HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> based on their facial expression

Phrenology is still pseudo=scientific bullshit even when the calipers[1] are replaced with an "AI" black box of software.

> Just need software that punishes employees who aren't happy enough at work, then we'll have a proper nightmare.

"RSA ANIMATE: Smile or Die"[2]

[1] https://images1.bonhams.com/image?src=Images/live/2006-06/16...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

> wage laborers are forced to wear a mask of positivity

RSA Animate made a short animation about how a culture of forced positivity in white color jobs, and how it contributed to the late-2000s financial meltdown.

"Smile or Die" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

> when you got fired, it was called “graduation.”

"Smile or Die" (RSA Animate)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

This seems to be a variation on the Wall Street style of magical thinking.

As a writer of critical comments of "hacker" school, I think this is typical of the times. If you call out somebody you are dismissed as a debbie-downer, cynical asshat, or other things like that. This comes from a culture now dominated by PR/marketing/sales, getting crazier by the growing viral marketing and astroturfing craze.

I strongly recommend you to watch Smile or Die, a talk by Barbara Ehrenreich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

The parallel with that is a delusion SOLD to the community. In the case of "hacker" school I criticize it as I did with the "MBA" program by Seth Godin. And I consider that I might be _completely_ wrong in both cases, but what is telling is how aggressive people got with me for speaking up my opinion.

⬐ mwfunk

Generally speaking, "calling someone out" is being a debbie-downer and/or cynical asshat. If you're calling someone out, then by definition you are not voicing a disagreement with a particular perspective, you are attacking an individual.

Whenever I disagree with someone, I try really hard to come across as "the thing that you are saying is wrong" instead of "you are wrong". The former is a statement about a belief, the latter is a statement about a person. It's human nature to have a reflexive, defensive reaction to someone if you think they're attacking you rather than something you said.

⬐ tptacek

That does not appear to be true of Hacker School.

⬐ alecco

May I differ with my opinion? That's the point of my comment. Thanks for the downvotes proving my point.

Edit: clarifying, I got very, very angry replies and dozens of downvotes at the time. Monoculture leads to fixed mindset and drives smart people away.

Edit 2: I didn't downvote you (I prefer words in this case). My comment was in the negative when you replied, but surprisingly it's risen to positive. Thank you, whoever you are. This gives me hope on HN community.

The TED talk "Smile or Die" explains problems arising when positivity is used as corporate or government policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

The points covered about "postive-thinking industry" are also brought up and elaborated on in the RSA Animate: Smile or Die[0]

I can't speak for all Influencers authors but Jeff Weiner in particular has a great and realistic commentary style while speaking person and to the employees at LinkedIn. It's a shame as I read the both "Managing Compassionately" and "Three Pieces of Career Advice That Changed My Life" that neither has the same impact compared to hearing those points as answers to difficult questions.

As a fan of the slow-web I would like to see Influencer articles find a sweet spot between timely and long-form. For example, a lot of the posts give good information but don't weave that information into a memorable narrative of when and how to apply said advice.

[0]:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

I'm sorry, I'm all in favour of loving what you do and agree that this generally leads to good results, but that interpretation frames the sentence in a completely different context than the original story, which is the following:

> So fundraising is a psychologically trying experience that depends very little on any sober analysis of the quality of your product

Smile or die, motherfucker!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

> It's unquestionable that you need energy, excitement and confidence to be good at something. Anything from being a doctor, lawyer to professional athlete.

Oh, that is VERY questionable. The first two are focussing on positive emotions and ignore the important role negativity plays. Smilarly, confidence does not in any way equate capability.

> Projection (The act of projecting or the condition of being projected.) is going to be the only thing people can fall back on.

No, that's just our intuitive mind being too lazy to do a rigorous analysis of the situation. I recommend "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Kahneman to fix this.

⬐ dylangs1030

Have you ever listened to an interview with Michael Jordan? He specifically stated he "knew" he'd make the next hoop.

Confidence is extremely important in athletics, engineering, business, etc. Some more than others. But someone with confidence issues will never be as efficient and consistent as someone who is not. You must have personal belief invested in yourself and your corresponding ability before you can really use it effectively.

I agree with excitement and energy though. I know quite a few people who hate their jobs but do them successfully.

⬐ vanderZwan

My point was that being confident in itself doesn't make you good at something.

