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

811–820 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#811

Post by darkerside »

eloff wrote: post #696
darkerside wrote: post #669

I find it interesting that conventional thinkers are described as "sheep" in this article. In my experience, most people who I thought were shallow or "conventional" thinkers were not. Rather, they cared about different things than I did. They were independent thinkers, questioning assumptions, in the field where they were expert or passionate, and conventional thinkers everywhere else because they want to save their…

In my experience most people are sheep. I rarely encounter people who think independently about very much at all. And I'm sure they all would think the above didn't apply to them. Especially with politics I notice most people just pick a red or blue team or equivalent in their country, and inherit all their positions - which blows my mind. I also think it doesn't apply to me, but I worry about how really independent…

My advice is not to worry about it. Figure out what you want to think most about and seek truth. If other people find a different truth, try to learn from it. It's that simple.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#812

Post by yuriko_boyko »

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…

The title itself is very ironic. Learn how to think for yourselves from? Yourselves? No. From Paul Graham who doesn't even know your name.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#813

Post by kowlo »

commentrix wrote: post #808

What's interesting is all the sheep coming to say, "Hey, actually I'm an individual!" even tho 1000-ands of times they've shat on individuals and celebrated the collective, even the collective lynching of individuals that were too "divergent" for their fickle and arbitrary collective tastes. Now, when an "authority" a "leader of a pack" shows up and says "Individual think good", the sheep bleat ever louder, "me good"…

Whilst I'm not convinced that this incoherent rambling is directly human-generated, I am a little intrigued. What is the point that you're trying to get across? Do you think you could sum it up in a sentence?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#814

Post by angry_octet »

ryeguy_24 wrote: post #802
rdslw wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is even worse. This article is (yet another) attemp to romanticize and put to pedestal 'startup with a novel idea'. It is worth to mention that trying to trick/persuade/convince (choose freely) thousands (literaly) of people to go this path, benefits tremendously ycombinator - not the persuaded founders. Because for YC if only few are (hugely) successfull they win. Not so for the other thousands. The fact that few…

I agree with you entirely. To add to your point, we readers aren’t an an average of a simulation. We are a single path. So, this advice works for the those that reap benefits of the average but it may not be the advice suited for individuals. “Jump off a cliff because statistically, one of you may fly”.

"We've had no complaints from cliff jumping participants."

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#816

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lovelyviking wrote: post #782
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you. >I suspect that he struggles to see the world without that lens applied If you'll have to select one or two the most important and essential things to see 'without that lens', what would they be in your opinion?

In particular, PG's analysis of "conformists" seems heavily colored by the stereotype of jocks and other popular kids bullying the nerds. It's true that there's a set of people who try their hardest to believe what's popular in their social circles, but they aren't doing this to avoid thinking about things. In fact, I'd argue that moral trend followers almost all value intellectual thought and debate; people who don't value that don't engage in abstract discussions about society in the first place.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#817

Post by _laiq »

anovikov wrote: post #804
rdslw wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is even worse. This article is (yet another) attemp to romanticize and put to pedestal 'startup with a novel idea'. It is worth to mention that trying to trick/persuade/convince (choose freely) thousands (literaly) of people to go this path, benefits tremendously ycombinator - not the persuaded founders. Because for YC if only few are (hugely) successfull they win. Not so for the other thousands. The fact that few…

But what is the problem for those for who it doesn't work? How much do they get to lose? If they don't get accepted to the YC, they lose very little and it's just a short detour in their lives, certainly not the most boring or frustrating one, something to remember. If they get accepted to the YC, they clearly win vs the average folk because they get to know so many influential people and see how the world-class stuf…

I feel your example is a good portrayal of a life pretty much well-lived: you made money doing something you enjoy, met tons of people and fed your curiosity.

But according to this essay, you followed a BAD path not innovative enough, and the hidden reason why it's bad is because it will never generate any sort of profit for YC.

Now if you had tried 3 or 4 startups in that same timespan, burned through all your life savings, did not make several millions in the process, and failed all you endeavours, you will be applauded by YC.

Why ? because the more people exist like you, the better it is for them.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#818

Post by libeclipse »

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…

Plus there's the irony of an article telling you how to think for yourself.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#819

Post by okareaman »

angry_octet wrote: post #814
ryeguy_24 wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you entirely. To add to your point, we readers aren’t an an average of a simulation. We are a single path. So, this advice works for the those that reap benefits of the average but it may not be the advice suited for individuals. “Jump off a cliff because statistically, one of you may fly”.

"We've had no complaints from cliff jumping participants."

a literal example of survivor bias

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#820

Post by ausbah »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #659
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…

I like this point. Instead of "question everything", "question that which you are interested in". After all, asking - let alone answering - every question would simply take too much time.

isn't this just something people unconsciously do all the time?
Post reply on HN