Live data from Hacker News

How to Think for Yourself

paulgraham.com

311–320 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#311
Seven things came up for me, reading this:

Permaculture has a concept that it is the boundaries where interesting things happen - Where desirable life can be found. Between the forest and the meadow is where lies the life that may be desirable, whether fauna or flora.

I had labeled the two distinctions as destroyer/creators versus maintainers. I tear things down to create better replacements, whereas my partner is an excellent maintainer - As long as my new system is not too onerous, she is usually willing to keep it going, as I move on to the next process. And it seems that the transition from a small company to a larger one is also the transition from the independent to the more conventional minded, even though it contains its own traps (like having independents forced out - even from their own companies, or being strangled into oblivion by bean-counters, as it were).

Those who don't/did not do well in school may be in the independent group, more often than not. But then that misses other underlying reasons, like a few of my friends who had undiagnosed dyslexia.

I found a helpful guide to develop those analytical/independent thinking processes in Harry Browne's book How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World. https://www.nateliason.com/notes/freedom-unfree-world-harry-...

Although I have usually been attracted to conspiracy theory just to be at odds with the rest of mainstream thought, I recognize I do not practice enough critical thinking if said theory already conforms to an existing bias I may have - Another place for me to practice my mental strength!

Another item in HN's feed this morning is Connections - That series has been an invaluable cross-discipline introduction to so much thought and design of other creative independent types. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25218056

Last, I agree with the concept of reading good autobiographies of interesting thinkers allows me to think some of the same thoughts they did...

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, you're right he is still relevant to that specific but small crowd. A crowd that might be described as having similar flaws to PG. Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say "culturally relevant". He is increasingly seen by younger people, even engineering types, as out of touch and tone deaf. And too many of his recent essays feel like they are a reaction to that. So much patting himself on the back…

> much patting himself on the back about how the crowds are wrong and he as such an independent thinker has got it right - and so little vulnerability

I think that "great man" theories of success are sort of dying out among newer generations. Perhaps I've met enough "great men" to realize how large of a factor luck is after a certain threshold point.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#313

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.

In recent years conformists have gotten louder and louder, and more and more insistent that everyone should conform.

His recent essays are his reaction to that.

It would be a strategically bad response for someone of lesser stature, but in his place he can afford to weather the storm and it's valuable for the tiny, narrow target audience of this essay to hear.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha, you jest, but you bring up a subtle point. There are degrees and dimensions of similarity. For example, two people who uphold a principle of freedom of speech may nonetheless completely disagree on any particular issue. But they are very similar in an important way. Do you value independent thinking? If so, what part of the article did you most disagree with?

Do independent thinkers read essays that tell them how to think independently? The irony may have been intentional on the author's part, but I still won't read the essay. Bad juju.

Fair enough, but there is a structure and pattern to independent thinking relative to the universe of things we care about. By analogy, consider John Boyd's OODA loop. He broke down goal-seeking behavior into a 4 part loop: Observe Orient Decide Act.

Now, some numps decided that they would then teach people to be better thinkers by having them step through this loop deliberately. i.e. We will teach you to reach your goals but first you must Observe. Next Orient, blah blah blah. This is not what John Boyd was teaching. Everyone does the OODA loop naturally. But if you break down goal-directed behavior into the OODA loop, as an analysis tool, you can find the techniques that are particularly effective versus those that aren't working very well. And if you can find things that speed up an OODA loop, or compromise your opponent's OODA loop, you can have outsized success with an otherwise "dull tactic".

PG's essay is kind of like that. He's saying: here's how I think about independent thinking, how to recognize it, where it works, and where it doesn't. It's mostly descriptive and analytical, but nuggets of prescription are sprinkled in there as well. It's written for himself, in that it helps him organize his own thoughts, but primarily it is written for the benefit of his audience. It will glance off people uninterested in accepting its ideas but benefit those are similar to him in important ways. He's not "telling them how to think independently" but helping them be more effective in the use of that tool.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#315
post #256

> There are some kinds of work that you can't do well without thinking differently from your peers. To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be correct. Your ideas have to be both correct and novel. As someone who once made their living as a scientist, I can tell you from firsthand experience that while this is technically correct, the conclusion PG wishes to draw from this: > One of the mos…

I think this may attest to the value of (apparent) novelty/innovation in PG's sphere. Seeming unconventional and disruptive has better ROI than spending years mining the history of human thought.

He doesn't do science, he funds and markets products. He's competing to capture pieces of a finite pie, not creating knowledge. More broadly, he promotes a zeitgeist which has made him wealthy. I wonder if this has something to do with his efforts to maintain some semblance of "thought leadership", even if it means recycling tired content.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#316

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…

It seems to me that claiming you’re independent-minded is sort of like claiming you’re a genius. You’re not supposed to make this claim yourself. Graham doesn’t make this claim explicitly, but by writing about this subject he makes it implicitly. How do you avoid making this claim? I think it’s to remember the the trap of fundamental attribution error. People are not always independent-minded or always conformist. Th…

> It seems to me that claiming you’re independent-minded is sort of like claiming you’re a genius. You’re not supposed to make this claim yourself. Graham doesn’t make this claim explicitly, but by writing about this subject he makes it implicitly.

I think that is one reason to react against the essay, but not really.

My problem is fundamentally that it seems like, with the rise of VC worship (I really don't know what else to call it), people now take the pseudo-sociological observations of their VC heroes as fact or at least very close to fact.

Given that we're pretty incredibly shitty at social sciences, even when trying to do it rigorously, I don't understand why I would start giving strong weight to someone who is just pondering in a wall of text about sociological phenomenons/models that I have no reason to believe are how the world actually works.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#317
PG has one target market. I respect him for that. He’s trying to help the unique people experience their full potential instead of giving into conformity.

My heart aches for all the ways I’ve allowed conformity to ruin me, but thankful that some of my original efforts have paid off.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ment…

Yeah, stereotypes are a bitch. BUT - if one gets stereotyped enough, after a while s/he’s probably developed some coping mechanism to actually leverage it into an advantage (I know I do). So don’t feel too bad - it might well be that the guy uses that sort of conversation precisely to gauge his audience.

(It makes a lot of sense that pro athletes are in gaming, btw: it’s competitive and it’s something that can be done during long downtimes between training sessions, or lonely hotel nights away from home. If you follow any twitter feed of pros, from football to f1, sooner or later you’ll see plenty of posts about games.)

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#319

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. In recent years conformists have gotten louder and louder, and more and more insistent that everyone should conform. His recent essays are his reaction to that. It would be a strategically bad response for someone of lesser stature, but in his place he can afford to weather the storm and it's valuable for the tiny,…

> In recent years conformists have gotten louder and louder, and more and more insistent that everyone should conform.

You grew up in America and think that? Let me guess, you think that pushing for something like trans access to bathrooms is the "conformist" position.

Based on the values my parents told me to conform to, there's been a massive collapse of conformity in the last two decades.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#320

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. In recent years conformists have gotten louder and louder, and more and more insistent that everyone should conform. His recent essays are his reaction to that. It would be a strategically bad response for someone of lesser stature, but in his place he can afford to weather the storm and it's valuable for the tiny,…

It would be a strategically bad response for someone of lesser stature

Why? Sometimes those people of “lesser strature” are the ones who suffer worse outcomes from majority conformity.

Post reply on HN