How come HN folks are so well-versed in social sciences and humanities?

I got into the humanities the same way I got into programming. Something caught my interest and I started tugging on loose ends. I do think it makes you a far more well rounded person.

The thing is that you're steeped in the conclusions of philosophy and sociology whether you are aware of it or not. Actual study of these subjects pulls the wool from your eyes and allows you to confront what you've been taught to assume.

A logical positivist, as you're probably likely to end up if you dive headlong into STEM and just absorbing assumptions from your professors and peers, might say something like 'the only meaningful things are the things that can be measured objectively' vaguely echoing the 'atoms and void' of Democritus, without even considering what what meaning is and where it comes from, or what a "thing" is, or what measurement is, or what objectivity is, or whether objective reality can even be assumed to exist. Why should we even pursue meaningful things? Can we measure what's meaningful? And so on.

I don't have good answers to any of these questions, the point is rather you could probably fill a shelf with books and dissertations on each of these subjects. But you wouldn't know that without at least dabbling in philosophy.

Most aren’t, but, it’s easy to repeat the words of others. And, some have an incentive to get others to repeat their words as if they were their own.

Notice how you’ll see a phrase on Twitter one day and a week or month later hundreds of people are using the exact words with an “ugh, doesn’t this idiot understand . IT’S NOT THAT HARD!” tone.

It’s amazing to see how quickly groups are able to adopt talking points. My favorite HN example, while not about the humanities, is the conversation about Rust vs. Go before and after the Discord article.

Link: https://discord.com/blog/why-discord-is-switching-from-go-to...

HN is pretty tech centric, and pretty US tech centric in particular. Those select heavily for folks who attended the American style of liberal arts university.

American liberal arts programs are design to provide a very broad education, so Computer Science majors will still take a bunch of courses in the humanities - or even double-major (my other degree is in Philosophy, and many of my classmates double majored in things like History or Political Science).

In my case, I have currently 3 degrees. One of them is theology. The latest one was computer science.

I couldn’t find a job with my theology degree so I changed career path to programming, and ended up taking comp sci degree.

I suppose a lot of programmers here came from different backgrounds like arts, music, law, etc for financial related purposes.

Speaking for myself, I'm a writer and artist who learned to code so I could build the things I wanted to create and use, rather than starting from an innate love of logic, for example. I've always been fascinated by science and tech, but I'm very much what they used to call a "right brained" person.

So for me, the answer to your question is backwards: I discovered coding as a small kid first to write little text adventures in BASIC on the Commodore, and then to do fractal art and MIDI stuff in DOS, and then the Web as a medium of doing multimedia art, and coding when I ran into the limits of what I could do in HTML. I ended up for my entire life thus far getting paid to either write code/do web design or write journalism and nonfiction. So for me, the journey was learning math and logic, not the humanities.

We all studied STEM, which usually include a math minor degree, so we know math.

Physics is just applied math, so we know everything about physics

Chemistry is just applied physics, so we know everything about chemistry

Biology is just applied chemistry, so we know everything about biology

Social science is just applied biology, so we know everything about that, too

Well-developed intellectual curiosity looks in every direction.

Having read the comments, I believe one aspect is being left out, which is confusing form with substance.

Arguing logically, drawing links between references, as well as writing correctly, in itself, critically, are not materially related to an inherent property of knowledge.

That is, they do not refer materially to the substance of an argument logically set out, the nature of the use of references or the drawing of links, or the quality of truth of a piece of writing itself.

A subject matter expert can capture a truth of the nature of a subject in a few words, possibly expressed without logical structure, without references, and with serious clerical errors.

On the other hand, despite presenting arguments logically, employing quotations, and using language proficiently, an individual can be seriously wrong about the same truth.

My aunt, a history buff later turned history professor, was very into the Classics form of education. Granted hers idea was very St. Augustine centric as a devout Catholic.

None of her kids took an interest in academics at all. I’m her only nephew and she has no nieces. When I was little, she’d bring me books, teach me things from the classes she was giving, and took me to museums. I learned a lot from that time.

On top of that, my parents tended to not limit what I could read or even try to steer it. They just took me to the library and let me choose things.

I don’t think I’m much of an expert on those topics but I’ve read a lot across a lot of topics. I know enough to smell bullshit and enough to avoid spouting it.

The more widely I read, the less apt I am to indulge sweeping pronouncements.

No one cares what I may think I know. Offer a link and let others engage.

Some of us are humanities scholars and social scientists, and aren't nearly so well-versed in technology as most of the others here. I'm personally consistently surprised/impressed by people who have taken CS/hacker routes and can show off deep and elegant reverse-engineering efforts or whatever.

