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

261–270 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#261

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

mistermann wrote: post #218
toyg wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that means less independent thinking, paradoxically. This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "…

> How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...) Find a way to get rationalists out of believing that these examples are an accurate…

I think you misunderstand the purpose of these examples. They're not meant to be typical representations; they're meant to be non-controversial representations, allowing us to discuss the thought processes involved without having the conversation derailed by people who honestly believe the example.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#262

Post by Karunamon »

ineedasername wrote: post #250

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 initia…

The word used was "successful", not "good". Reproduction papers and meta-analyses seldom generate notoriety.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#263

Post by moralsupply »

To get negative votes in Hacker News:

* Post something that is factual, but the crowd doesn't like

* Post something that is logical, but the crowd doesn't like

* Post a link to something reasonable, but that the crowd doesn't like

Just to say that Hacker News is a highly biased community. There's very little space here to discuss anything that is not "conventional" beyond some bits of technology.

When a topic touches life in general it becomes a place for political narratives associated with the establishment (meaning: left leaning), which is probably explainable due to the fact most people here work in big tech companies that have strong government ties.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#264

Post by dgb23 »

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…

IMO Voltairine de Cleyre[0] phrased this notion much better in this essay about Anarchism[1] in the first few paragraphs.

She starts with describing two essential spirits, one being conservative and steady, the other one being progressive and unpredictable. It becomes clear these spirits both inhabit everyone in some way or another and society reflects that as a whole as well.

On a personal level, it gets complicated really fast. People as I know them usually cannot be categorized as easily into one or the other. Some people appear as unconventional and free thinkers, but are set in their ways in many areas, and vice versa. And then it also depends very much on the situation, the atmosphere and so on. Someone who appears timid at first, sometimes just needs a nudge to open up and go bonkers.

So I feel like the notion that you can divide people into these categories is very reductionist.

What I find useful however is balancing the creative/progressive aspect (or spirit) with the conservative/steady one, and not just balancing but letting them guide oneself them deliberately, dependent on context.

John Cleese did a inspirational and funny talk[2] about this subject, that I found quite useful, because he suggests a practical framework to nurture the creative side deliberately.

Similarly, there is this talk[3] from Rich Hickey that describes the notion of giving oneself enough time to think deeply about problems. It relates to the above in the sense that he also acknowledges passive/subconscious mechanisms of our mind.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voltairine-de-cleyre... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#265

Post by Karunamon »

lowcodetv wrote: post #128
hnracer wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although it could act as a good filter, if they lash out it's a valuable red flag

Absolutely a clear signal that their belief is emotional. If you step on that toe just make it clear that you aren't questioning them at all, in fact, "you agree with them... you just wanted to know some sources to point to when those other nosey people who question our beliefs do so"... and diffuse the situation. You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion , if that's t…

There's a side-effect here. If you're interacting in a place where straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable (HN, Wikipedia talk pages, many professional settings), then your first suggestion will simply take the place of calling bullshit and have the same effect.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#266

Post by nickpp »

zug_zug wrote: post #235
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…

I think if he weren't famous, PG's essays wouldn't get much reverence. But as an icon for he's a great figure. He uses his social status points to offer messages of optimism, self-improvement, hope for rebels that is socially important and feels good. The fact that we tear him down so much is testament to the regard we hold him in. I'm sure all of us who poke at his logic could just as easily shred the Pope, the Dala…

Actually PG's essays made him famous. YC came afterwards. He did Viaweb before, but I doubt he was known for it.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#267

Post by pmoriarty »

alisonkisk wrote: post #244
fractionalhare wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"the main purpose for "famous" MBAs is to make friends you can do deals with"

Well, that and most companies are willing to pay you much more and put you much higher up on the totem pole if you've got an MBA.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#268

Post by spdionis »

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…

While the rest of your post sounds reasonable:

> Right now Silicon Valley VC thinking is the dominant ideology

Are you sure? Are you talking about the US? And even then it's probably true for only ~half of the states? Are you talking about the business world? The whole of EU seems to strongly disagree with SV VC thinking.

Edit: Why doesn't the EU replicate the success of US startups? You think EU policy makers don't understand what is needed for that? Or that there's not enough "talent"? I doubt it. I think it's a more or less conscious decision to avoid the US startup culture. It's a cultural thing.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#269

Post by nickpp »

moralsupply wrote: post #263

To get negative votes in Hacker News: * Post something that is factual, but the crowd doesn't like * Post something that is logical, but the crowd doesn't like * Post a link to something reasonable, but that the crowd doesn't like Just to say that Hacker News is a highly biased community. There's very little space here to discuss anything that is not "conventional" beyond some bits of technology. When a topic touches…

Not only negative votes, but flagging as well. The flagging mechanism is commonly used on HN to completely disappear dissenting opinions.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#270

Post by nobinstok »

fractionalhare wrote: post #167
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…

> This essay is an object lesson in how this leads to profoundly conventional thinking. This entire thing reads like it was torn from the journal of a clever middle-schooler who thinks he's so much more clever then the world. You've hit upon something that's always bothered me with this characterization of nerds. It's like if someone framed adult life by superimposing stereotypical high school nerd vs jock social dyn…

This reminds me of one of the more embarrassing episodes of my life. My friends and I (pretty nerdy types) were at a bar with an amateur MMA fighter. Guy was like 6'10", covered in huge muscles and tattoos. One of the nicest guys I've ever met, but you definitely wouldn't want to get on his bad side.

Anyway we didn't know the guy too well, lots of getting-to-know you type stuff. The MMA fighter after a few hours mentions that he was really into Starcraft, Age of Empires, and other RPS.

You could have knocked me and my other friends over with a feather. This ripped "jock" likes Starcraft! Oh my god! We were so surprised and just went on and on about how impressed we were like idiots.

A year or two later one of my friends who was there (a little more balanced guy who played more sports and hung out with more varied groups of people) told me that he and the MMA fighter had been talking as we walked back from the bar. The MMA guy was apparently like "so I guess these guys have just never hung out with any athletes?" Turns out it isn't that abnormal for them to like cool and nerdy stuff.

Even though I felt pretty dumb, that was a good experience for me as a person. My whole life I've been a pretty accepting and nice person, and my intelligence has never really made me feel superior to other people. I guess to that point those qualities made me feel like I couldn't possibly be prejudiced or biased because hey, I don't actively hold any hostile or condescending beliefs. But that showed me that my own ignorance was sufficient for me to classify some guy I knew almost nothing about and put him in a box, a guy I liked perfectly well and never had a bad thought about. It's a tough thing to be aware of but I think has made me a little more skeptical and humble, which I'm glad for.

Post reply on HN