Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nonrandomstring

It's the behaviour I notice rather than the stated motives;

> But dear reader see this pattern for what it is... every 6 months I find someone new to obsess over... Without fail, each one of comes to disappoint.

Serial obsessive fixation seems a problem right there in itself. There's a deep need that isn't being satisfied. What is it?

> says something that completely violates the narrative. How fascinating.

A rebel! One validated by popular opinion no less!

The problem is, no matter how many rebellious public intellectuals we binge on, it will not take one any closer to being that rebellious and fascinating person. Escape from such a cycle is to jump directly to being that which you wish to be. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect $200.

Find what is so odious in this "narrative" of which you speak, and loudly denounce it!

But beware, if you like to have friends. Instead of being the cool, interesting person at the party, who knows all the latest, internet-celebrity-validated talking points, you will be the bus loony in the anorak who people avoid. Trust me, I've lived it for 40 years. With some guile you can go to ground disguised as university professor for a while.

> Serial obsessive fixation seems a problem right there in itself. There's a deep need that isn't being satisfied. What is it?

I do feel that the author has some interesting personality trait - but I'm not sure if he's in the minority.

After writing my comment I have realised that maybe it's why I never understood the appeal of Twitter. I have never had any "gurus" or "authorities" that I'd universally respect. I could never understand why would I follow some individual on twitter - why would I care? When I read that the author says he follows that "person" so deeply, watching their videos for hours, I completely can not relate. Neither on logical nor emotional level.

I might dig into a topic, let's say, siege of Berlin during II WW, but I'd be focusing on the topic and the source / author will be completely irrelevant. I'll even probably select various ones, as I enjoy challenging my own perspective.

> I could never understand why would I follow some individual on twitter - why would I care?

Because if someone puts out good tweets at a reasonable frequency, then following them means you will have good tweets in your feed at a reasonable frequency.

You might also get a lot of terrible tweets in your feed, but that's fine, that's how Twitter works, you just scroll past the terrible stuff.

It's not a million miles of subscribing to a newspaper. You don't expect every piece to be good, but as long as there are a few good things every week, it may be worth it.

Old Twitter was much better for offering you a plethora of perspectives, especially of random individuals "on the ground", in whatever sense, who were not professional talking heads. That time is long gone.

While I don’t use social media, nor am I prone to personality obsession like the author, there’s definitely something to be said about following an “authority” on Twitter and the like. Whether they’re an artist whose work you enjoy, a top expert in a field you’re interested in, or simply a person whose writing on some topic you appreciate, surely there’s an individual whose insight you’d find valuable enough to “follow”?

> surely there’s an individual whose insight you’d find valuable enough to “follow”?

Not me. What I would like to follow is a topic that interests me, with discourse predominantly populated by subject matter experts. "User-based" follow systems like Twitter only make sense insamuch as the user sticks to their expertise, and as soon as they start veering away into new topics their comments are just as likely to be noise as the average schmuck, and I don't know why I would want to waste my time deliberately consuming noise.

People are discussing different things here.

What you describe wanting, is what academic journals are. Subject matter experts discussing that subject matter with one another. Social media is not for you, and that's fine.

What other people are describing, is more like, an author writes a book you enjoy; so you read another book of theirs. There is enjoyment in their prose style and personal voice, and so they seek out more of the same.

And maybe the first book was a scifi or mystery novel, and the next book you find by that author is a non-fiction history of egypt, or a genetics textbook. You will likely still enjoy reading that book.

Sometimes that author can even be an expert on all such topics; Issac Asimov existed, after all. But when people are reading for entertainment, they'll be less picky.

You should check out Hacker News!

> surely there’s an individual whose insight you’d find valuable enough to “follow”?

Not really. I'd rather follow a site with news in topics that are of my interests (e.g. https://electrek.co/) than some short-form messages of an individual. If these tweets would be containing links to their blog then I'd rather check the blog occasionally.

What I have learnt is that the majority of people are not interesting enough to keep quiet just to be "allowed" to be around them. The number of people I respect and am interested in listening to their opinion goes down from year to year, with experience. Most people are jerks that deserve to stay in their bubble with their "friends".

In a neighbouring thread we're talking about "conviviality" (Ivan Illich's "Tools for..."

It's an odd word.

What I found is that almost every random bore at the pub has a wealth of interesting stuff to say. You just have to tease it out. You have to work at conversations. It's a bit of a lost art imho.

The first step is always to get the topic off the mainstream (stop exchanging platitudes) by showing an interest in some marginal personal remark. Doesn't work for everyone of course. And some people just don't want to.

Living in Finland I learned the art of just being quiet around others and that "interesting company" can be hanging out without words, say just appreciating a walk together.

So I'm with in theory. People are interesting for the most part. However the amount of work to reward you are describing is tantamount to pulling up hedgerows in zelda for coins. Your not likely to find anything amazing but maybe once in awhile interesting. Again probably depends on the establishment

Nah if you’re good at it. It can be amazing every time. But like anything, it feels like a lot of work before you get good at it.

Amazing every time? Wouldn't it get redundant?

No because every interaction is different. And yes if that’s your mindset, every time.

It is increasingly common for people to cut out topics their tribe doesn't like.

Conversations (on the surface level) have become narrow.

It's the pursuit to reveal a very specific meaning, and the connections around it. It won't go anywhere.. people will want freedom from it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com