Critical thinking is overrated, constructive thinking is underrated.
Too many turn into critics rather than creators because saying to the world "this is what I stand for, this is what I created" is so much harder than to simply tear someone elses down.
The US is actually much better than Europe but unfortunately academic disciplines and craftmanship are mostly separated in the education system when they should never have been separated to begin with.
Its a shame really cause creation is what matters. And yes I understand the irony of my comment :)
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
I'd much rather read from film critics about which films are good to see, rather than bloody myself and waste my time seeing five terrible films to find the one good one.
Folks have too narrow a view of what critics do. Critics critique. That can be a hugely beneficial thing. Ever had anyone proofread something for you? That's criticism. Ever had a mentor or an advisor? That involves criticism. And contrary to Roosevelt's comment, criticism can be a very worthy thing.
'Criticism' is not synonymous with 'disparagement'.
Film critics almost never do what online pseudonymous posters do; invariably, in every thread on HN, the top comment shits on the article. Film critics love film- they try to get others to go watch the films they love (or at least read their articles). The HN top comment just functions to show how smart the poster is.
I disagree. Frequently the top comment on HN is continuing the conversation. Often that involves some disagreement, but that's not the same as shitting on the article.
Looking at the first ten articles on the front page right now:
Streem: "I am glad that someone is working on a new stream processing language, it is a very interesting paradigm. "
Margaret Hamilton: "What a truly inspiring human being. I can only dream of aspiring to her levels of contribution."
Sony Hack: "This is the angle on the Sony hack that I find most interesting/troubling/etc. "
DeepDive: "It does probabilistic inference![1]"
Youth metabolism: "I don't really understand the comments here, and especially on the article itself, deriding this research because "people should just get off their butts and exercise" or similar."
Other Money Problem: "One of his essays from a couple of months ago [shows philosophical opposition from essays from 10 years ago]"
Irregular Verbs: "As Steven Pinker points out in this very interesting article... [discussion of verbs]"
LLVM developers meeting: "For those who are curious, Part 1 of Chandler Carruth's Pass Manager talk is avaliable here:"
Overhaul law enforcement: "I'm getting to the point where I can't stand local law enforcement."
Prismatic Android app: "As someone who is rapidly becoming an old-timer, I have to say I miss the old days of Make."
One of the comments disagrees with the article (the last one). One of the comments is questioning the quality of other comments. All of the comments are contributing to the conversation, and none of them can be characterised to be shitting on the article.
The trends continue on with the following articles, but I couldn't be bothered setting up the quoting - this is left as an exercise for the reader.
The irony I saw is that I was responding to a point made by kansface, rebutting a misconception that really isn't true. In doing so, I provided evidence to that, pulling in quotes and citing my methods. I created content. Yes, it's not a prize essay, but it took some minor effort, and more importantly it added information to the conversation. It also wasn't derogatory - I didn't imply kansface was a fool, I only discussed the misconception itself.
Then, despite your earlier protestations of people tearing down instead of creating, you just dismissed what I did out of hand with a mere "we're not talking about that". You added nothing to the conversation with that comment, and tried to stifle a conversation branch in process.
While the greater conversation is about more than HN, a specific point on HN was made, and the same specific point was rebutted. Cutting off that conversation is doing exactly what you were complaining about originally.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..." - Anton Ego
Creation is overrated: Sturgeon's law applies to almost everything (and perhaps undercounts). The most important part of creation is criticism: until you learn how to edit and kill your babies, you won't write anything more than a sentence worth shit. Similar applies to programming. Of course, learning these skills requires writing and programming a lot (for most people: there may be some prodigies).
The most important point of creation is to makie decisions.
That is what you train for. To be able to do as a creator without too many barriers between your intuition and your ability to transform that into something.
A jazz musician who apply critical thinking to her improvisation is not playing.
A writer who think is not writing.
She might not like what she ended up deciding but there is nothing to throw away, no babys to kill if nothing have been created.
I think you're confusing the term "critical thinking" with criticism or negativity- it just means trying to be as objective as possible when reasoning about something. Critical thinking is more about rooting out your own biases than picking apart things said by other people (I would consider that to be just having an argumentative nature).
Someone who has a hair trigger for jumping on other people when they say things that they disagree with is actually applying the opposite of critical thinking- they're not only not questioning their own beliefs, but they're trying to impose them on someone else.
No I am well aware of what critical thinking is and I still stand by that I find it overrated. That does not mean it's not important it is but it's getting way more credit than it deserves.
As I said another place this extends into corporate world where it's actually seen as providing value if you are able to point out problems with what others are suggesting.
Critical thinking has it's place but it's unfortunately often mistaken for creation and there comes a point where it's useless.
There is value in pointing out problems - if you aren't assessing the given pros/cons of a proposal, you're throwing knives blindfolded on a circus wheel...and I don't want to be the one pinned to the wheel with someone doing that. There are too many examples of where this type of thinking sinks everything it pollutes, including startups.
Critical thinking is not given enough value in our society - a lot of people are not successful because they lack it. Spend a prolonged amount of time around many less fortunate people, and you will see this in abundance. Critical thinking is not the only important thing, but it is the fundamental baseline that is most lacking. There are more than enough creators - there are not enough people laying down foundation for creators to proliferate in.
The ability to analyze and assess, and craft a beautiful solution based on the detailed analysis, cannot be possible without the first step of top level understanding. People forget this, and want to jump to the crafting part. The lack of understanding of fundamentals will prevent such people from succeeding, unless it is in spite of themselves. One cannot hope to come up with a beautiful proof of one of the Millennial Prize problems without an understanding of the basics of mathematics. One cannot hope to craft a beautiful composition of music or improvisation without having an intuitive understanding of how certain sounds/patterns move people. One cannot create a fine work of art without a similar understanding of how colors, combinations of colors, and texture affect the total perception.
There cannot be enough stress on the importance of the foundation that is critical thinking. Each of those examples I cited above are examples of critical thinking in action, each in different forms. Critical thinking is not just the formal realm of abstract thought - it is about how we as humans think on a basic level, and how we derive at our conclusions. Certain applications of it involve tapping into previous experiences and quickly determining what should be the next path to take. Others involve carefully reasoned thought.
Yes there is value in pointing out problem. I pointed out a problem with critical thinking being applied too much in too many situations at the cost of actually creating something.
Thats why I called it overrated and not useless.
You are wrong about critical thinking being a requirement for creation it's not and has never been. It can be used, sometimes with success but many times it's being mis-used to represent constructive thinking when it's really just playing devils advocate.
"Yes there is value in pointing out problem. I pointed out a problem with critical thinking being applied too much in too many situations at the cost of actually creating something."
That critical thinking - critical thinking would take that into account. What you are complaining about is overthinking, not critical thinking - abusing the term is dishonest.
"You are wrong about critical thinking being a requirement for creation it's not and has never been. It can be used, sometimes with success but many times it's being mis-used to represent constructive thinking when it's really just playing devils advocate."
No I am not complaining about overthinking I am complaining about how people who learn critical thinking confuse it with constructive thinking, just like you do now.
Too many turn into critics rather than creators because saying to the world "this is what I stand for, this is what I created" is so much harder than to simply tear someone elses down.
The US is actually much better than Europe but unfortunately academic disciplines and craftmanship are mostly separated in the education system when they should never have been separated to begin with.
Its a shame really cause creation is what matters. And yes I understand the irony of my comment :)