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

491–500 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#491

Post by brlewis »

mcguire wrote: post #410

" Ditto for essayists. An essay that told people things they already knew would be boring. You have to tell them something new. " How come I know exactly where this essay is going? It is yet another "start-up founders are genetically, intellectually, and emotionally superior; the rest of the muggles are so envious." Does Paul think everyone except startup founders works on an assembly line? " You see this especially…

> How come I know exactly where this essay is going?

This is the question I've been thinking as I've checked back in on comments here a few times this morning. Why do so many people "know" that this essay is all about aggrandizing pg's own intellect or that of startup founders, when it's almost entirely composed of two parts: (1) discussion on when independent thinking is and isn't valuable, and (2) advice on cultivating independent thinking? Where does this impression come from?

There's always some negativity toward any widely-read essay, but there seems to be a higher quantity with this one, making me think there's something actually wrong with it. My hypothesis is that its presentation is too neatly wrapped. This essay espouses curiosity, but does not model it. It comes across as having all the answers. This is especially true of the brief part that confidently explains the lack of negative reaction to another essay, with no details of how such confidence was arrived at.

This is too bad. I'd like for this essay to have engendered more discussion on cultivating independent thinking, and less discussion about pg's mindset.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#492

Post by mcguire »

username90 wrote: post #119
ojnabieoot wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many of PG’s essays about psychology or society, the problem is that this essay is basically an aphorism or a self-help book: there’s no logic here, no citations, no connection to facts. It’s just a bunch of feel-good BS for libertarian-minded tech workers. I get the impression that the length is (at least unconsciously) making up for the absence of rigor. A few paragraphs of “stuff that has no real argument but…

PG just wrote down what he thinks about these things, sharing thoughts isn't a waste of time.

But why did he share these particular thoughts?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#493

Post by jariel »

The 'Elephant in the Room' he failed to mention is that the vast, vast majority of 'independent thought' has nothing to do with 'Truth', it's just more or less egosim.

Also missing from the articulation is that independence from the group can be at odds with your loyalty and respect for the cause of the group, and our sense of civil duty towards it.

90% of 'independent thinking' is akin to conspiracy theory, or people arbitrarily rejecting authority, even if that authority is legitimate.

9% of 'independent thinking' is raw creativity, art, or people just expressing themselves one way or another in a variety of ways.

Only 1% of independant thinking is of the type he is describing, which is conscientious.

The problem is that it's very hard to have the self awareness to know which type you are.

There is logic in conformity, even imperfect systems, it's much better that we have a standard than otherwise.

The most enlightened people I find are those that seem actually fairly conformist not so much because they have been 'told' to do a certain thing, but because they understand why - and - have a sense of duty or obligation towards the outcome - and then conscientiously chose to take that path. It's not conformist to do what everyone else is doing if there's reason in it.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#494

Post by daleharvey »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #459
daleharvey wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its hard to think of a more homogenous industry / group of individuals than the HN / SV startup founder clique. The length that people will go to to pretend that it isnt another rich boys club that leans somewhat conservative (sorry "libertarian") is interesting in itself.

Did you mean to say "more homogenous"

I did thanks, editing mistake

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#495

Post by pembrook »

Arubis wrote: post #421

Over the years, I've found PG's essays much less compelling. As some sibling comments here have noted, there's a level of self-assuredness that feels increasingly disconnected from reality, like PG's become a synecdoche of SF VC-fuelled startup culture as a whole. Whether that's him changing, or me, or the world, I'm not certain--but I still look forward to them simply because the ensuing discussions here on HN tend…

Your view of PG and SV culture is following the standard sentiment curve. Just like the culture at large.

20 years ago we were the innovative pioneers shaking up the all-powerful old guard, and everybody loves to root for the underdog.

Now we’re the new seemingly all-powerful incumbents (look at the top 5 S&P 500 companies right now). Underdogs no longer.

You can see this very clearly in media coverage of Silicon Valley over the past 15 years. Look at Google. It’s gone from “Google is our savior and the greatest corporation to ever exist,” to “Google is an evil destructive power bent on world domination.”

