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

321–330 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#321

Post by ozim »

Karunamon wrote: post #262
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.

Watch out for the words.

Being notorious :), or lets just call it being well known is not a measure of success.

Problem with defining successful scientist is I suppose more complex than scientist becoming a celebrity.

I believe one can be very successful by reproducing papers and for example pointing out bad ones that claim something that was supposed to be "groundbreaking".

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#322

Post by randomsearch »

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 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.

This point really undermines your argument. I see this kind of response a lot, particularly on the left to people like PG (who I have mixed opinions of) when they have the audacity to write about something they don't have qualifications in (such as economics), or when you just don't like what he's saying on an emotional level. "Oh he thinks he's so clever" is just a childish insult, you're not refuting his central point. You're also second guessing him.

> pretending to be a deep thinker:

This is just an insult. PG clearly reads more than most and is a thoughtful writer.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#323

Post by leetcrew »

walleeee wrote: post #315
lisper wrote: 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…

> He's competing to capture pieces of a finite pie

this is an odd way to describe investing. this would more accurately describe the founders themselves, competing for a finite pool of VC dollars without necessarily having a viable product.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#324

Post by vijucat »

nobinstok wrote: post #270
fractionalhare wrote: post #167

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…

Lovely anecdote. Thanks for sharing!

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#325

Post by walleeee »

leetcrew wrote: post #323
walleeee wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> He's competing to capture pieces of a finite pie this is an odd way to describe investing. this would more accurately describe the founders themselves, competing for a finite pool of VC dollars without necessarily having a viable product.

Good point. I meant it in the sense that anyone marketing a product is competing for a finite pool of consumer dollars.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#326

Post by ceilingcorner »

TrackerFF wrote: post #279
ceilingcorner wrote: post #234

Can someone explain the constant reference to nerds in PG's essays? I feel like it's a concept straight out of a 1970s-90s low-budget movie and hasn't been accurate or relevant since...

I'm guessing a lot of his readers somewhat identify themselves as nerds? And sad to say, quite a few of the nerds I know / knew have some raging superiority complexity going on. Same type of people that put down anyone that spent their HS or College years partying / social life / etc., rather than "perfecting" some worthwhile craft, like software development, writing, or whatever. Not saying that PG is like that, at…

Yeah, I get the sociological aspect, but I don't think I've heard someone use the word nerd for at least a decade. It's a blast from the past.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#327

Post by Hongwei »

walleeee wrote: post #315
lisper wrote: 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…

Sorry but I strongly disagree with your assertion that building a business is a zero-sum game. At the basic level, a farmer who sows a field and harvests a crop is making the world one harvest richer, and no one poorer. Ditto for the carpenter making a table or mechanic fixing a car. PG addressed this long ago: http://paulgraham.com/gap.html

Scientists turn money into knowledge. Entrepreneurs turn knowledge into money. It's a virtuous cycle. Scientists lament that they don't get their "fair share" but it's wrong to blame innovators, better to reevaluate their own economic strategy. What if we had private research institutes turning out cutting edge research? Or vertically integrated ones that commercialized their own discoveries, like Spacex?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#328

Post by toyg »

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…

That heuristic is a very antiquated mindset that largely just measures one’s relationship with formal education. One can be a great mind and never discuss “grand ideas”, simply because he’s too busy helping himself to the content of your metaphorical pockets.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#330

Post by ptero »

lisper wrote: 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…

In many domains of science I will agree with you: success in physics is unlikely if you don't have a strong physics background.

But many modern technologies are much less mature. For example, a good general background in software engineering helps, but following state of the art is not critical (and may be counterproductive) for building new products. My 2c.

Post reply on HN