Events that tie into the greater scope of those ideas may also be worth sharing and commenting on; however discussing people per se is probably best left to gossip blogs.
Nice thought, but 179 degrees away from natural human tendencies. For the most part, people want to talk about other people, see pictures of other people, and be with other people.
Even here at Hacker News...
Last week, there were 2 or 3 gossip threads with hundreds of upvotes and on the front page for several days (Angelgate, New York vs. Chicago, Facebook). At the same time, there were quite a few excellent threads about useful ideas and techniques that I had to bookmark because they were gone so fast.
There's a difference between what should work and what does work and we're all guilty.
I agree 100% with the human tendencies argument, but I feel that the guideline still stands. Your blog may end up being less popular because of it, but I'd argue that its content will be far more valuable to society.
Dick Lipton's blog ( http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/ )does this as well, and I think this is an essential part of it being as successful as it is. People like being mentioned and like reading about other people, and humanizing ideas goes a long way towards making them interesting.
We might need some clarification about what we mean by interesting or valuable.
There is the interest that draws pageviews and adds advertising dollars, and I believe there is a different interest that informs you and gives you new things to think about, with less mass appeal but greater utility/value to the reader.
Talk about people or talk hedged in human interest might be at the first end of the spectrum because anyone can have an opinion, and reciting that opinion is the extent to which you interact with the idea.
The other end of the spectrum has a limited, focused appeal because you must have thought about it or have some understanding of the subject before you can participate. Then, your opinion/understanding process is challenged to fit pieces together that might offer contradictions to your beliefs, or require you to form new ones.
I agree with the sentiment, it's a noble idea and cause, however, don't you find it ironic that 90% of your post is about the thoughts and ideas of Mrs. Roosevelt?
well yes we are discussing her, since you make multiple mentions of her (1st graph, block quote, summary), my comment is about her, and your defense is again, about her.
There have been many figures throughout history who have established similar ideas (the lower class write about people... the upper class write about ideas) but you didn't choose to quote from them, you choose to quote from Ms. Roosevelt.
Essentially, I'm suggesting that you could have pulled any quote about this idea, but you used mrs. roosevelt. I think you did this b/c you admire her and it supports your idea, but you used her as your vehicle.
My point is that it's a mix, and even when trying to advocate that we take the moral high ground and not chit-chat about people, we (wait for it) chit-chat about people. Hence the original statement... "dont you find it ironic"
I think that's well enough, but I also think that wrapped up somewhere in that blog post is the assumption—which is now terribly widespread but still strange to me—that the decision to blog comes before the decision on what to blog about. It seems like nearly all the writing about blogging (like this article), and nearly all the blogs themselves, are the product of either an individual or a company saying, 'I/we should definitely have a blog.' Only then is the next step occupied by a discussion about what to put in it.
Call me simplistic but I feel like there was indeed a time when a much greater proportion of blogs were the direct result of someone having something to say. When a blog is the means by which somebody expresses themselves, or communicates with others, it tends to be good. But I think that a great deal of blogging culture, by now, tends to consist of bloggers who started websites to fulfill some business plan, and who need to rustle up things to say.
Even I have a new blog that I started (you can see it at zdsmith.com, but:) that has absolutely no content in it. Because I haven't had anything to say yet. Frankly, it's not therefore apparent that I need it at all. Part of this is because my writing has migrated to more socially direct venues, like HN, or twitter, or message boards. But nevertheless one has the sense that if one has a popular blog, that there's much more prestige and exposure and professional value in it. So you start a blog, and then you have to find a quote to begin a discussion about what to blog about. If I had a lot to say (and it was most suited to the rather these-days relatively long form of the blog), wouldn't guidelines like that be kind of superfluous?
What about combining the first and the last - wrap an idea in a discussion about people? Like in the book Sophies World: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie's_World
Max, when I strike it rich I will offer a scholarship in your name: Max Klein Endowment for Pedestrian Research.
That idea is just perfect. You can use histories of people and events to deliver great insight. That's why "comparative biography" type articles are popular in management: "What Napoleon and Lady Gaga have in common", etc. It's because these articles attempt to teach fairly abstract notions about organizations, change, movement and relationships to a fairly non-critical audience that only thinks in the concrete, and lives in the now.
I've always felt like questioning the pithy sayings everyone takes for granted, but this one seems to hold up, in my experience.
I notice that if I'm tired and distracted and not with it, I trend towards gossipy talk, and when I'm fully engaged and my brain feels like it's firing on all cylinders, I'm talking about some sort of idea. In between, it's mostly talk about things or stuff that needs to be done.
Great minds talk about remarkable people, actually. Or more accurately, great minds talk about people important to them, whether they be a role model, family member, etc.
Summarizing the post is nine lines long, at the core is this quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.
Now my question is: the value of this quote is in the person who wrote it or in its content?
Great mind are great in a narrow sense. When you examine the lives of people with great minds you discover that the greatness is not so great. For example Newton did some experiments by diving a hole in his eyes, Fisher was in jail and a never ending story of miserable lifes for great people.
Nice thought, but 179 degrees away from natural human tendencies. For the most part, people want to talk about other people, see pictures of other people, and be with other people.
Even here at Hacker News...
Last week, there were 2 or 3 gossip threads with hundreds of upvotes and on the front page for several days (Angelgate, New York vs. Chicago, Facebook). At the same time, there were quite a few excellent threads about useful ideas and techniques that I had to bookmark because they were gone so fast.
There's a difference between what should work and what does work and we're all guilty.