⬐ columbo

> The first two are focussing on positive emotions and ignore the important role negativity plays.

There's no definition of either that I know of that includes "positive emotions" and ignores "negative emotions". That's a made up definition.

> Smilarly, confidence does not in any way equate capability.

Never said it did. I also never said these were the only things you need. But you do need them.

There's no way forward without going to specifics. I guess I'd need to see an example of 5 or 10 industry leaders or greats, from any industry; Linus Torvald, Mary Roach, Warren Buffett, Jon Stwart etc... that did not have energy, enthusiasm and confidence.

RSA Animate - Smile or Die http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

Touches on the same idea of those who are anti authoritarian being sidelined without reason, and enabling and exacerbating the recent global financial crisis.

RSA Animate: Smile or Die http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

I disagree.

The reason why we are often too eager to dismiss is because kindness takes effort. Empathy, and certainly sympathy, is hard work. We get lazy, we become exhausted and our reactions become snappy. Almost always the "dry your eyes" advice is inappropriate and insensitive. And it never really achieves its intended objective.

I'm not saying we should all participate in crying orgies whenever someone shows signs of weakness (though, as I've aged, I think that is better than showing a cold shoulder) or that we readily invest in "idiot compassion". What I'm saying is: we are all trapped in this existential reality together and we all need to show kindness with all forms of suffering. Being cruel to be kind as a philanthropic philosophy has never worked (for me).

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo (RSA Animate on "Smile or Die" a talk by Barbara Ehrenreich)

⬐ koide

Note that I didn't say you should always be tough. Of course that being kind and compassionate is the right answer most of the time.

It's just that sometimes a figurative slap is the right thing the sufferer needs to wake up from the suffering and realize there's no actual need to suffer like that.

It's all very personal and context dependent and, most importantly, it should never be done in anger.

1. It's not always true that things that are more expensive are also higher quality. But the reverse is true: things of higher quality are more expensive. Because they're made of better materials, because they were grown naturally, because they were made of natural ingredients, because they were tested... better stuff is usually made with more effort or better material.

2. Because of #1, distinguishing genuine high quality stuff from a simple ripoff takes critical thinking. People don't like thinking too much, don't like analyzing, and critical thinking is unpopular especially in United States of America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

There is a dark side to overly positive thinking. I'd settle for mostly positive with reservations and open discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

My issue wasn't with the "retarded" line, actually; I was more concerned by this:

"If someone says something negative about your project in an unreasonable way, don’t take it to heart. There’s something good in every project (it’s open source, it already has one thing going for it), no single project is complete crap, keep the good things and learn from the criticism.

All this boils down to basically 'surround yourself with good people.'"

This is the kind of thinking that lets people write bad code. "Unreasonable" is subjective here and lets people be very thin-skinned and defensive about their code. There is code which is complete crap and serves only as a warning to others to pay heed, lest they write code just as bad. (Feel free to consider that hyperbolic and point out that "complete" and "serves only as" are contradictory.)

It's fine to surround yourself with "good people," who I presume are people that are Good-aligned, but that's never going to reveal systemic weaknesses or flaws in your code; you're just going to end up as another group of people that relies on black hats to point out where your code was flawed.

In other words, this entire post feels like thinly veiled positive thinking in excess. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo for a much better summary of the problem.

⬐ billswift

>This is the kind of thinking that lets people write bad code. "Unreasonable" is subjective here and lets people be very thin-skinned and defensive about their code.

Indeed, in my experience the very best producers are those who are toughest on themselves. No one is ever likely to be as insulting to me as I am to myself when I catch a mistake. Which is part of the reason for what neilk wrote above: "Some of the biggest jerks are also the best contributors." Because they are tough on themselves and their own work and are less willing to help others lie to themselves about what they have produced.

Your attitude reminds me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

⬐ None

None

⬐ chegra84

This is a very good talk. I think the world is flooded with too much of positivity thinking. As he pointed out he is not for negativity but realism.

Books like rich dad poor dad and the secret aren't based off analysis or science but anecdotal evidence.

I abhor anecdote; they only represent one data point and you could easily attribute that to being luck. They might as well give a strategy on how to win the lottery and then say look at Jane Doe she used the strategy and she won a million dollars. Give me a thousand Jane Doe who have done the same then we can talk, until then Jane Doe is just lucky.