aspect, no matter how distant
from your own experience. The entire width of human experience tends to yield
the most informed results -- breadth is better than depth, so to speak. Jack
of all trades, and all that.

We'll see.

~~~
grovulent
I appreciate the compliment. I kinda knew it would not be read by many because
of its length - so I didn't even bother to submit it to hacker news. But I was
pleasantly surprised today to see it on the front page. I have been thinking
about breaking it up into smaller articles - but something in me has resisted.
The most important point requires the reader to stitch together a great number
of different threads - and would be largely intelligible without the
background.

I tried to explain the idea over at esr's blog - because I thought the crowd
there might be interested and might get it. Amusingly esr let loose at me
(called me a sloppy thinker no less!) - and I realised it just couldn't be
articulated in small bytes of info.

But yeah - intimacy comes at a great cost of time - the time spent really
getting to know a person through great chats and extended exploration. This
article assumes intimacy with the world because of the time required to invest
in it. But if just a few people like yourself get a chance to look at it - and
maybe even refine some of the ideas (which they certainly need) - then that's
good enough for a first effort.

~~~
endlessvoid94
Splitting it up would definitely detract from the point. I doubt many would
discern the irony in it.

One thing that's relevant: very few "hackers" obtain really good, close
friends early in life. I've been lucky to have found a few very, very good
friendships in middle and high school, and very few since. It continually
amazes me how shallow and disconnected most people remain for most of their
lives -- I find myself coming back to old friendships constantly (in terms of
thinking about how we relate to each other). For example, playing in a band in
high school was educational. Being so intimate (in certain ways) with my
friends to a point where we could play musically and make mistakes and recover
through mere eye contact was quite an experience.

It's something that's difficult to replicate, especially in a field that's so
disconnected from human contact. I really appreciated this article because it
articulated something I've felt for a long time but haven't been disciplined
enough to accurately reflect upon.

~~~
grovulent
Is that true about hackers not really having close friends? I don't know as
many hackers as I would like - but two of my very closest friends are hackers
(and how I came to be exposed to the culture). Besides that - I've always
assumed that hacker culture is very closely related to nerd culture - wherein
I find the greatest propensity for intimacy.

~~~
endlessvoid94
It's probably all relative.

I know that the friends I have from high school are much more intimate (again,
in certain ways) than any other friends I've made since. It might have to do
with the amount of shared adversity or something like that, and tons of people
don't ever experience that. But who knows.

I'm only a single data point, so it's certainly dangerous for me to make
assumptions like that.

~~~
grovulent
I'd be surprised if the phenomena of the difficulty of establishing intimate
relations later on in life isn't actually universal. The obvious reason why
this would be the case is that people have less time when they are older. And
intimacy requires lots of time.

------
nl
Wow. 25,000+ words, and yet he missed what I think would be a much more
compelling argument to support his thesis; ie: Apple is the perfect storm of
Hacker plus Artistic culture. As a company it operates as a native in both the
artistic and technological spheres, and that cross cultural influence gives it
great power in both spheres.

~~~
prodigal_erik
They're making exceptionally tinkerer-hostile products. Maybe that culture
exists _inside_ Apple, but they're doing as much as they can to smother it
among the general public.

~~~
nl
MacBooks are pretty tinkering friendly (from the software point-of-view
anyway). iOS devices aren't so much.

But I think that spectrum of tinkerability shows the complete range of
influences within the company, and could be a strength.

------
rudiger
Great article. I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but I disagree with
the characterization of Jaron Lanier as an artist who can't speak technically
(as the author of this article surmises from a choice quotation). Mr. Lanier
is a rather gifted hacker.

~~~
grovulent
I think my characterisation of his overall understanding is perhaps not
generous enough. I think I was a bit too incensed at the particular argument
of his I was focusing on at the time.

But the particular argument of his I was addressing is extremely poor. Perhaps
this is more of a result of a lack of understanding about non-technologically
related things like art etc... as opposed to his understanding of tech itself.

