How to Think for Yourself • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#711

Post by anonymouse008 » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

gtsop wrote: post #653

Accept the duality of your human nature. You think as a collective and as an individual at the same time. It's a matter of budget. When you do things that don't matter too much to you, you are damn happy to think exactly like the next guy, reusing the existing knowledge as is without a second thought. For instance: how do you boil an egg? For all I care, I leave it in boiled water for 10 minutes. I am more than happy…

It takes extreme discipline to know what you should question vs. what you shouldn’t. There’s a line from some famous SVite that agrees with your sentiment - something about picking the right horses and more about focusing on the right things.

A lot of this ‘how to boil a perfect egg’ competition comes not from the love of the pursuit (personally I have a much better day with a soft yolk), but because of the ‘prestige games’ we play with each other to prove we are not inadequate.

It’s a joy to learn from someone who truly wants to share, not position. To them they’ve discovered this wonderful way to do X that maybe you’ll love too — but to hear advice from folks that wish you worship them in return for their advice, is almost a negative sum game.

These articles walk a fine line, and many times it takes a live discussion for the intent to be measured.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#712

Post by tclancy » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #710

I glanced over this entire day thread but didn’t find this questioning so here it goes: Does no one else find that a “how to think for yourself” article is something of a paradox? I mean, if you do follow through whatever directions are pointed out, you already failed.

You make a compelling point. Tell me more.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#713

Post by mdorazio » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #681

mdorazio wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: exceedingly few tech entrepreneurship companies are doing anything at all that is really new and "radically different". Most are doing rather small and unimaginative things that make money by doing some equivalent of selling more ads. 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 basical…

What's your definition of meaningful and rewarding? I'm an entrepreneur because I love waking up every day and do whatever I feel like. Nothing can be more rewarding for me. I'm not even that interested in what I'm building and it's certainly not something unique or special but it pays the bills and lets me be free.

For myself and most people in my circle of friends it's roughly: actively advancing the level of humanity. That means different things to different people - for some it's working on autonomous vehicles, for others it's space exploration, for others it's fighting climate change or poverty, etc. I think this is also related to age, though. When I was younger, most people I knew thought freedom and money were the best possible things in life.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#714

Post by tambourine_man » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #712

tambourine_man wrote: post #710

I glanced over this entire day thread but didn’t find this questioning so here it goes: Does no one else find that a “how to think for yourself” article is something of a paradox? I mean, if you do follow through whatever directions are pointed out, you already failed.

You make a compelling point. Tell me more.

If you really think for yourself you won’t follow whatever the article's advice is.

However well intentioned the original proposal is, it’s not yours and not to be followed if the intention is to be original.

The article’s proposal is an impossible task, akin to the barber paradox

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#715

Post by waterhouse » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

aerosmile wrote: post #677

Judgmentality wrote: post #650

Earlier 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?

Right this moment I am asking myself how to shift more traffic from paid to organic. I created a list of about 10 ideas, the one at the top of that list being so out there that I had to immediately share it with the team. About half of the team members loved it and thought it will be the best thing ever, and the other half thought it's too expensive and we shouldn't risk so much money on an unproven concept that coul…

> I quickly learned that flight testing is all about reading regulations and checking the aircraft for compliance. Sure, there is some flying involved

I recently watched some videos of people doing plane checklists; one had an error within two minutes, another had only one pilot doing the checklist while the other was away. I've also heard that humans skipping items or entire checklists is a general problem. Out of curiosity, would people with borderline or genuine OCD be a good fit for this? (Would it be practical to factor out the "checklist compliance" into a separate person? Seems like "remaining calm in an emergency, quick thinking, judgment and reflexes", and whatever else I might imagine are best for the pilot are at best orthogonal to "obsessive following of checklists".)

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#716

Post by mdorazio » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:32 AM UTC

aerosmile wrote: post #692

mdorazio wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: exceedingly few tech entrepreneurship companies are doing anything at all that is really new and "radically different". Most are doing rather small and unimaginative things that make money by doing some equivalent of selling more ads. 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 basical…

I 100% get where you're coming from, but allow me to offer a counterpoint to your counterpoint. I don't know anyone who works at SpaceX, but a bunch of my classmates went to work for ULA (their competitor). I imagine that SpaceX is better managed, but the nature of work is the same - you're either calculating things using conventional wisdom, or you're writing simulations or coming up with other ways to achieve highe…

I respect your perspective, but it's one I mostly see in younger people. It's basically that personal achievement and being able to single-handedly deliver things are the most meaningful outcomes of work. The perspective that I've come to accept is that very few things that actually impact the world can come about this way. We didn't put men on the moon because some genius did all the calculations and fabrication himself (even von Braun was only one part of a very large organization), we did it because thousands of smart and determined people set aside their personal ambitions to work together on something great. The downside of this, of course, is that everyone is effectively a cog in the machine and it's easy to get demoralized that your contributions don't mean much.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you want to actually change the world, you're unlikely to do actually do it at a tech startup. You're instead likely to talk a lot about it while the real world-changing things are happening elsewhere. But you'll probably be happier at the startup because you get more of that magic combination of autonomy, teamwork, and quickly tangible results. I just personally get frustrated that almost every startup and its employees act like they're working on the biggest problems in the world when they just... aren't.

Edit: forgot to mention. I know two people who left ULA for similar reasons to you and went to SpaceX. They loved working at SpaceX in comparison to ULA because the level of company ambition, speed, and impact was so ridiculously higher. However, one of them left SpaceX to go to a smaller aerospace startup and the other is now at Raytheon for the superior work-life balance. I'm not sure what the lesson is there...

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#717

Post by newtwilly » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

polote wrote: post #701

aerosmile wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough - one article alone probably wouldn't have had the full impact. But I am envious of the generation of current high schoolers who can read HN all day. After a year or so, I imagine you can reprogram your mind quite a bit. Back in the late 90s, access to information like this was much more limited.

What you are getting from HN at your current age with your experience, is not the same that what your young self would have gotten from the same content

I'm sure that's true.

I would like to say that I am young and I remember getting turned on to podcasts and reddit and good books when I was 15 or so, and being exposed to rational thought and discussion did a lot for my development I think.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#718

Post by unityByFreedom » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:50 AM UTC

judofyr wrote: post #258

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…

> He's writing to and for people like him, trying to help them put words and clear thought to vague understandings and apprehensions they've been wrestling with. Ah, yes, he's writing an article about how to think for yourself to the people who already think like him. So if we don't think like him, but rather in an independent way, then it makes sense that we wouldn't agree with this article. Got it!

/thread for me. Well said

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#719

Post by ekianjo » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:54 AM UTC

ryeguy_24 wrote: post #615

Am 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…

> cultivate relationships because that seems to be the thing people regret most when they die.

Dying regrets are bullshit, because those people actually made conscious choices not to invest into such relationships on a daily basis and would do it again if they were in the same situation. I don't buy it.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#720

Post by jonny383 » Sat, Nov 28, 2020, 1:54 AM UTC

elric wrote: post #197

jonny383 wrote: post #79

The very premise of this article is an oxymoron. "How to Think for Yourself" (by reading instructions on how from someone other than yourself)

It's not. We also teach teachers how to teach, for instance. No one is born with all their skills and knowledge. Critical (or independent) thinking is a skill just like any other.

If you're thinking in a way you've been "taught" (aka told) to think, you're not truly thinking for yourself.