[vector_spaces]

Ooh, slick rhetorical moves you just executed. You couched your comment in the jargon of formal logic, and in doing so situated the parent under a convenient ad-hoc pseudo-formalization where you could paint them a raving illogical, thereby dismissing most of what they wrote through low-effort counterexamples. Mathematical certainty on your side, you make a chivalrous concession to the parent, reinforcing your noble-stoic character, while sealing their dismissal in the mind of any observer.

I claim that it is trivial, albeit obnoxious, to dismiss most informal utterances in the way you have just done. This is because informal language is complex and enthymeme in the extreme -- we don't tend to articulate every e.g. assumption and premise and contextual relation up front in every utterance. Language is messy because the concepts under discussion are complex and messy, and vibes are powerful tools for wrangling that complexity and getting at meaning. And the majority of paradoxes and contradictions one can identify carry no signal whatsoever. Perfectly reasonable statements can be rife with them.

For example: my interpretation of what the parent wrote was something like "the 'making stupid mistakes' line together with the rest of the blog post signal towards neurodivergence, and someone who is harshly self-critical. so with urgency, I warn the author to be weary of comments on HN, as there is a strong likelihood of being led down an unhelpful path that might aggravate this, particularly given the harsh self-talk and what we know about the subcultures that frequent this place"

Speaking of unarticulated contextual relations, "I often make careless mistakes" is literally in the DSM-V as a diagnostic criterion for ADHD.

[jrowen]

I actually love this comment. I feel seen. Thank you. I am prone to a sort of grandstanding that can elicit such responses, which I believe to actually have a similar philosophical aim as mine (and are perhaps subject to similar dramatic flaws?). I do stand by the sentiment I expressed though.

I do think it does undermine one's point to bemoan the efficacy of HN comments relating to mental health, while making a comment on HN attempting to speak on mental health. Either don't do it, or accept that you believe it can have value.

Your interpretation of their statement is incredibly nuanced. Language matters. Tone matters. Confusion, misinterpretation and miscommunication are the defaults. You certainly understand the importance of endeavoring to express yourself clearly and precisely.

I didn't infer the "beware of harsh self-talk" angle, I was too caught up on their comment actually embodying that approach, which I commented on. Based on the surrounding context I got more of a "HN is dumb because they debate about super nuanced technical stuff" vibe. (Also see sp1nningaway's comment for another completely different interpretation).

I stand by the sentiment that writing a blog post about your mental health and posting it on HN is a totally valid and respectable strategy and I would argue it's had good results even if it's not a "solved problem" and they should still seek other avenues to understanding as well.

P.S. "trivial albeit obnoxious" is an interesting construction I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

[officialchicken]

> I am prone to a sort of grandstanding that can elicit such responses, which I believe to actually

That's HN being HN.

[jrowen]

HN is everything. HN is nothing. HN is this. HN is that. HN is Meta™

edit: how many HN comments talk shit on HN comments? Ask your therapist about self-loathing

[derangedHorse]

His moves weren't slick.

> low-effort counterexamples

If low-effort counterexamples could be made, then the argument wasn't strong to begin with.

> my interpretation of what the parent wrote

Well your interpretation would be considered incorrect by most reasonable people. "HN comments are _NOT_ going to help debugging your mental state" is not a warning, it's an opinionated declaration.