[zainny]

One thing that really annoys me about HN is how damn contrarian everyone always tries to be. Responses typically take the most absolute narrow and unforgiving interpretation of any point you are trying to make and subsequently use that to spin a counterpoint.

Drives me batty.

[rdtsc]

I see two reasons:

1) If people agree with the idea they'll probably just nod their head, or upvote. If they disagree it is more likely they'll post something rather than just downvote (people feel the need to explain perhaps why they downvoted)

2) Geeks feel the need to say something contrarian to show how smart they are. It is a way to tell everyone they have a bigger intellectual penis than everyone else.

[sanderjd]

I honestly think (1) is the real key. I constantly decide not to submit comments when it turns out I've used a bunch of words to just say "I agree", and hit the upvote button instead.

Also, to another of your parent's gripes - if someone only responds to a narrow point, it should be safe to assume they agree with the other, or broader, points, and that's why they didn't respond to those.

But silent agreement and loud disagreement does make it seem like everyone is mad at each other all the time.

[benjamincburns]

Regarding #1, wow. That's a pretty remarkable insight.

Everyone thinks of the karma/reputation feedback mechanism in terms of how it promotes civil discourse, but in this case it's fairly remarkable to think of how it could be biasing the conversation toward a negative tone. Maybe it's usually civil negativity, but it's negative nonetheless. I can see how people would tire of this eventually.

I wonder if there'd be a simple way of limiting the bias? Slashdot's modpoint classes comes to mind, but then that opens a whole host of other problems...

[jader201]

#1 is why I think HN should show up vote counts to the non-authors. I think the tone of HN would seem less negative if we could see how many people actually agreed with the comment everyone else is arguing against.

It may make #2 worse though. People love to argue against the majority, especially geeks, especially on the internet.

[jonahx]

This seems about right, but I'd venture it's 80% 2) and 20% 1).

[philangist]

I have to disagree. I think it's 80% 1) and 20% 2)

[mmcnickle]

It's flattering to oneself to be contrarian; Not only have you already considered what has been presented, you've also thought about it and have a counter-argument. You're cleverer than the author of the article; she still entertains that idea while you have long ago dismissed it.

Thought that's rarely the case. What usually happens is someone will read a clever article, get upset that they didn't come up with it and choose a narrow interpretation or a minor nitpick to attack the piece, thereby making themselves feel better.

[csmatt]

This is very well articulated and at least partly rings true for me. However, after typing out a response of the nature you described, I hit the back button rather than submit.

[sergiosgc]

Funny. I thought that was my thing. Typing out a disagreement comment, then read it and think: "How will this discussion end? Will any good conclusion come out of it, or will it be mere sword flailing?".

More often than not, I hit back instead of submit.

[vxNsr]

I have avoided many a flamewar in this manner

[Demiurge]

but not this one!

[gavinpc]

Maybe it is also a reaction to what is often remarked upon as the falling signal to noise ratio: if everyone may expect to be skewered, then fewer will be encouraged to post.

[7952]

I hate it when discussion's turn into a fight over semantics rather than the actual substantive argument. I am interested in how the world actually is rather than someone else's abstraction.

[benjamincburns]

What?? It doesn't seem that contrarian to me!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Edit:

To actually add something to the conversation (and sadly, to be just a bit contrarian), I hope nobody reads this as "oh darn, I better not take an opposing view for fear of being voted down as contrarian." I actually do like reading respectfully contrarian responses. Not the childish ones you describe, but the ones which have a bit of thought behind them. I think a better term is "devil's advocate."

Please people, keep doing that, at least.

[pointernil]

Yup, seams like only the greater of minds and personalities will acknowledge or even accept inputs from others and ADD to it. The default seams to be distortion along the simple and absolute black & white spectrum and then stating the opposite to be (much more/really) true.

While in certain "communities" this maybe is driven by the profession it self (oh, CS and all its true/false 0/1 domains ;), very seldom "cooperative discussion" is presented as something beneficial... just check most newspaper and tv reports... we get controversy presented as the way to go while the world is clearly much more complex as to be grasped in simple black/white true/false terms.

For single humans tending to such patterns in thinking certain medical conditions are associated with... in our societies looks like we embrace it much more thoughtlessly. All has to be a controversy (Parties, Companies, People)

[crazytony]

I don't know. You seem to be agreeing in tone with the post so it can't be everyone who is contrarian.

Sorry. :)

[ballard]

Yeap, it's a jungle out there. I try not to play games of anyone appearing to cobble a name for themselves by inventing drama. Brinksmanship is most often a lose-lose gambit. Let the argumentative types reveal themselves, for the best course is to laugh at wasted energy and move on to the next task.

Also, anyone that bothers to publicly point out to you a misspelling is someone with too much idle time and not enough decency. One must hope for more cunning and aggressive frenemies so you may be judged accordingly.

[dredmorbius]

I see that. I don't find it overly common. And if someone's disagreeing with either an inconsequential point or misconception of what I've written, I'll point it out.

I find that productive discussions do grow out of conversations with people who can note both what they agree with and what they don't. I've actually learned quite a bit from this.

[jacques_chester]

I do this, even though I find it annoying in others. It might be that I'm an assertive, details-oriented professional. Or a prick. I'm not sure.