FWIW, my background is a lifelong interest in computers, followed by a BA in politics, several years mostly in (non-IT) management in bureaucracies, a doctorate looking at government IT use (with increasing amounts of stats and coding), and currently a job as a computational social science academic.

There are surprisingly few people who are really good with both tech and the social sciences. Most of us are much better at one than the other (my code is typically academic standard) and I'm in awe of the few that are genuinely insightful in both fields.

At least part of it is that social sciences/humanities is in some sense a 'default', so you see STEM types having hobbies or outside interests which fall into those, but then not vice-versa. Snow's "Two Cultures" thing remarks on this. Thus, STEM types will have a lot more to say about humanities than vice-versa.

When you do Simonton-style science-of-science surveys and you survey, say, the National Academy of Science about their leisure-time activities, elite scientists often have deeply-pursued outside interests. Someone like Einstein playing the violin or E. T. Jaynes being so passionate about piano playing he has a whole collection of his own performances on a very expensive piano (https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/etj.html) is not at all remarkable, and is the sort of thing mentioned in passing in obituaries; on the other hand, someone like Goethe or Nabokov who dabbles in optics or in lepidopterology is treated as so remarkable there's probably books written solely about those aspects of their lives. This is true today; there are plenty of STEM nerds who will dabble in odd things like translating Epicurean philosophy in their spare time, but there aren't a whole lot of Latinists whose pride and joy is decapping an old NeoGeo cartridge for the first time.

(Now the question you doubtless have, and I had while reading these surveys, is what do the humanities types do in their leisure time? They don't answer that, but the impression I get qualitatively is that it mostly looks like 'either regular hobbies or even more of the same stuff as they do professionally'.)

I think this is unfortunate, and the humanities would do much better appreciation of, critique of, and employment of everything in STEM areas if more of them crossed-over. (Sometimes reading philosophy of mind stuff, I think we would be much better off if it were illegal to publish anything in that field without at least an undergrad degree in either AI, neuroscience, or anthropology...) But I have no suggestions as to how to make that happen, since these tendencies seem to come as much from personality differences and preferences as much as any sort of institutional or economic constraint.

I went to a liberal arts college, got a degree in fine arts, with the coursework spread all over the humanities and social sciences. I also did some grad school and some law school. I'm not claiming that any of my education makes me an expert on what I studied - education is just the beginning of the process after all, and my experience since then has taught me more. But sometimes the answer of where our knowledge comes from is that simple - school.

We are quite technically inclined. But when we practice that same approach towards less technical fields likes art, each person is able to give a unique take coming from their own walk of life and perspective. Still I find it intriguing for so many here to be interested in some obscure singer or musician. And then I wonder where am I lacking.

> how many folks at HN are so well-versed at both technology and social sciences & humanities.

Is this really the case? Keep in mind that a significant number of HN users are not actually (professional) software developers. There are artists, authors, musicians, historians, linguists, psychologists, doctors, etc.

Sometimes I google a subject just I can reply and sound smart. Don’t tell anyone.

Beware “the unearned certainty of the autodidact — a weird sort of know-it-all position taken by someone who mistakes their own experience for universal truth, especially when that experience is coupled with a personality that makes one certain of one’s own brilliance.“[0]

But, many intellectually curious people are broadly read.

I’ve had long formal academic training in the biosciences, but some early and very influential exposure to the relevance and merits of philosophy, theology, poetry, and literature have kept me open to and engaged in that side of the intellectual world too. I try to be up front about my relatively informal scope of knowledge, for good and ill.

I have family members who like to talk and who have advanced degrees in a wide range of disciplines, too, so that exposure sort of rubs off.

[0] http://mischeathen.com/?p=19198

HN was founded not just for programmers, but for people interested in startups. For most startups, understanding people (your users) is even more important than understanding the tech.

A lot of what you may translate as sociology are the obvious conclusions of sociology, but the field is about well more than just stating the obvious.

Perhaps good engineering and science require genuine curiosity and an open mind which in turn demands broad interest.

Maybe because people's here have a certain culture, and if you have culture you have to be well-versed in broad aspect of culture, not just one. Mere technicians know just their own field, people of culture know their field but also a bit of anything else in various proportions.

BTW there is a reason why in English doctorate of research is named "Philosophy Doctorate in $something" (PhD) and Japanese have shu-ha-ri concept.

The more time you spend on this site the more you realize that it is not immune to the same problem that other sites have of people acting as if they have something insightful to say when they're just regurgitating common talking points.

The few contrarian opionions typically get buried here, althougn not hidden or lost in a massive sea like Reddit for the most part.

