Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Four Quadrants of Conformism

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#71

Post by newacct583 »

stopachka wrote: post #60
newacct583 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom that I trust the aggressively independent to protect, and the passively independent minded to innovate. If you saw that essay as a defense of existing social structures, how are you so sure you're not just one of the convention minded too?

To clarify how I see it - I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc) To answ…

> I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom.

Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one.

As far as your definition, I'd just go with this:

- Do you regularly find your ideas conflict in serious ways with people who hold actual power over your daily life.

- Do you do anything about it?

If you don't answer yes to BOTH of those questions, I think you can rule out the "independent thinker" label. If you do, well maybe I guess.

But I'd suggest toning down the identity stuff unless you're trying to signal to a particular tribe. It's conformist almost by definition.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#72

Post by nickpp »

PaulHoule wrote: post #26
lincolnq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you unpack this? The only social justice-related example in the piece was a positive one (antebellum abolitionism). It seems like you might be reading into the piece more than was intended.

Graham is in the bay area and he knows he'd get the smackdown from LGBT activists if he said what he meant, so he is using coded speech. The breathless tone that there is something wrong on college campuses these days (without being specific) is a dead giveaway.

PG is living in England, with his wife and kids.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#73

Post by ggreer »

PaulHoule wrote: post #26
lincolnq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you unpack this? The only social justice-related example in the piece was a positive one (antebellum abolitionism). It seems like you might be reading into the piece more than was intended.

Graham is in the bay area and he knows he'd get the smackdown from LGBT activists if he said what he meant, so he is using coded speech. The breathless tone that there is something wrong on college campuses these days (without being specific) is a dead giveaway.

Paul Graham moved back to the UK years ago. He hasn't run Y Combinator since 2014. Of course he still has many social and professional connections to the bay area, but he doesn't have to worry about what some activists in SF will do.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#74

Post by m0llusk »

This is all so static. Real life is more dynamic. An aggressive rule enforcer is an easygoing independent who got mugged and an easygoing independent is an aggressive rule enforcer who went to college.

Damage done in the world comes more from failing to understand how people get influenced in their choices than from picking the wrong quadrant.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#75

Post by austincheney »

andybak wrote: post #3

As always in discussions of "types of people" it's more nuanced than this. Someone can be both aggressively conformist over some issues (and towards some groups) and aggressively independent over others. In fact if you picture a stereotypical conspiracy-minded alt-right individual then the exhibit both behaviours at the same time about the same group. (individualist) "I won't do x because the government tells me I sh…

> Someone can be both aggressively conformist over some issues (and towards some groups) and aggressively independent over others.

Yes and no. In a purely objective context conformity is a personality mode shaped by a person's social reference group and the devotion or conformance to a single idea rests on the reinformance of the local group. For a highly conformant person you can change their opinion on a subject by dropping them into a different social context for a month at which point the devotion to a particular subject will be replaced by devotion in a different subject.

Perhaps the most defining characteristic of somebody extremely non-conforming is the potential and frequency for original and potentially unpopular decisions. From extremely conforming people originality is met with immediate hostility. In that hostility the person may not even realize they are emotional first without any consideration for the validity of that emotion.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#76

Post by lm28469 »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #38
stopachka wrote: post #31

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…

>No matter what, the fundamental ideas that America is built on is focused so heavily on freedom Freedom as long as you aren't threateningly critical of America. The journalist of the Syrian War who took an anti-American stance and was targetted by American drone strikes would prove otherwise: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...

You don't even have to look that far, there are secret police officers using unmarked rental cars to arrest protesters without telling them who they are and why they are being arrested.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/17/portland-pro...

https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1283436911307218948

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#77

Post by jessaustin »

Miner49er wrote: post #39
chippy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideas of social justice and equality spring from the independent quadrant. These ideas have become the rules that conventional quadrant follow and expose. This doesn't seem to contradict itself.

Social justice and true equality aren't conformist ideas though. We live at a time when wealth inequality is around the highest since our country has kept track and you think equality is a mainstream conformist idea?

Many people have been so misled by education and media consumption that they have no idea what is going on. It is a commonplace that conformists will profess to beliefs that they regularly undermine. E.g., the people who "support the protests" but still whinge about how they're too "confrontational" and "violent".

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#78

Post by stopachka »

newacct583 wrote: post #71
stopachka wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify how I see it - I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Some existing social structures promote it, and so would others that don’t exist yet (some ideas: social network that proliferates good debates, tool that shows a politician’s vested interests, laws on transparency and symmetry, a new kind of univ focused on experience in the real world, etc) To answ…

> I don’t see it as a defense of existing social structures, I see it as a defense of freedom. Right, in the same sentence in which you identified "freedom", not as an abstract ideal that stands alone, but as one of "the fundamental ideas that America is built on". That tells me you're making a political point (or an identity one, I guess), not a principled one. As far as your definition, I'd just go with this: - Do…

Yes to both: I was a staff eng at big co, where the way I wrote the ideas above would have been trouble. I didn’t kow tow during my tenure, and now I’m building a company.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#79

Post by [deleted] »

bob33212 wrote: post #63

I agree that within some groups like humanities departments, twitter and liberal companies the social justice movement is out of control. Just promoting a white male employee, or calling the police in a black person you see commiting a crime would make you fear for your job in some of those circles. On the other side there was a member of Congress who called a female member of Congress a "fucking bitch" and also the…

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#80

Post by PaulHoule »

stopachka wrote: post #31

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…

It's his personal problem.

He built the ultimate machine to attract conformists who want to get another badge. First the conformists will push out individualists by their sheer bulk and better ability to navigate the approval process. (It's their core competency in life!)

Y Combinator is a plant that has grown too large for its pot. Someday something is going to go wrong, there are so many people going through it that sooner or later there is going to be a scandal. Graham is not on a growth trajectory, and sooner or later decay is going to catch up with him. I don't know exactly how, but the logic of exponential growth will to discover it.

If he wants to do anything except "richmansplain" about how there's some kind of problem that he can't talk about except in abtruse code (e.g. I am clearly agonized about something, but I have to draw four quadrants to pretend that I'm thinking deeply about it rather than obscure what bothers me) because if he was able to put his ineffable thoughts into words then somebody is going to do something completely indescribable.

He won't listen but here is my advice.

Graham has accomplished as much as he can in the place he is at. If he stays where he is, he can at best tread water, at worst various problems are going to catch up with him, he's going to paint himself into a corner, the amoral conformists attracted to his organization are going to create a scandal, the u.s. becomes unable to support s.v. b ecause capital has waged an investment strike against most of it, etc.

If he leaves Y Co in the hands of people he trusts (does he trust anyone?) and spends a year or two doing something else in a different place I think he'll have something interesting to say and he

It's sad, but reading his essays feels so much like reading Peirs Anthony, it is just the same essay over and over again with very little feeling he's grown. Maybe he needs to hang out with some adults, admit that being a zillionaire doesn't make you immortal, that you're always going to be frustrated because your species is split into two genders, etc.

Post reply on HN