>Sometimes being contrary is inherent to groupthink.
And lack of being contrary, is more conducive to groupthink.
>And being well-written and productive doesn't mean the comment is insightful, intelligent, or informative, which one assumes would be a preferred top comment.
Only if you're using a non-standard definition of productive. Could you spell out what you mean here? In common use, a productive discussion is one in which at least one side emerged with a better understanding of the issue. (If you can do that without being insightful, more power to you!)
This contrasts with a discussion in which arguers blur important distinctions, talk past each other, and so on.
It may be helpful (productive?) to give an example of (what I consider) a comment that is insightful, informative, and correct, but unproductive: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7840204
In this case, it's because the poster simply reiterated the logic behind the point his critics already accepted, thereby doing nothing to convey understanding of why they should take his position.
So, I don't think you actually disagree that "productive = good" here, but have non-standard criteria for what counts as productive.
And lack of being contrary, is more conducive to groupthink.
>And being well-written and productive doesn't mean the comment is insightful, intelligent, or informative, which one assumes would be a preferred top comment.
Only if you're using a non-standard definition of productive. Could you spell out what you mean here? In common use, a productive discussion is one in which at least one side emerged with a better understanding of the issue. (If you can do that without being insightful, more power to you!)
This contrasts with a discussion in which arguers blur important distinctions, talk past each other, and so on.
It may be helpful (productive?) to give an example of (what I consider) a comment that is insightful, informative, and correct, but unproductive: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7840204
In this case, it's because the poster simply reiterated the logic behind the point his critics already accepted, thereby doing nothing to convey understanding of why they should take his position.
So, I don't think you actually disagree that "productive = good" here, but have non-standard criteria for what counts as productive.