This place is better to glean insight from the more technical threads or the ocassional debates that don't immediately devolve into emotional appeals.

Curiosity and reading.

All these people talking about people only having shallow knowledge and pretending to be more authoritative, that is a problem. Especially the pretending to be knowledgeable, but I find the wide range of opinions and thoughts of intelligent people to be helpful in figuring out how to think about something.

It's easy

I cannot talk about HN folks, but only myself.

I take culture very very seriously. I do it as an independent adult, but I also grew up in a very culturally immersive household.

High culture always had a place in my family. I gave up many things that came with being born in my family, like food habits, the whole religion/spirituality thing, etc. But not culture. I believe that Culture is supremely important to one's identity- whethet self-designed or inherited.

I was made to perform at stage since the age of two. I had no stage fright or test-anxiety in my life. I also noticed many of the skills directly translated to being a good communicator of ideas and concepts. And the social benefits were clear since my infancy.

I also had a very motivated history teacher, and much overqualified literature teacher all my middle and high school. I learned to love social sciences for them, too.

I stuck with it. I read poetry regularly, learn new cultures, and new things in general.

So, the first component would be- immersion due to family, and social and personal benefits clearly visible from childhood.

I am generally a very curious person. Just like I got to know how the nature works, what fusion is, and how Djikstra's algortlithm is better, or what quantum computing or topology is-- I got to know how our country came to be, how and why our culture is the way it is. How our language formed and why people make some decisions they do. Or how Napoleone created some European nation, or what Buddha was about.

So, the second component is about general curiosity of the world around and trying to figure out why. (I am aware of the limits of epistemic knowledge- especially after I read Taleb and got to know about Zen).

Culture is simply beautiful. It makes you feel better. Rather than watching a game show or fake celebrity smile, playing Bach in my piano or talking about a da Vinci or Monet is simply better.

The third component- plain good feelings.

I have learned something on my own. But Cal Newport put words to it- "a deep life is a good life". Getting to be better at something, anything- going deep into it is simply better. It makes me feel good about myself. Whether it is optimization algorithms or the history of Ashoka the Great.

The fourth component is- having a deep life.

The company is certainly better and more interesting than other activities like watching sport. I have made very nice and true friends from my interest in humanities.

It is also a part of my identity. And I certainly felt good about doing the stuff. Culture is not some magical, mystical thing. It also comes from doing things repeatedly that most people don't do. I also wanted to be better, working at skills and nice things, and wanted to avoid the company that came with being "normal". I wanted to be better, generally.

Although I am now a responsible, stable, confident, and content adult, I always wasn’t this way. Outside of my family, where I grew up, the atmosphere wasn’t always uo to my liking. I wasn’t bullied or anything, but I noticed a hostility by some of the majority.

I was insecure. And I had an arrogance and, later a hubris that protected me and served me well. I wanted to become better. Better at- math, science, programming, culture, academics- all of them.

> What kind of things (books, magazines, forums, etc) helped you to become so knowledgeable and/or engaged in these world/cultural issues?

Curiosity in general.

My local library system has a limit on the maximum number of holds you can have at any given time (100), and every since the the pandemic started I've continually been at that limit.

I read a book, and it has references/footnotes, which leads to more books. Or while I'm look at one book I look at other books on the same topic, e.g., reading about WW2 in general:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(book)

I end up reading book specifically on Stalingrad, the taking of Berlin, and D-Day, Operation Market Garden, Operation Chowhound:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(Beevor_book)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin:_The_Downfall_1945

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Day_(book)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bridge_Too_Far_(book)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_Manna_and_Chowhound

On legal history:

* https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo562094...

* https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300116007/origins-reason...

* https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/perlman-ancient-greek-law-i...

All of the above books are available at my local library system (I'm in a major city) so I don't have to spend any money or take up space in my domicile.

Repeat going down the rabbit hole for the topics of science, philosophy, history (ancient, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment), etc.

From my perspective a decent amount of people in this website are great at sounding knowledgeable on a topic while only having a shallow understanding of it.

Be careful how much credit you give them, I find they often speak with great confidence about things they clearly know nothing about.

Sorry to say, but many of the people here who talk like they know things, don’t.

I am guilty of this and I apologize for how many things I’ve gotten wrong.

As for the random knowledge I do have, most of it is due to being an author. The amount of research that go into tiny details of my stories is just silly. Did I need to spend 16 hours researching rail guns? Not really. Did I? …I decline to answer this question on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Because, relatively, we're smarter than the average bear.

Many commenters are just phonies. HN is for entertainment, not a reliable source of information.

It’s free to type here, that’s all.