[claudiawerner]

If you think discussions on markets are bad, try philosophy, especially political philosophy, or sociology. I don't often comment on "very wrong" comments because they're unlikely to get anywhere.

I've found that for all HN detests conformity, more often than not it tends to be a certain kind of perceived conformity, and more often, what is seen as conformity in startup culture. What is often missed in my (honestly) humble opinion, is that this counter-conformity rests squarely in the larger conformity!

[sudosysgen]

I definitely agree. Whenever you try to have a discussion that goes against some sacred assumptions, which happens very often when talking about sociology or (political) philosophy, or non-liberal politics in general, no matter how respectfully or qualifiedly you make your point it's almost certain your interlocutors will not engage productively.

And indeed, because these assumptions are not even known to be assumptions, it's not even visible to the reader that this is a case of conformity.

Interestingly, I've noticed that these modes of conformity often come in temporal waves, in that at different times of the day you get downvoted - or receive less constructive discussion - for differing subjects. I should try to make a more involved analysis eventually.

[asdff]

The timing thing probably has to do with when people get off work or aren't prepping meals.

[sudosysgen]

I had this intuition too, but time zones, breaks, procrastination, variation in meal prep + time zones very likely cancel it out.

It's not simply the amplitude changing, but the sign of comments too - it can go from neutral to upvoted to downvoted and back, so simple patterns in activity can't quite explain it.