Social media, at it's core, glorifies groupthink, rewarding you handsomely with stars and likes when you say the right thing. In time, you start thinking of what you should be saying, and then you start wondering what you should be posting so that you're perceived as a certain type of person. And when you start down that path, it feels like you become a bit more intellectually subservient. If your concern is always how to please people, how can you be expected to explore heresies? How can you plumb the depths of the unknown to explore and discover things when you concern yourself with safety?
The immediacy of the medium rewards snark and off-the-cuff remarks instead of analysis, insight, and distance. It incentivizes heated discussion (as it garners more pageviews!) and cheap, "me too" posts. It generates a fear of missing out, which is used to manipulate visitors into consuming more and more content for less and less value, exactly like any addictive substance.
This happens here too. The downvote is a pretty big deal for such a tiny button. I'll admit to writing comments I never posted because I knew people would eviscerate me for going against the groupthink. It doesn't change my thoughts... I just don't say them "out loud".
I admit I enjoy inciting things on here sometimes, especially in the face of groupthink, perhaps so I can self-righteously claim that the groupthink exists without giving time to fully think through the opposing side.
It can come off as aggressive, for sure. I do think a healthy community needs skepticism and introspection to remain that way.
But I do think people unintentionally reinforce the notion of the status quo needs to be reinforced/destroyed, which can affect the types of thoughts you'd think about sharing with a group.
I don't think I've ever done, that, actually. More often I realize I'm not sure enough of what I'm saying or I'm not sure it hasn't been covered by other commenters. Maybe it's a personal quirk, but I find it easier to go against groupthink in writing.
Same here. Someday when I have a HN Karma score in the bazillions I will feel free to say what I really think. Until then I feel compelled to largely hew to the HN party line.
I hope this is tongue in cheek. Disagreeing with the majority your peers (as I've done frequently here) could still lead you the minority who agrees with you to upvote you. Unlike politics, it's not a winner-takes-all system.
But more to the point, and the reason I hope this is tongue in cheek, I hope nobody here actually optimizes for or cares about a "HN Karma score in the bazillions." Last I checked you can't cash in HN Karma for a fiat $$$ check or happiness. There's a bigger world out there, folks.
one would hope that granting an upvote/plus vs a downvote/minus would be objective. It is obviously not, and you're exactly right, it rewards group think.
Social media, at it's core, glorifies groupthink, rewarding you handsomely with stars and likes when you say the right thing. In time, you start thinking of what you should be saying, and then you start wondering what you should be posting so that you're perceived as a certain type of person. And when you start down that path, it feels like you become a bit more intellectually subservient. If your concern is always how to please people, how can you be expected to explore heresies? How can you plumb the depths of the unknown to explore and discover things when you concern yourself with safety?
The immediacy of the medium rewards snark and off-the-cuff remarks instead of analysis, insight, and distance. It incentivizes heated discussion (as it garners more pageviews!) and cheap, "me too" posts. It generates a fear of missing out, which is used to manipulate visitors into consuming more and more content for less and less value, exactly like any addictive substance.