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

531–540 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#531

Post by Ar-Curunir »

Apocryphon wrote: post #360
RickHull wrote: post #214

For those railing against this essay, who feel that PG is fluffing himself up and patting himself on the back like a nerdy middleschooler -- you've missed the big point, badly. PG writes unapologetically, directly, and simply, and this may pattern match to a naive middleschooler, but you are letting your base instincts cover up the fact that PG is wise, has earned his stripes, and is sharing his wisdom, unapologetica…

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand pg. The wisdom is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical business most of the insights will go over a typical reader’s head. There's also pg’s positivistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Sam Altman literature, for instance.

lol this reads like a copy-pasta meme you'd see on Reddit

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#532

Post by stingraycharles »

brlewis wrote: post #491
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 cultiva…

I think the root cause is some “conflicting” mechanism where people associate pg’a writings with a following, which has been carefully cultivated. This article being about “how to not be a follower” in itself is at odds with that, and as such it entices heavy scrutinizing from the audience.

In a way, it’s incredibly difficult to establish whether or not this article is conforming to existing ideas or not, when there’s such a large group of people that typically agree with pg’s thinking. This in itself may trigger a southpark-esque response, “I’m such a non-conformist I’m not conforming to you non-conformists!”

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#533

Post by thegjp210 »

gorbachev wrote: post #517

One of the things I've started actively disliking more and more are the "independent thinkers" in the tech oligarchy who seem to do it simply because they enjoy being contrarians. They post pseudo-intellectual babble about going against the grain justified by single sentence "observations" about some anecdotal evidence they then stretch and generalize into a larger point and continue beating up until the horse is dea…

there are loads of these folks in VC. Anyone who went to an ivy/stanford/MIT, worked in banking for 2 years, and now is at a VC by definition isn't a contrarian. Contrarianism bears out in life decisions - not a faux intellectual attitude

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#534

Post by Ar-Curunir »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #271
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...

The concept was prevalent in 1970s-90s movies because it's a core part of how people who grew up in those decades (like PG) perceive the world. I suspect that he struggles to see the world without that lens applied, the same way political partisans struggle to look at things without a red vs. blue filter; it's too foundational to who he is and what he believes. (I don't mean that as an insult, to be clear. I have fil…

It's also quite a common factor in Scott Aaronson's writings, and equally, his blog posts would be much better if he could discard that filter at least once in a while

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#535

Post by Yajirobe »

strofcon wrote: post #454

"To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be correct. Your ideas have to be both correct and novel. You can't publish papers saying things other people already know. You need to say things no one else has realized yet." Oof, first paragraph and he's entirely wrong. That's rough. One of the most worrisome aspects of the world's take on science lately is that reproduction of published results…

What? What he says is completely right. You can keep verifying other people's work, you can verify that bad ideas not work, but these approaches will not get you published. What you're saying would be true in an ideal world, but it's not true in today's academic world.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#536

Post by bosie »

jfengel wrote: post #431
eloff wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value and compensation aren't necessarily coupled. Think of school teachers. It's clearly an incredibly valuable job preparing the next generation of society, but pays a miserable wage before the intervening of unions, and still not great even with that. But there's more teachers available in the labor market compared to demand than computer programmers, so the latter command a much higher salary. Even though I would…

I'm not even sure it's true that there are more teachers than programmers. But the pool of money for paying programmers is large and expanding, because we can easily calculate the value they produce, while the monetary value of teaching is harder to measure. It doesn't help that teaching is presented as a "caring" profession, that you do for the love of your charges. Teachers don't threaten to jump to a different sch…

> because we can easily calculate the value they produce,

I am not trolling but I would really, really like a citation on this. I hear this sentiment so often but nobody ever produced that calculation. Would be great (or maybe not ;)) for negotiations going forward.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#537

Post by mrandish »

powersnail wrote: post #422
x87678r wrote: post #404

Some of my biggest regrets are doing what I thought was best when I should have done what everyone else was doing. This ranges from from not buying an overpriced house 20 years ago, to not partying at college, to following some interesting but unpopular technology. Its not all bad doing things your own way but you have to be careful about straying too much.

I have the opposite regrets. I have a very persuadable personality, and despite my anxiety in social interactions, I was often pushed into things that everyone was doing, but I wasn't enjoying doing. So much time was spent playing games I don't like, doing sports that weren't my strength. When I reflect on my younger years, I'd probably had been less sullen and depressed if I allowed myself to stay in my apartments,…

I've had similar experiences. I find both your post and the immediate parent valuable because they contrast different ways we can choose to interpret experiences many of us have. I've certainly regretted not doing some kinds of things and then regretted doing very similar types of things. For me, the "best" posture isn't a fixed default but varies depending context and even the phase of life I was in at the time.

Over the years, PG has written other useful essays on leveraging better mental models when facing uncertainty, increasing situational awareness in spite of contextual or cultural biases and applying Bayesian reasoning toward more effective life choices. My key takeaway has been that I'm now less likely to beat myself up over past mistaken choices, as long I had...

1. Evaluated the decision with diligence appropriate to the value or risk I perceived.

2. Applied the most appropriate mental model I had.

3. Was not knowingly in conflict with my core values at the time (given my current resources, abilities and maturity).

This helps me learn and grow from my major mistakes while reducing unproductive rumination and inappropriate self-blame. Considering alternative possible context and motivations in the absence of information helps me avoid leaping to unjustified conclusions. This has led to being more reflective and understanding when it comes to the mistakes of others. The tangible benefit externally has been improved relationships with family, friends and co-workers. Internally, I seem to accrue negative emotional life baggage at a lower rate than before.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#538

Post by Razengan »

carlisle_ wrote: post #249
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'.

I have never heard of him outside of HN and I’m not even sure why he’s considered important here. Could someone fill me in?

He does remind me of a games reviewer with the same name from the awesome ZZAP! magazine for the Commodore 64. Or wait was that Paul Glancey

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#539

Post by captain_price7 »

krona wrote: post #435
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…

And yet many of the greatest mathematicians produced their best work before their 30th birthday.

This used to be true for scientists too, 100 or more years ago.

Body of human knowledge is much bigger now-a-days. It takes 4 yrs honors and first 1/2 yrs in PhD to even begin thinking about fundamental research. That number is likely higher for some other fields (like doctors I guess).

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#540

Post by gorbachev »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #526
gorbachev wrote: post #505

I find Ray Dalio's thoughts on this and other related subjects much more compelling than Paul's. Mr. Dalio has recently, within the past year or two, started sharing his thoughts publicly in an organized way at https://www.principles.com/ and on social media.

Why do you find Dalio's musings 'more compelling' ? To me, Ray is just another Capitalist who extols Capitalism. Is there more to it?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...

That's to answer your "just another capitalist" comment.

To answer your first question. Because he thinks about and explains things more rigorously than Paul Graham does. That does sometimes make it a little longwinded and he has a tendency to go on a lot of tangents on his live speeches.

Also has absolutely no ego in the game whatsoever. It's almost clinical the way he describes how he's thinking about things.

Post reply on HN