Was either characterization ever true? Of course not. The truth has always been in the middle.

You’re seeing what has always been there...But viewing it with an overly critical lens this time, whereas last time you viewed everything overly optimistically.

You’re ignoring the good stuff now, when you used to ignore the bad stuff.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#496

Post by Kranar »

ska wrote: post #483
Kranar wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough but I did all the things you regret and I am very very happy I did them. Bought a house in 2009 when everyone said it was stupid because of the great recession, avoided partying, drinking or doing any kind of drugs, or "having fun" all throughout high school and university, and instead of using all the newest and greatest popular technologies I made my own libraries. That house is now worth 3 times more t…

> Bought a house in 2009 when everyone said it was stupid I don't know who your "everyone" is, but to do this is extremely conventional financial advice...

Doing something that most people advise against is by definition unconventional but we can agree to disagree on this matter.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#497

Post by contingencies »

Had dinner with some randoms tonight in a lesser known corner of China. Although we were in a small place and the bill for 6 people was perhaps $150, it turned out one of them was a (foreign) billionaire. He took an interest in our venture and we made dinner plans tomorrow. One of the topics of conversation: resistance of crowd mentality and thinking for yourself. YMMV.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#498

Post by mcguire »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #58
amadeuspagel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny line, but the majority is clearly right on most questions, such as the color of the sky, the shape of the earth, etc..

>the majority is clearly right on most questions This is exactly the idea which the statement counteracts. You're trusting the majority opinion because it is the majority. Yet it is not always right, and you can give yourself a huge advantage by questioning it for yourself. ... or you can continue being a follower of majority opinion. The choice is up to you. By the way, the majority opinion has been wrong about the…

"In 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time. First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day marshmallow."

Here's another aphorism for you: "If a respected, grey-haired scientist tells you something is possible, he's probably right. If he tells you something is impossible, he may well be wrong. But if a thousand respected, grey-haired scientists tell you something, that's probably where you want to put your money."

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#499

Post by tuatoru »

coolgod wrote: post #458
daleharvey wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its hard to think of a more homogenous industry / group of individuals than the HN / SV startup founder clique. The length that people will go to to pretend that it isnt another rich boys club that leans somewhat conservative (sorry "libertarian") is interesting in itself.

You mean more homogenous right?

Yeah, nah.

Homogenous = "from the same origin" Root word: genesis.

Homogeneous = "of the same kind". Root word: the Latin gens, clan.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#500

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

MetalGuru wrote: post #423
mcguire wrote: post #410

" Ditto for essayists. An essay that told people things they already knew would be boring. You have to tell them something new. " How come I know exactly where this essay is going? It is yet another "start-up founders are genetically, intellectually, and emotionally superior; the rest of the muggles are so envious." Does Paul think everyone except startup founders works on an assembly line? " You see this especially…

Nowhere in the essay does he argue that the three qualities of independent thinkers are exclusive to startup founders. You clearly feel some type of way about Paul Graham.

While I may not necessarily be as harsh as the commenter you are responding do, I will say that I am starting to feel a certain way about pg, and it's much less positive than it was 5-10 years ago.

I feel like a common thread in his most recent essays has been separating people into, for lack of a better term, "desirables" vs. "undesirables". True, he doesn't use those terms, and he often couches the language he uses about the undesirables in sort of a "they can't really help it, they're just born that way" phrasing, but the distain is barely hidden.

And I find all of this somewhat ironic, given that as high as pg values curiosity, I don't really see a lot of self-introspection (at least as communicated in his essays) about why he seems to be much more interested in recent years in writing about how one group of people is intrinsically special and the other basically just exists to be led.

I will specifically contrast this with Sam Harris. While they talk about different subjects, I find Sam Harris to be much more interested in thinking about "why do I think the way I do." More importantly, after listening to a Harris podcast I often find myself thinking about things in a very different way, where lately with pg's essays I find myself thinking "not this shit again."

Post reply on HN