I invited Fred to come by and discuss this post that thundara posted. He politely declined but offered to respond via email to any questions. The link in the post is his perspective of the experience of having something he wrote years ago resurge and the type of comments it elicited from various platforms.
I call it the "bestof effect." It's a byproduct of communication jumping across community boundaries. In my opinion, it's simpler than he makes it out to be - you have a community discussing something. Something about that discussion interests a member of it enough to share it with one or more of their other communities. If the new community finds it interesting, ownership of the discussion transfers to the new community. Nothing weird about that - if Mr. Furley were talking about something Jack said to Janet while getting his hair cut at the barber shop, the dudes in the barber shop wouldn't wander over to have it out with Jack and Janet, they'd keep talking right where they were, in their community. Because there is no geographic or temporal separation between communities on the Internet, however, it sends off different cues - "they're all assholes." "they're all doing a 'group monkey dance'". "They're ruining discourse." They aren't - they're just talking as if you aren't in the room. Which you aren't. And if you were to show up uninvited it would be the rudest thing EVAR. They touch on this in Indie Game - despite the fact that Jonathan Blow is awesome and created a dope-ass game in Braid, the fact that he pops up in any forum discussing Braid does not make him hands-on and awesome, it makes him clingy and annoying. You have to invite the vampire in. You deal with the bestof effect by recognizing that the only discussion you should bother with is the one you started and if it propagates out into the universe where others see it, you need to recognize that their discussions are about you, not with you. At one point I attempted to engage threads about my /bestof posts but I learned that it always made me hate Reddit. Eventually I limited myself to one comment in the /bestof thread but I discovered that even that makes me hate life. You're an outsider. You aren't part of the discussion. You're an unwelcome guest and they want the ability to discuss you and talk about you amongst the people they know without having to worry about dealing with you personally. Let them. You said what you wanted to say to the people you wanted to say it to and the added exposure isn't helping anyone.
The linked article on the group monkey dance is extremely good.
Can anyone find a reference to "group monkey dance" which doesn't lead back to that post?
I like how he's rebutting criticism of his attitude by declaring that it could not possibly be valid and that criticism of his attitude and style are inherently harmful. It really speaks well of his personality, ego, and attitude that he is so hostile to criticism, no? However, I agree that the article link is quite useful.
To be fair to the author,, and having not much interest in the original article, when a person reads a rant, the last thing that is useful is talking about a tone. Intellectual discussion is very much a tone-based discussion since word choice and syntax contribute heavily to how information is communicated. Rants are more personal expression and are designed to communicate information a bit more bluntly. That being said, its a fascinatingly strange experience to see a person compile a list of their criticisms and responses, then cross check it across sites and present a statistically irrelevant sample to the viewers. Fascinating because it offers some insight in to both the site and the offer and strange because the amount of time spent on that chart could be used to do something more productive.
Well, because it affects how people receive your work, if part of your work is making a positive change by influencing others in some way. I have a shitty attitude a lot of the time and criticism of it has helped me grow. (And helped me make the decision to actually finally quit Reddit, with the exception of one novelty account I keep around for giggles.)
Alternatively, strike a balance in which you release material publicly but only engage in discussion with those who seem capable of understanding the things you say instead of getting caught up in the way you say them. Which is exactly what the author of this article is doing. Which everyone must do to some degree, considering the one-to-many communication model of the internet is capable of generating massive audiences that are infeasible to engage with on an individual level (as you mentioned). If you respond to any member of that audience on an individual level, you have effectively hand-selected a member of your audience to participate in discussion. edit: i think he goes too far in claiming that public comments are harmful. i would say that public comments simply tend to encourages the kind of response he does not find interesting, and that personal email has a higher signal/noise ratio.
I gave it some thought on the way home, and I have swayed a bit more to your perspective, but I still think that a good attitude is a trait that it's simply lazy for any person who presents materials to the public not to cultivate. If you're SO brilliant that you really truly don't need to be liked, okay, but most people (even most brilliant people) are not. However, I acknowledge that the value of his work, though not best served by his presentation, is not itself affected by his presentation. The thing that sticks in my craw is his need to announce that he thinks comments are harmful and that he won't participate. Just don't participate next time, guy. Nobody's waiting with bated breath for ya!
I agree with this. To me it seems like he's just now learning how to interact with people on the internet, and was surprised by the sheer volume of shitposting that happens in public. Of course once you scale up past a certain size, private messages become useless too.The thing that sticks in my craw is his need to announce that he thinks comments are harmful and that he won't participate. Just don't participate next time, guy. Nobody's waiting with bated breath for ya!
Sometimes you can't see forest for the trees, meaning that this may seem benign on its own, but once this type of writing becomes more and more pervasive, is something lost? I would be curious to know which of the two comments he perceived as negative? I'm not saying there aren't 2, perhaps there's more? It's just such a subjective thing. I did like the linked post and again should mention that Fred was very kind in his letter to me and offered to respond to users via email if they wanted to reach out to him. An offer that I would guess stands.