[HN Gopher] There's always more history (2020)
___________________________________________________________________
There's always more history (2020)
Author : isp
Score : 57 points
Date : 2023-07-10 17:34 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hillelwayne.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hillelwayne.com)
| bsrhng wrote:
| I think he discovered cultural history.
|
| Also uses the word "excavating", maybe he read a bit of Foucault.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| >> the difference between answers and explanation.
|
| This is quite a profound point, and worth reading the article for
| isp wrote:
| Absolutely - the specific examples of "Why Vim Uses hjkl" and
| "Why JavaScript months start from 0" were very interesting in
| themselves.
|
| But the profound point was the generalisation:
|
| > We can always look further, peeling back more and more layers
| of the history.
|
| > But two layers is enough for this essay. With two layers, we
| can see a common pattern in studying history, the difference
| between answers and explanation. When asked why something is
| the way it is, most people will give a post-hoc
| rationalization. They'll see the present and come up with
| reasons why it's "better" for things to be that way. If you
| look a little into the past, you often see that "things are
| this way because they were this way". And if you look deeper,
| you see the forces that lead to things _becoming_ that way.
|
| > ... But it's all worth the effort. Digging into the second
| layer teaches us much more about the context and reasons for
| why things are the way they are. And I can't deny the puzzle
| aspect of it all, the joy in solving a mystery. Lost knowledge
| found again.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| I'd like to believe that one case of that - difference between
| answers and explanation - is why you have the "flat earth"
| thing out there: they're trying to rile up people who were just
| taught the right answer.
|
| But, nah, probably just trying to rile up people in general,
| sort of a TV sitcom ersatz.
| bovermyer wrote:
| A related exercise that may be of interest: five levels of "why."
|
| Find a willing friend or coworker, and ask them why they did
| something with a project of theirs. When they answer that, ask
| them "why" about their answer. Do this a total of five times.
|
| After the second "why," they'll probably have to think pretty
| hard. The fourth or fifth "why" sometimes elicits a "because it's
| just done that way" or "I dunno" response.
|
| Then let them do the same to you.
|
| It's a fun exercise.
| feoren wrote:
| This is the age-old favorite toddler game to enjoy flummoxing
| their parents. Somehow whenever mine does this with me we end
| up on "well, because the early makeup of the solar system ...
| ". Similarly to how repeatedly following the first link in
| Wikipedia articles tends to land you on Philosophy. It takes
| more than 5 whys, though.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > This is the age-old favorite toddler game to enjoy
| flummoxing their parents.
|
| Yep -- having a child is what taught me that "because" is a
| totally legitimate answer. Or, for an older child, "I don't
| know, you should research that".
| Lacerda69 wrote:
| I was feared as a kid for relentlessy bullying adults with
| this question. I just remember that most got really annoyed
| quickly, but some special characters were almost impoasible
| to crack. In the end everyone gave up.
| phatskat wrote:
| As a vim user, I've always just assumed the home row bit - very
| cool to learn more of the history behind it
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-11 23:01 UTC)