" 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…
There's a lot of mind-reading in this essay, and basically no humility.
How to Think for Yourself
671–680 of 874 posts
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
that's what Einstein' contemporaries could have said as well.
The growing body of human knowledge is increasingly noise, bad or redundant theories, with entire gigantic fields based on wrong assumptions and fueled by groupthink and premature optimization, just like 100 or 500 years ago. Deep specialization is not always helpful and often detrimental for fundamental research as it assumes deep indoctrination into consensus theory of the day.
Thinking about fundamental research can start once one learns the fundamentals which doesn't take more than a few years in a breadth-first search manner. You don't have to cover all the branches of that giant tree, some of the branches don't have a right to exist in the first place and some are incredibly redundant or marginal improvements of the core parent idea.
I think redundancy and noise have definitely increased because more people are involved in research. So the only think that might be harder now vs. 100 years ago is filtering signal from noise. But the internet, and the rise of search engines is actually pretty helpful with that.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I quit the industry and started from scratch as a tech entrepreneur looking for a more fulfilling career path What is it you're doing as an entrepreneur you find so rewarding?
> > I went into Aerospace Engineering thinking that I'll be able to design radically different looking airplanes. > What is it you're doing as an entrepreneur you find so rewarding? The aerospace industry rewards making minor improvements to conventional airplanes rather than building something novel. Entrepreneurship rewards building something new and "radically different", which is what he was looking for in the fi…
If the GP commenter was working at, for example, SpaceX (a large aerospace company), I can 100% guarantee their work would be more meaningful and rewarding than at basically any startup I've ever encountered. It often seems like it's a unique conceit of the HN community to think that most of the tech startups floating around here are really doing much more than established companies.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, but I rather hear sporting/fitness advice from someone that won NBA finals, or the soccer World Cup, then just some random loser. The winner at least can tell you how they did succeed personally, even if they have no comprehensive studies with data. On the other hand, you are just a random guy from the internet, and offering advice with no data at all. You might be broke and posting from your mom's base…
Regardless of whether the argument of the commenter is valid or not, appeal to authority isn't very compelling.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#675Same conventional thinking, only carried further.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#676Am I the only one is getting pretty bored of "formula for success" content? This essay and other's like it, without evidence or data, implies that some of us know the formula for success. I get it, the things that change convention are unconventional at first. This is the definition of unconventional. I agree with the general vector of his essay but this is just boring to me. Here is my formula for success (in case a…
I don't know, but I rather hear sporting/fitness advice from someone that won NBA finals, or the soccer World Cup, then just some random loser. The winner at least can tell you how they did succeed personally, even if they have no comprehensive studies with data. On the other hand, you are just a random guy from the internet, and offering advice with no data at all. You might be broke and posting from your mom's base…
> On the other hand, you are just a random guy from the internet, and offering advice with no data at all.
So do you listen to Sam Altman?
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the point of the article. It explains why Bob is better than Sally in job A, but Sally is better than Bob in job B. Perhaps you figured that out, but I can't see that from your response, so I'll give you why this was so impactful for me. I went into Aerospace Engineering thinking that I'll be able to design radically different looking airplanes. After two degrees, three internships, three years of…
> I quit the industry and started from scratch as a tech entrepreneur looking for a more fulfilling career path What is it you're doing as an entrepreneur you find so rewarding?
Let me contrast that with my career from 20 years ago. My Master's thesis was to calculate the flight performance of an aircraft that ended up having its maiden flight 5 years later. Essentially, an entirely mathematically-driven exercise where you apply a well-known methodology to calculate a deterministic problem. I got bored of that pretty quickly and went into flight testing, thinking that I could keep my mind active by being more hands-on in my work. I quickly learned that flight testing is all about reading regulations and checking the aircraft for compliance. Sure, there is some flying involved, but nowhere enough to keep you stimulated every day.
If you're reading those two paragraphs above, one will appeal to you more than the other. It doesn't mean that one career path is fundamentally better or worse, it's more about what does YOUR mind need to be stimulated? Do you prefer nondeterministic challenges or would you rather apply existing processes and be super precise and accurate? Do you prefer quick turnaround times, or would you be happier knowing that there is 5 years' worth of budget for you and your team of hundreds of people to complete a project? Whatever your conclusion, you're not wrong - it just has to be right for you. I think PG's essay helped explain this.
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#678Re: How to Think for Yourself
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I quit the industry and started from scratch as a tech entrepreneur looking for a more fulfilling career path What is it you're doing as an entrepreneur you find so rewarding?
Maybe they founded boom?
Re: How to Think for Yourself
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the point of the article. It explains why Bob is better than Sally in job A, but Sally is better than Bob in job B. Perhaps you figured that out, but I can't see that from your response, so I'll give you why this was so impactful for me. I went into Aerospace Engineering thinking that I'll be able to design radically different looking airplanes. After two degrees, three internships, three years of…
> I quit the industry and started from scratch as a tech entrepreneur looking for a more fulfilling career path What is it you're doing as an entrepreneur you find so rewarding?