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

751–760 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#751

Post by lovelyviking »

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…

>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.

What movies for instance you have in mind that you think influnced core part?

>political partisans

Who for instance?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#752

Post by Balgair »

Thorentis wrote: post #628
Balgair wrote: post #599

The late Christopher Hitchens was a drink sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay, of course. But one we needed. His 'Letters to a Young Contrarian'(2001), though filled with himself[0], remains a heartfelt read for anyone going about the world in their own way. If you can get a used copy, preferably filled with marginalia, treasure it, add your own thoughts, and pass it along. The always unique comments railing against Hitch…

A fantastic debate between Christopher and his brother Peter in which Christopher defended the Iraq war showed me just how much of an "independent thinker" Christopher really was (i.e. Not as much as you'd think). Being a militant atheist is hardly enough to be considered independent or contrarian in today's world.

Hear Hear!

He was a two fisted drunken chain smoker, for sure.

But what rare good ideas he had were worth it all.

I'll cheer again his Letters to Young Contrarian as terrible sauced drivel.

But damned if I ever wrote more in the margins of that thin little tome arguing against his bastard ideas. To be clear, I disagree with nearly everything Hitch said. But his poppycock made me think deeper than any second-rate Augustine. To have everyone hate you is a rare thing. To have that for decades is unique.

If he ever wrote only that one pamphlet, he'd be forgotten. But that he wrote so much more and that cigarette of a book, well, makes the matchbox so much more reprehensible. It wasn't satire, rather, a hose of drool.

But it is truly honest.

Again, read it, argue with him, treasure it, and pass it along.

I can't recommend anything better on how to live that kind of life.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#753

Post by jolux »

andrewseanryan wrote: post #747
chenpengcheng wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only when the tide turns, you get to see who was swimming naked. luck plays an important part, but not everyone realizes it or admits it.

And yet... those who stay in the game and who try new things regularly get “lucky” while those who quit, don’t develop and learn from a process, and who try the same methods over and over don’t get lucky. It is far too simple to say that it is only luck. Persistence and good processes often lead to “luck”.

Hence why I said fortune favors the prepared. If you’re not ready for the opportunity you’re going to miss it when it hits.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#754

Post by imgabe »

rossdavidh wrote: post #735

While I agree that there are professions where thinking unconventional thoughts is especially important, there's a flipside to this which is missed in this essay: they're professions where being wrong is not catastrophic. VC's can invest in many startups, and a few successes can make up for a lot of failures. It's ok to be wrong a lot, if a few big successes (i.e you were right when everyone else was wrong) can make…

You are missing the part about being fastidious about the truth. Nobody cares about people who are "unconventional" in a way that is at odds with reality. Conventions are merely cognitive shortcuts we use to apply previously determined knowledge. Sometimes that knowledge grows out of sync with the world, or there is a newer, better understanding of the world that represents an improvement, and we need to replace or update the convention. This is where we need unconventional thinkers to question assumptions and test new ways of doing things. Yes, even in fields like surgery and plumbing.

Do you think the current state of knowledge in surgery is perfect and cannot be improved? If not, you are depending on people to question the current conventions.

I promise you the first plumber who proposed the waterless urinal was met with a lot of resistance from other plumbers "That's not how we do things", "That will never work" etc. etc. It doesn't mean he's also going to design your house so that shit has to flow uphill. Nobody is proposing that you just throw out conventions at random for the sake of calling yourself unconventional.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#755

Post by F_J_H »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #732
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…

This is what I came here to write. “How to think for yourself... let me teach you!” I’m not sure how reading the advice of one of the most privileged and powerful people in the world relates to my experiences. I am not a VC. What if I am unable to apply these secrets of “thinking for myself” as they have been generously mansplained, whitesplained, rich-splained and VC-sprained and neoliberal-sprained to me? Probably…

Then move on and find something that is more helpful for you?

Why the need to trash it, (complete with fashionably dragging in gender, race, economic inequality and political ideology), because it doesn't resonate with you?

I got a lot out of it, and am glad he took the time to write it.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#756

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lovelyviking wrote: post #751
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. What movies for instance you have in mind that you think influnced core part? >political partisans Who for instance?

It's my understanding that the causality went the other direction; that "nerds" were a clear youth subculture in the 60s and 70s, and this subculture inspired all of the 70s-90s movies about them even as the term "nerd" broadened far beyond any concrete set of characteristics. If you had to pick one movie that contributed the most to fossilizing the image, Revenge of the Nerds has to be it.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#757

Post by trabant00 »

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…

Largely, successful people have little idea what they did to succeed at something. I observed this first in others and then in myself when trying to teach others.

One reason is - like PG says - the inclination for activities is more nature vs nurture than we like to think. We want the success to be caused by our choices and intelect. When it was largely chosen for us at birth.

Another aspect is post fact rationalization. Again like he says the unconscious mind decides first. Then the rational part tries to explain the choice but it often fails even to identify it, let alone pinpoint the reasons for it.

Third: teaching is mostly done through example and practicing toghether. Simple words are very ineffective at passing on experience.

And finally successful actions depend on context. For example what makes appropriate bussiness conduct varies from culture to culture, varies in time as the culture changes, is different even in the same culture depending on social class, etc. And these are just some points in the infinite variable group I called context.

All this makes such articles pretty much pointless as a recipe for success. But I'm not sure it is intended as that. There is value in the text, it's just not all true and all applicable to everybody. But then which text is?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#758

Post by lovelyviking »

typon wrote: post #205

I find reading this article a very uncomfortable experience. It's just assertion after assertion without evidence to back them up. Do people believe this guy because he's rich?

What if I'll tell that I didn't even know who is the guy before reading it? The sensation is like someone is speaking directly to you the thoughts you share already about the issues you struggled with for some time now to reach very similar conclusions. It is also a sensation of relieve, because you feel you are not alone thinking similar way.

I literally had to google, who is this guy afterwards...

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#760

Post by davidivadavid »

dang wrote: post #637
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…

I don't see that here. I see someone trying to figure out things that interest him. As for unconventional ideas and observations, here's one: Political extremists [...] think themselves nonconformists, but actually they're niche conformists. Their opinions may be different from the average person's, but they are often more influenced by their peers' opinions than the average person's are. The material of that bit may…

The phenomenon is called "conformity." Nothing in it ever suggested it only applies to large groups. Reading the first paragraph of Wikipedia will tell you as much.
Post reply on HN