And if you want to be upvoted/agreed with a lot you should post a cynical view.
It seems that cynicism is seen as intelligence and optimism is seen as naivity.
Yet there is no concept of naive cynicism
Why is this?
Then Al Gore pushed through legislation making it possible to commercialize the Internet[0], and everything changed. It now became possible to do business, and to advertise on the Internet. This resulted in the "Eternal September"[1], that we've never recovered from. We became a low trust society.
---
Additionally, there is some friction with posting comments and replies online. Thus it's only when you notice something that is emotionally strong, including obvious errors or mistakes, that gets you over the hump and posting. This creates a strong survivorship bias[2], which can eventually lead to thought bubbles and preference falsification[3].
It's generally small communities with common interests, or users who have met in person, that can resist this trend.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_techno...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
Disagree. It's easier to preach to broader audience by repeating what most agree with. Try going into random reddit submission and sort comments by controversial. Guarantee they will be full of cynicism and have scores oscillating around 0 at best.
Because of this I find cynicism more authentic. These people don't mind openly having an opinion that may not be liked by others. Personally these cynical takes challenge my view on something and help me see through tribalism and echo chambers I find myself in
First, communicating over the internet skips many contextual steps that might give you hints about someone’s true intentions and the underlying/hidden meanings of what people say and how they express their ideas. The people I usually communicate with outside the internet have gone through some quite extensive filtering that gives them credibility for me: they are either my friends, colleagues, or family, or friends/colleagues/family of friends/colleague/family, etc. This means I can read them beyond only the specific words they are saying. They and I have “skin on the game”; we know each other, we are part of a circle that involves respect and trust, at some level, and that means I don’t expect them to just randomly blurt out some stupid thing that makes no sense. It happens, sure, but it is less likely and easier to deal with (because there are other people in the “circle” that might support you).
If, on the other hand, I just met someone, then I can still use all kinds of other senses and extra information to “read” the person and decide whether I can trust them or not. In-person dialogues are much more agile and dynamic, you can react to things faster, there is body language, etc. All of this is missing over the internet which makes it much harder to judge someone’s true intention (and anyway if all that fails I’ll be cynical in-person too, but a joke and a smile sometimes solves everything).
Over the internet all that goes out the window. Most of the time there’s no skin in the game, and people are just as likely to say any random bullshit that comes to their mind as they are to say something honest. The lack of dynamism in the conversation means that words can be planned more carefully, you can think as much about what you’re not saying as about what you are saying, etc. So I don’t feel like there is any special reason why I should be optimistic/willing to trust anything I read in any special way. For me it’s more or less the same as if some stranger knocked on my door and offered me some deal or something like that. Why should I trust them?
All in all I believe that this apparent “symmetry” between being cynical vs. being naive/optimistic is not real. I believe it’s more natural to be cynical in a situation where there is no special reason to believe something is honest, simply because there is no skin in the game and there is more to be gained by the other party to cheat you than there is to be honest.
I'm reflecting on this recently - I love HN for it's good content, and yet, I noticed that lately I mostly post and comment ... cynical stuff about Tesla. Which are things I would like to see less on HN.
Facebook, without its downvotes, doesn't punish them, so people can be as cynical, bitter, and savage as they like. The algorithm boosts these. Some have a downvote button, but by giving more weight to upvotes, it has a similar effect.
Reddit rewards groupthink. It self-selects clearly enough into subreddits. X does this invisibly by grouping people with similar opinions.
HN is a mix. The main topic itself has no downvoting mechanism, so most people will disagree by writing comments. If 1000 people agree and 300 don't, you'll see hundreds of comments disagreeing and few agreeing. Since people come to the comments to downvote, the cynical opinions float up.
Criticism signals that you've found something wrong with the system (which implies secret knowledge, which makes you important and insightful).
Cynicism gives the appearance of the next level up, like the exasperated person who grew tired of yelling "Wake up, sheeple!" and now simply looks for grim solace in other intelligent people who can understand his cryptic signals (which identifies them as fellow intelligent people).
It's incredibly easy to fake this, and it makes you look intelligent, so people will keep doing it because humans are evolved to seek public validation and importance (because historically, importance grants a higher opportunity to monopolize more of society's resources, giving you a survival edge to pass on your genes).
TLDR: It has everything to do with social signaling and the appearance of social importance.
In your description the individuals appear cynical "to seek public validation and importance" and as "social signaling and the appearance of social importance".
I believe most do not fall into what you are describing. But, it is anecdotal, my personal opinion.
I am cynical because I am jaded and in general distrust the internet and distrust of the integrity or professed motives of those on the internet. [paraphrased from the American Heritage Dictionary]
Alas, I am cynical because I truly am jaded. I am distrustful because of my experience online, not because I need validation. I am aware I need social interaction, but I do not need anything from anyone. To ingeminate "honey badger Don't give a 5h!7". :D
Often it comes from your vision becoming distorted due to the news cycle (which churns out depressing hopelessness like sausage because it keeps you glued to their channels). Don't lose your morale; turn that shit off. There's plenty to be hopeful and grateful for. I honestly think we're living in some of the best times ever.
Being a bit skeptical is good. Paralyzing cynicism is not.
2. Because optimism is usually wrong
3. Naive cynicism is a thing, such people are called conspiracy theorists and idiots
4. Optimism is rarely unironically funny or entertaining and nobody likes being preached at
5. Standing out from the crowd gathers attention and stokes the ego
6. Internet people more often work in fields where optimism is verboten. An optimistic engineer is a bad engineer when engineering mistakes can kill people or cause serious damage or financial loss