------
thret
But I want you to know from the bottom of my hearth that this won’t be true.

*heart (ahah, yes. There is my contribution)

I like both Wordsworth and The Dark Crystal, but your thesis is drowning in
prose. The majority of your intended audience cannot swim.

~~~
grovulent
I agree - the artist in me wrote it for me - selfish creatures that we are. I
really never expected anyone to read it - let alone see it on the front page
of hn.

But I'm sincere about the efforts to change my ways. I'm writing much less and
coding a lot more. ;)

~~~
stuhacking
A collection of essays like this would make a very nice book.

It's taking me a while to read in short bursts during work ("It's compiling.")
but I'm determined to finish.

------
wazoox
Hum. Completely artificial distinction. I'm both an artist and an hacker, and
so are countless other peoples. Was Leonardo Da Vinci an artist, or a hacker?
The most preposterous part is when he conflates "philosophers" with artists,
this is ridiculous. Was Descartes an artist? Leibniz? Newton?

Overall, this is an irrational, artistic piece, and too long with that :)

~~~
grovulent
Just because someone like you is both and artist and hacker doesn't mean the
analysis of the two as distinct tendencies does not have any validity.

Part of what is frustrating about your reply (which I received a lot over at
esr's blog) is that we're actually on the same side. While I'm invoking the
distinction you're deriding - nevertheless I'm arguing that those who embody
more one side than the other should try to balance their approach... and in
fact become more like you - should you in fact be someone that has fused those
tendencies in a balanced way. So what are you arguing against here exactly?

As for the conflation between artists and philosophers - it was a necessary
simplification because I don't have another hundred thousand words worth of
time to explicate the commonalities and the differences as I see them. I'm
doing a phd in analytic philosophy - so I have some understanding. For the
purposes of this article one can assume that the important commonality between
the two is that they both have a tendency toward the production of ideology in
one form or another. If you want to disagree with that claim - go ahead. But
for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm ridiculous.
Pony up with an argument or be silent.

~~~
wazoox
> _For the purposes of this article one can assume that the important
> commonality between the two is that they both have a tendency toward the
> production of ideology in one form or another._

I'd say that Philosophy, like science, produces narratives to explain the
world. This is very different from art, which never pretended to provide any
explanation.

As such, I don't think that non-verbal art generally produces an ideology. An
artist, usually does, though, but not through his/her art, through additional,
parallel works or discourses. See for instance, Dali's or Berlioz' books; or
simply talk about music or painting with a musician, or a painter. The art
narrative definitely is outside the scope of art itself.

I suppose most verbal art (litterature, poetry, etc) can carry an ideology. I
don't know if the idea system is part of art itself, though. We could debate
that an artist' impressions are used to utter his/her idea system without
being part of it _per se_.

I suppose here a strict formalist approach to art. Some people would disagree,
however I don't think any other approach to be mainstream nowadays. Your
description of art and artists strangely rely upon obsolete 19th century
notions, I don't know if it's an elaborate trick or a lack of knowledge of
modern art, but it hampers your dissertation; these "romantic views" were more
or less dead in 1917 both with Duchamps' fountain and dodecaphonism.

> _But for me to care you'll have to do more than simply claim that I'm
> ridiculous. Pony up with an argument or be silent._

Sorry to have hurt you. I couldn't resist the urge to cry with the trolls. The
writing of this piece is way too much casually conversational and magazine-y
to be taken too seriously.

~~~
grovulent
Okay - fair enough. I'll leave the discussion about art/philosophy/ideology
there as it's too huge for this venue. But I appreciate you taking the time to
explicate your view.

I can't resist however pointing out the delicious irony of your last sentence
though. It's okay that you took its style to be an indication of poor quality.

I'm interested in attracting readers whose high propensity toward intimate
behaviours allows them to look beyond various surface signals and engage with
the purely semantic content of the piece. If you did in fact engage the piece
in that way - then that makes your final comment so ironic that the thought
alone brings me much pleasure in contemplation. Those who did will know
exactly what I mean.

