I've noticed this on HN too. When otherwise lightweight stories get a lot of upvotes, the most common cause (probably more than 90% of the time) is that they're something users are indignant about. The more clickbaitish news sites know about this phenomenon and deliberately milk it.
Isn't this also true in real life causes? E.g., I see many more political campaigns gain traction when they invoke the language of impending doom, illustrate a threat to a way of life, and call attention to something outrageous. I can hardly think of any successful cause that was carried on what I would consider positive messaging.
It seems to me that the promise of some great outcome seems either/both unbelievable and easy to defer action toward. But negative outcomes are immediate and demand action now. Negatively-charged stories seem to press all the same buttons -- "can you believe this!?", "this must stop!", "they're at it again!"
the political campaigns that get a surprising amount of traction - as in relative to what you would expect from the political machine, however, tend to point out criticism (which could be construed as "negative") in the context of a greater positivity/aspiration (I'm thinking in 2008 Barack Obama, Ron Paul), so it gets tricky to label things in such black and white negative/positive contexts.
That is almost certainly true, but I doubt that alone would explain it, as people also love to look at cute pictures of animals, list of facts, etc.
So it would seem to me that the more interesting question is why would they like being indignant so much? Does it foster some group cohesion or does it trigger our flight/fight response so that people get a dopamin rush?
Meaning that the derivation of pleasure from indignation is finely honed social trait. We actually like to police ourselves.
So ironically, the "righteous individual against nefarious powers and / or the establishment" turns out to be a mechanism for preserving greater social cohesion.
Jonah Berger at Wharton has done research on WoM and emotions that spread: "But content that evokes certain specific negative emotion, such as anger or anxiety, is also more viral." - https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/berger/
The main takeaway: "How do specific emotions affect virality? The relationships between specific emotions and virality suggest that the role of emotion in transmission is more complex than mere valence alone (Table 4, Model 3). While more awe-inspiring (a positive emotion) content is more viral and sadness inducing (a negative emotion) content is less viral, some negative emotions are positively associated with virality. More anxiety- and anger-inducing stories are both more likely to make the most e-mailed list. This suggests that transmission is about more than simply sharing positive things and avoiding sharing negative ones. Consistent with our theorizing, content that evokes high-arousal emotions (i.e., awe, anger, and anxiety), regardless of their valence, is more viral."
HN loves drama. Any David vs Goliath story (small time blogger/designer gets ripped off by big corp, someone gets treated wrong by authority figure) gets huge amounts of attention even though it's insignificant on the whole, and hardly "deeply interesting."
Not just HN. Americans in general. And of course, the very paradigm you cite (David & Goliath) is Biblical, meaning it's been popular for at least 2,500 years, give or take.
Humans are confident, fighty creatures who like to beat the odds. Or at least, they like to think of themselves in this way.
Happens in meat space as well. We're quick to accept good things that happen as the status quo and become enraged at minor inconveniences. Someone didn't wait their turn at a 4-way intersection, rage! Waiters who check on you often are just doing their job and those who don't are getting a bad tip. Etc. I personally try to actively fight this instinct but wish positivity could become the norm. Would love advice on how to find that zen.
Comments
I've noticed this on HN too. When otherwise lightweight stories get a lot of upvotes, the most common cause (probably more than 90% of the time) is that they're something users are indignant about. The more clickbaitish news sites know about this phenomenon and deliberately milk it.
Isn't this also true in real life causes? E.g., I see many more political campaigns gain traction when they invoke the language of impending doom, illustrate a threat to a way of life, and call attention to something outrageous. I can hardly think of any successful cause that was carried on what I would consider positive messaging.
It seems to me that the promise of some great outcome seems either/both unbelievable and easy to defer action toward. But negative outcomes are immediate and demand action now. Negatively-charged stories seem to press all the same buttons -- "can you believe this!?", "this must stop!", "they're at it again!"
the political campaigns that get a surprising amount of traction - as in relative to what you would expect from the political machine, however, tend to point out criticism (which could be construed as "negative") in the context of a greater positivity/aspiration (I'm thinking in 2008 Barack Obama, Ron Paul), so it gets tricky to label things in such black and white negative/positive contexts.
My tenuous hypothesis is that people think sharing news of an injustice will increase the likelihood that it will be redressed.
That's probably a big part of it. But I believe people also sometimes enjoy the feeling of being indignant.
That is almost certainly true, but I doubt that alone would explain it, as people also love to look at cute pictures of animals, list of facts, etc.
So it would seem to me that the more interesting question is why would they like being indignant so much? Does it foster some group cohesion or does it trigger our flight/fight response so that people get a dopamin rush?
Meaning that the derivation of pleasure from indignation is finely honed social trait. We actually like to police ourselves.
So ironically, the "righteous individual against nefarious powers and / or the establishment" turns out to be a mechanism for preserving greater social cohesion.
Jonah Berger at Wharton has done research on WoM and emotions that spread: "But content that evokes certain specific negative emotion, such as anger or anxiety, is also more viral." - https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/berger/
The study (8.3mb PDF) is here: https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=publi...
The main takeaway: "How do specific emotions affect virality? The relationships between specific emotions and virality suggest that the role of emotion in transmission is more complex than mere valence alone (Table 4, Model 3). While more awe-inspiring (a positive emotion) content is more viral and sadness inducing (a negative emotion) content is less viral, some negative emotions are positively associated with virality. More anxiety- and anger-inducing stories are both more likely to make the most e-mailed list. This suggests that transmission is about more than simply sharing positive things and avoiding sharing negative ones. Consistent with our theorizing, content that evokes high-arousal emotions (i.e., awe, anger, and anxiety), regardless of their valence, is more viral."
HN loves drama. Any David vs Goliath story (small time blogger/designer gets ripped off by big corp, someone gets treated wrong by authority figure) gets huge amounts of attention even though it's insignificant on the whole, and hardly "deeply interesting."
Not just HN. Americans in general. And of course, the very paradigm you cite (David & Goliath) is Biblical, meaning it's been popular for at least 2,500 years, give or take.
Humans are confident, fighty creatures who like to beat the odds. Or at least, they like to think of themselves in this way.
Happens in meat space as well. We're quick to accept good things that happen as the status quo and become enraged at minor inconveniences. Someone didn't wait their turn at a 4-way intersection, rage! Waiters who check on you often are just doing their job and those who don't are getting a bad tip. Etc. I personally try to actively fight this instinct but wish positivity could become the norm. Would love advice on how to find that zen.