Pity the spirit of HN is pretty much against it these days.
How to Think for Yourself
61–70 of 874 posts
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#62Like many of pg's essays there's an unqualified glorification of being independent. For example the suggestion that hiring conformist people is something that just happens. It seems more likely that companies more or less consciously hire such people, because a company where everyone thinks independently would be one where everyone wants to do something different, and nothing would get done, no one could agree on any…
Being independent is mostly negative. Prison is full of independent thinkers. However the small share of independent thinkers who actually got many things right are way more valuable than any conventional thinker as it is them who push society forward. Glorifying them is absolutely warranted.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opinion of the majority is inevitably whatever their chosen source of media assigns them[1]. This is easily seen in the disparity between subjects where a persuasion campaign is in effect vs the ones where one isn’t. In the latter case persons will have a naturally broad distribution of opinions while in the former you will see near unanimity within their persuasion bubble. Naturally this makes discussing the ass…
Yes. I'm not necessarily promoting arguing against majority opinion, only thinking for yourself and deciding what you think, and acting accordingly. Arguing against majority opinion is usually a futile and unprofitable endeavor. Knowing that it is wrong can literally save your life at times.
This is complicated by situations where the majority opinion is clearly imprudent so few people actually follow it, but they will loudly insist they agree with it to avoid the social cost of nonconformity. Sadly, in US society it’s an important life skill to be able to recognize this sort of dishonesty and act accordingly.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#64While I agree holding your own views and opinions help with doing something novel and different. I do feel like articles like this are mostly used to cover up and excuse hostility, bad work environments and Jobs esque management styles. You can have groundbreaking ideas without "disrupting" every single part of your work life. Assuming large groups of people can't think for themselves is both short sighted and insult…
Can you give examples of groundbreaking ideas that formed out of committees of people working "without disruption"?
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#65The distinction between independent-mindedness and conventional-mindedness is captured more correctly I think by a trait called politeness as defined here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5863998_Between_Fac... Independent-mindness would be similar to low politeness (coupled with high openness, but I'll ignore that for now), and those people would be more likely to be like this than not: * Make enemies. * Opp…
The twitter example seems more like those Nobel prize winners that later reconvert to crackpots.
I definitely agree that conspiracy theorists reject authority and are contrarian, but most don't strike me as curious except for a superficial level.
That said, I would agree with the general idea that independent minded people can be less approachable, mainly due to the fact that they do not "need" anyone and people like to feel useful.
As for the list of things those people may or may not enjoy, the sheer amount of things polled and the small sample size give me doubts.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#66While I agree holding your own views and opinions help with doing something novel and different. I do feel like articles like this are mostly used to cover up and excuse hostility, bad work environments and Jobs esque management styles. You can have groundbreaking ideas without "disrupting" every single part of your work life. Assuming large groups of people can't think for themselves is both short sighted and insult…
> Assuming large groups of people can't think for themselves is both short sighted and insulting. But it is mostly true, at least in management positions. Independent-minded people by definition question authority so they are mostly relegated to low status positions. If you don't question authority then you aren't independent-minded. And no, questioning some authority figure just because some other authority figure t…
Why would independed minded person necessary came to conclusion that loudly openly questioning authority is good idea, in situation in which it is predictable that it is going to lead to bad result?
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#67Like many of pg's essays there's an unqualified glorification of being independent. For example the suggestion that hiring conformist people is something that just happens. It seems more likely that companies more or less consciously hire such people, because a company where everyone thinks independently would be one where everyone wants to do something different, and nothing would get done, no one could agree on any…
> Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.
That is such an interesting book that I'm surprised there is any HN discussion about it.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#68> To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be correct. Your ideas have to be both correct and novel. You can't publish papers saying things other people already know.
To be a brilliant scientist - maybe.
To be a successful scientist - I think (unfortunately) the opposite.
If you rock the boat too hard - by challenging or contradicting other scientists' work, then you'll be gently rebuffed on technical grounds by the peer-review process, which will make it harder and slower to get funding, which means you spend more time stuck in bureaucracy than you do in science.
Publishing things that confirm the status quo is a much easier way to be successful as a scientist. Correctness is less important - many published papers are not 'correct'.
I doubt that the other examples (investors, startup founders, writers) are different in this respect.
It's easier to be successful by taking the obvious and safe path competently, rather than taking the very high risk of a completely novel path.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#69It is surely a mere coincidence that every time PG makes up some category of elite people he finds himself right in the middle of it.
when people achieve success too early in life they start thinking they're hot stuff
Looks like he sold Viaweb when he was about 34. Too early for you?
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#70> You see this pattern with startup founders too. You don't want to start a startup to do something that everyone agrees is a good idea, or there will already be other companies doing it. You have to do something that sounds to most other people like a bad idea, but that you know isn't
I immediately thought of Drew DeVault's initiatives...