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

How to Think for Yourself

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#241

Post by fractionalhare »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #217
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #131

PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. It's clear in all of his writing that he's perpetually beating around the bush about some current itch he has, I wish he would just come out and say it with out pretending to be a deep thinker: > Do you want to do the kind of work where you can only win by thinking differently from everyone else? I mean, taken outsi…

> PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. If your first reaction reading this essay is "PG is trying to big himself up as an independent thinker", that tells me more about your attitude and mental state than about PG. Forgive the cliche, but "great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" is a decent heuristic, with g…

The problem with a comment like this is that there's no detailed rebuttal. What you've given here is more of an aloof dismissal which is implicitly judgmental. If you're willing to bucket peoples' minds into greatness or smallness based on a single observation of their message board activity, how is your response substantively different from the thing it's criticizing?

This is to say that I reject the premise; your comment would put a chilling effect on frankly discussing other people, as though the only way to do so is through irrationality and gossip. People can critically discuss other people in an intelligent way without having "small minds", and you shouldn't attempt to infer a person's overall "mental state" from this kind of commentary, in my opinion.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#242

Post by mewpmewp2 »

killtimeatwork wrote: post #90
amadeuspagel wrote: post #50

Like 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…

I also often notice a self-serving conclusion that you should quit your comfy corporate job (and perhaps create a startup?). In this particular essay, it's close to the bottom: "Is there a way to cultivate curiosity? To start with, you want to avoid situations that suppress it. How much does the work you're currently doing engage your curiosity? If the answer is "not much," maybe you should change something."

No, he is not hinting that. In fact society would most benefit of certain percentage of conventional thinkers and certain percentage of independent thinkers. And society should have different kind of people and personalities to fulfill different roles. No role is necessarily morally superior or whatever.

But he is focusing on how to live better as an independent thinker and how to get maximum out of independent thinkers. He is not stating that being independent is superior or that everyone should be this way.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#243

Post by [deleted] »

escape_goat wrote: post #238
sundarurfriend wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. If your first reaction reading this essay is "PG is trying to big himself up as an independent thinker", that tells me more about your attitude and mental state than about PG. Forgive the cliche, but "great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" is a decent heuristic, with g…

If you initiate a public dialogue with someone specifically for the purpose of making a show of rejecting the possibility of engaging in any dialogue with them, forgiveness of clichés is IMO a big ask.

[deleted]

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#244

Post by alisonkisk »

fractionalhare wrote: post #176
edw519 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. This sounds a bit harsh, nitpicking at one instance of a class. Go back and read all his essays. You'll learn more than if you got your MBA. (I know. I've done both.) Believe me, I'm not PG fan boy, but he doesn't have to do this and I hope he never stops.

I don't have an MBA but I think you're vastly overestimating the information density of these essays. Or maybe MBAs are really just that vacuous, I don't know. PG has wrote some really great essays (the Submarine Article, anyone?). I've read all of them, some of them many times. But if I'm being completely honest, lately it feels like he's writing to write instead of writing because he has something genuinely new and…

> MBAs are really just that vacuous

You got it. There's some technical information for, you know, administering business, like doing CFO and COO, stuff but the main purpose for "famous" MBAs is to make friends you can do deals with.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#245

Post by alisonkisk »

tchaffee wrote: post #240
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #131

PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. It's clear in all of his writing that he's perpetually beating around the bush about some current itch he has, I wish he would just come out and say it with out pretending to be a deep thinker: > Do you want to do the kind of work where you can only win by thinking differently from everyone else? I mean, taken outsi…

> PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. The feeling I get essay after essay is that he's struggling to stay relevant. It's kind of sad to watch tbh.

The same old stuff just plays differently now that he's semi retired and not building his VC brand by recruiting nerds to sell him stakes in their companies.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#246

Post by ceilingcorner »

typon wrote: post #205

I find reading this article a very uncomfortable experience. It's just assertion after assertion without evidence to back them up. Do people believe this guy because he's rich?

Do people believe this guy because he's rich?

Just wait until you find out who's president.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#247

Post by fractionalhare »

tchaffee wrote: post #240
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #131

PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. It's clear in all of his writing that he's perpetually beating around the bush about some current itch he has, I wish he would just come out and say it with out pretending to be a deep thinker: > Do you want to do the kind of work where you can only win by thinking differently from everyone else? I mean, taken outsi…

> PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. The feeling I get essay after essay is that he's struggling to stay relevant. It's kind of sad to watch tbh.

I disagree, I don't think PG has to struggle to stay relevant. He remains a towering figure in venture capital across the country, and in essentially all of private equity on the West coast in particular.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#249

Post by carlisle_ »

johnnujler wrote: post #202

Why would you want to talk about how each individual is multi-faceted, complex, and full of contradictory beliefs when you can conveniently categorize them into conventional and independent? Ah, I know the answer: because hackers come in only one flavor: independent; and everyone else who doesn't fit the description is a conventional thinker. The level of (apparent) profundity(?) in these essays and the amount of peo…

Paul Graham is in desperate need of people in his life that tell him 'no'.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#250

Post by ineedasername »

To be a successful scientist... you can't publish papers saying things other people already know

PG may have some good insights sometimes, but it's rare I see him get something so completely wrong as this.

Reproducing research to demonstrate a result was correct or not is a cornerstone in the foundation of science. A fundamental problem in the research community is that incentives as misaligned to support that initiative, and so there are an endless stream of papers published that are either flawed in themselves or obtained spurious results that wouldn't hold up under additional systematic scrutiny.

Worse, these flawed pieces of research feed into the sound-byte media cycle and over time have eroded public trust & confidence in the scientific process. To some extent that's unavoidable when preliminary research, even well performed, us taken out of context. But every study performed with a handful of subjects that producing a weak result with controversial implications will be shouted from the roof tops nonetheless.

So, to PG saying a successful scientist must pursue novel research: stop navel gazing on the superiority of SV values and looking to shove them into every area of human endeavor. You're wrong, and sometimes dangerously so.

Post reply on HN