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

181–190 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#181

Post by ptd »

stopachka wrote: post #82
newacct583 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Re: political or identity point I am not quite sure I understand that view. Why is the statement “America was built on fundamental ideas of freedom” a political or identity point? From the way our government is structured (checks and balances), to the constitution (free speech), I think they stand on the side of freedom pretty objectively

Whether or not you believe America was built on freedom has a strong correlation to your political affiliation.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#182

Post by nvr219 »

amelius wrote: post #171
bambax wrote: post #109

I have come to intensely dislike most of PG's essays, for many reasons, but the two main ones are that 1/ he plays fast and loose with the facts, reduces the whole history of (the various peoples of) humanity to a single arrow, and confuses demonstration with affirmation and, more importantly 2/ he has an unhealthy obsession with "classifying" people, by which he actually means ranking them, from top to bottom. The p…

He should really come out of his ivory tower and put a comment section on his blog.

Comment sections on blogs are so bad that there are competing browser extensions to block them. Better to have dedicated sites for comments. Like hn, reddit, etc

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#183

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Misdicorl wrote: post #151
oldsklgdfth wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But innovation isn't good per se. Innovation isn't anything in moral terms. All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others.

This is silly. The world isn't balanced like that. Many improvements have no disadvantage. More efficient photovoltaic cells, not needing hfcfs in pressurized spray cans, discovering that you can add a bit of carbon to iron, ...

> Many improvements have no disadvantage

Every improvement has, at the very least, its Luddite cost. It forces some people to change, and some of those people won’t like that.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#184

Post by rclayton »

oisdk wrote: post #177
missosoup wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on…

I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter, when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US. Like there is an authoritarian government right there for you to criticise, but you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like "can white people make rice, or is it cultural appro…

I agree. I would like for someone to enumerate all the people who have been “cancelled” and then compare it to those that have been violently attacked.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#185

Post by Funes- »

hrktb wrote: post #29

As for most attempts to classify people, it should be strongly stated that any single human would fits several quadrants depending on the subject, the phase in their life they are in, or even the mood of the day. I read this two dimensional presentation only as device to discuss a theoretical point, and not something that could have any practicality. In particular, I think a lot of people switch from the "sheep" quad…

>PS: I find wording it as "sheep" to be unneedingly pejorative towards people who just don't break the rules and let others live their own life. In other classifications it would be "lawful neutral" for instance.

One can do society more harm being passively conformist than using mildly pejorative terms. In Paul Graham's essay, the object (the "sheep") of the critique is more dangerous than its subject (the author). I would even go on to say that it is an ethical duty to be independent-minded.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#186

Post by tome »

seneca wrote: post #176
oldsklgdfth wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But innovation isn't good per se. Innovation isn't anything in moral terms. All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population. This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others.

> All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. This, to me, reads as one of those statements that sounds wise and correct but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Going from digging with your hands to using a shovel doesn't have a negative trade off. Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a cor…

> Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a corresponding disadvantage.

Doesn't it? What if those "things" are weapons that you are carrying to battle?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#187

Post by martythemaniak »

stopachka wrote: post #87
coldcode wrote: post #21

If you want to learn about the various types of people and how they relate to the world around them, study the French Revolution (in depth, not just a snippet). You will find every kind of person (in much more complex combinations than presented here), and how they participate/change/destroy/terrorize/etc. People today are no different we just have more technology.

Any books you’d recommend?

Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast, season 3. Probably about 30-40hrs of content (a lot of history happened!) and I find his content is a real good for first-timers.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#188

Post by jkraker »

While I agree with some of this, there's a hubris in it that I find a bit distasteful. It seems to claim that there's only one type of person needed for society to thrive. Not surprisingly, it's the type that most aligns with who he identifies himself to be.

I think that the article is using caricatured descriptions of two categories that are more broad (people who are oriented toward change and those who are oriented toward stability) and highlighting only the good of the preferred group (his own) and the bad within the "other". The truth is, there are beneficial and destructive individuals in both groups, and there are perspectives from each that we need. I would argue that what society really needs is not the ascendancy of one group above the other but mutual respect and discussion of ideas between groups.

Which is kind of where he was going with the discussion of ideas. He just didn't have a big enough tent.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#189

Post by threatofrain »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #113

This is one of PG's weaker essays. He attempts to glide between psychology, history, politics, and philosophy without proper evidence or background in those areas. His construct is somewhat interesting on the surface but is only supported by his own feelings and his own anecdata, he doesn't point to anything relevant or similar written by actual experts.

Yeah but unless there's someone who is a domain expert, deeply affiliated with experts from other domains, willing to drop into HN to give free advice... gurus are what you get.

As popular as HN is, there are surprisingly few people willing to do this.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#190

Post by awkward »

amelius wrote: post #171
bambax wrote: post #109

I have come to intensely dislike most of PG's essays, for many reasons, but the two main ones are that 1/ he plays fast and loose with the facts, reduces the whole history of (the various peoples of) humanity to a single arrow, and confuses demonstration with affirmation and, more importantly 2/ he has an unhealthy obsession with "classifying" people, by which he actually means ranking them, from top to bottom. The p…

He should really come out of his ivory tower and put a comment section on his blog.

What else is this site for?
Post reply on HN