I think of it in terms of energy gaining/draining, but I meant more from the "big 5" test perspective, as well as the other groups of personality tests you can take like DISC and Meters-Briggs.
In general I'm fairly skeptical of personality tests, beyond just intro/extro version, for the similar reason that a) I can test vastly different based on my mood and b) people tend to tie their self image to the results and you end up with a tail-wagging-dog situation.
I tend to be a bit skeptical when studies are based on extroversion and introversion, if only because I can test on all parts of the spectrum depending on my mood.
I think people shackle their identity to their *version, and it can be limiting.
You could tell your coworker (or your direct report if we're taking this analogy seriously) to clean up his work area. A child's room isn't a completely private space, and it's where they do their "work" (getting dressed, homework, play time, etc.).
A) I've been on HN for 10 years, I'm not "coming from" or "struggling to adjust" anywhere and B) I didn't mean "other message boards" I meant literally every other community I belong to, both professionally and personally. Online and offline.
HN isn't special, dang is the problem, specifically dang. He needs to go. If he goes, I can thrive just fine. During the times he leaves me alone I thrive in here. When he attacks me, that's when I struggle.
This addiction to HN being a special place is complete and utter nonsense, and if that's the koolaid you're drinking, we have little to say to one another.
Advice is good, I don't want to seem like I'm critical of the post or anything, I just thought it's worth pointing out the differences in goals of the folks who tend to give the most popular startup advice from your specific situation.
That difference might help explain why there might be a perceived gap in what's here vs. what's on pg's blog, for example.
It seems like startup advice is based on the repeatable observations that people who've worked with a lot of startups have discovered. That means there are a bunch of situations that don't get covered because they don't come up a lot.
When playing an odds game like startups, you want to do all the maximally viable things possible, but that doesn't mean other decisions aren't also viable, they're just not observed to be as successful, so they're not mentioned. Doesn't mean they won't work.
There's also opportunity cost. What could this team have done if they were working on something more... disruptive? The execution here is incredible, applying that to a new problem would have probably also done very well.
It's not a personal attack, it's my opinion. I've worked with people who think that way, and I'd prefer if they didn't exist in the industry. How would you prefer I shape that comment so it's not crossing some magical line?
I am aware, generally, how things are. My complaining here is not confusion, it's frustration. I know I can change my behavior to elicit a better response, but I'm frustrated that it's relevant. People should have thicker skin, and when people dish it out (as what was going on here), I should be allowed to give it back. Dang's not commenting on anyone else's posts here, though there were many other rule violators.
It's an unfair application of the rules.
Edit: This post is 0 minutes old, how does it have a downvote already? This is the shit I'm talking about...
You've completely misunderstood my goals in talking to you. This is a public forum, and I'm making a case for why I think the people who read what I write should believe what I'm arguing. This isn't about you, or me, it's about convincing others that the viewpoint I hold is a valid one.
Your opinion of me, your ability to help/not help me, and all the other interpersonal things you're bringing into this are just your baggage. I thought you wrote a great article that had a few specific passages I felt dang should in particular read, and I called that out publicly. If that's "thread shitting", I think maybe you need to re-evaluate the kind of personal relationship you have with people who read your writing.
I think your edit here is an emotional one, and I'm not really going to address it further beyond pointing out in the very comment you're replying to I take some responsibility for my role in how I'm treated here.
I've found exactly the opposite. He blatantly lies about situations, gas lights at every opportunity, refuses to himself follow the HN guidelines; his behavior is completely the opposite of the letter and spirit of the HN guidelines.
He posts vague, "Please stop" comments on many people he perceives as breaking the HN guidelines, which is a clear violation of the "no low effort posts" HN guideline. When he does elaborate, he violates the HN guideline of arguing the best form of an argument by nitpicking and intentionally misinterpreting what people mean and how they write. Further, he pretends to not understand a situation and simply repeat the vague, "You're breaking the rules".
When I tried to interact with a different moderator he refused to let me, without elaborating. He didn't allow me to speak with anyone other than him; I wonder why that is...
Dang is not a good moderator, a look at his comment history will reveal that pretty clearly.
Dang doesn't understand any of what you said, and makes zero attempt at improving, neither himself nor the site at large.
I am certainly not guiltless, but consider the fact that I have none of these problems anywhere else I interact with others. Why is it just on HN that I run into these struggles? I am in lots of communities through my daily interactions, and I successfully navigate those, so what's special about HN, other than dang and the site's mechanics?
This place cannot handle dissent. That's literally the definition of a toxic environment, and dang does nothing to create safety for people who might not agree with the mainstream view. That's on him.
I think faking growth until you achieve actual growth is the time-honored tradition of social media websites, and can flip a failure into a success by getting people to feel that, "Am I missing out?" feeling again.
I don't think WT:Social is doing that right now though, so not sure what their plan is to combat what you're talking about.
Definitely, which is why doing it just to get small blocks of code won't work. It has to be part of the entire design, and sliced at real, logically separate spacings.
It's hard! But immensely rewarding if you get it right. You have to be thoughtful as you design and build.
People don't like hearing dissent, or people who disagree with them. My tone is a reaction to the hostility I'm experiencing as a result of that friction.
Most forums have some kind of backstop that prevents the vindictive from causing too much harm. This forum has a vindictive moderator. He needs to go.