[gyulai]

Psychological studies show that people derive pleasure from policing social norms, and I'm no different. In this case: "Don't brag". So I made fun of OP's writing style.

Of course, deriving pleasure at the expense of someone else reflects poorly on me. ...but then: I'm cool with that. The world (especially HN) is full of people worshipping and trying to become statues. In order for that world to be bearable for everyone else, every statue needs its pigeon, and, apparently, that's my place in the universe.

[komali2]

Well, you're probably more willing than most to have this conversation, so I'm interesting in having it.

I did find the writing style abnormal, but ignoring it, the information in it was at least as useful to me as any other HN comment: mostly not at all, just another little drip of an internet opinion to consider on this topic I probably spend too much time thinking about (optimizing note taking and learning strategies).

So, I acknowledge yes, strange comment style. For your comment: you say some derive pleasure from policing social norms, I don't challenge you as finding it pleasurable, and I like your metaphor as being a pigeon on a statue. Though I could use other terms to describe your comment: "trying to knock someone down a peg," "put someone in their place," "tone policing," and I think I could make an honest argument that it's simply a form of mild bullying. The only difference to me really is if OP deserves it. If they're a jerk boss / shyster salesperson, sure, why not, but do we knock every confident person we see "down a peg" just in case they're a jerk and deserve it? I feel like erring on the side of being nice is a better outcome. Of course I can't just decide for you what you do and don't like, this is me being a pigeon on a pigeon.

One could argue the both of us are in a virtue-signal race to the bottom but I'm just typing this all out of curiosity for your thoughts.

[gyulai]

Yup, I agree fully with what you just said, also the bullying-part and erring on the side of being nice. I guess there's a few layers to unpack here.

The lowest layer is that I was acting out a psychological impulse, not implementing a premeditated policy. Knocking everyone down a peg just in case they deserve it would be a policy, and certainly one that I wouldn't find agreeable. Why did I have this impulse in the first place? I don't know.

The next layer is: Given the impulse, how did I decide to act it out, given that it conflicted with a very valid ethical imperative to "be nice". First note that OP established themselves as having high social status. I myself am low in status. This is both the default assumption made by most readers in relation to anonymous strangers on the internet, and the actual truth in relation to my person. So this was an instance of "punching up", rather than "punching down". If, for example, OP were a mentally retarded person writing the above and using the word "company" to refer to their occupational therapy work group, we'd have to reinterpret the transaction as "punching down", and what I did would then be absolutely horrifying. The thought (though far-fetched) didn't cross my mind at the time. It might have cancelled out my impulse at some lower level of my psyche.

While punching down is always morally deplorable, punching up is often acceptable, and even has a useful function in society. Just think of the animal kingdom where reproductive success goes to animals of high social status, and animals of low status challenge those of high status with the outcome that reproductive potential isn't wasted.

Even so, if I consistently took any opportunity to deal out punches, provided only that it's punching up rather than down, then I probably could still be said to have a pretty mean personality, and it would probably cause me more suffering than gain. But if, just once every tenth time or so, I just do it, then that feels to me like an amount of karma I can actually afford, plus I'd feel like I'm spending my karma on something useful.

I'm sort of reminded here of the role of the jester in medieval courts: No one but the jester could say anything that might offend the king. But if the jester says it publicly, and it resonates with many, then that resonance is almost like a democratic institution of sorts. It makes the king less likely to do stuff that the jester will poke fun at. It serves the will of the many of low status over the will of the few of high status. So what I'm saying is: We should all take turns, playing the role of the jester. This would be a force for good. It would make it more difficult for someone to hold on to high status, if many of lower status don't want them to have that high status.