Odd to see a stress on interest in a problem for its own sake from pg, who has elsewhere written that the startup economy would be crippled by raising taxes on people who had already gotten fabulously rich. If being in it for the money is "the wrong motive" to do a startup, downgrading the potential financial gains from set-for-dynasty to merely set-for-life would seem to be a way of ditching the poseurs...
"People's motives are as mixed in Silicon Valley as anywhere else. Even the founders motivated mostly by money tend to be at least somewhat interested in the problem they're solving, and even the founders most interested in the problem they're solving also like the idea of getting rich."
Earnestness
341–350 of 478 posts
Re: Earnestness
#342Possibly the most famous verse (2-47) from the Bhagavad Gita.
Re: Earnestness
#343Re: Earnestness
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read the last few of these essays posted here? Every single one of them I've read can be summarized as such: "I wish to focus on a certain characteristic. I will hint or explicitly state that negative qualities of said characteristic are found predominately in fields I do not care to work in and often have a negative stereotype about, and also hint or explicitly state that positive qualities are found predom…
I don't think there's so little to be charitable about. But in any case the GP was a snarky, shallow dismissal, which is not what we want here, regardless of who the target is. From a moderation point of view your comment is totally different and I don't have a problem with it. Btw, pg has been talking about earnestness for years—same with the topics of his other recent essays—and he has always written in this style.…
So no plausible charitable interpretation this time? A little bit hypocritical dont you think? I think you are confusing your role of moderator with one of mindless cheerleader. But who knows? Maybe that's part of the job so no judgment there.
Re: Earnestness
#345The majority of negative comments here fall squarely under the description of clever cynic.
I'd wager most commenters are proud of their skepticism. Speaking truth to power makes the world a better place.
But, what's the opportunity cost to being cynical?
Being cynical takes energy. And, doing so in an intellectually sound manner takes even more energy.
Re: Earnestness
#346I wonder who the intended audience of this post is?
Re: Earnestness
#347Another Paul Graham blogspam that takes a stereotype, a limited sample of datapoints, or a simple idea, then assumes its true and then generalises it immediately to a rambling wall of text. The actual point of the article is to really just drop the -- quote -- "bogus" -- dogwhistle so all the other racists can identify them. Otherwise why would you choose that paper on such a controversial topic as "bogus"? I think a…
Re: Earnestness
#348My perception is that one drawback of earnestness is that it often comes off as just being boring. The most earnest people I know are not popular. The most popular people I know are more like twinkle-in-the-eye-kind-of-BS-but-not-pathological-liars. I don't mean to say "grr, why aren't nerds more popular!". I mean more that this specific kind of earnestness seems to preclude the playing of certain conversational game…
Can you expand on the boringness? That conflicts with what I think because I believe that engaging hobbies are that vitality which manifests as “playful” and “fun”. Are you willing to try something new, and if you do, are you willing to learn to do it well enough to enjoy it. Engaging with a hobby tends to involve making it part of me - the hobbies I haven’t committed to actually liking and just performed have always…
Re: Earnestness
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> History, literature, philosophy, and anthropology are all good examples of valuable humanities where there is some grounding in logic and facts. I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of his…
> I'm sorry, but this is a profound misapprehension of the humanities: one of the first things you do in the study of history is learn that history is a human project, subject to human flaws. We don't take Thucydides and Herodotus at their words; we expect the "facts" of history to be distorted. Sure, but there's still a basis in facts where can corroborate accounts from different authors, even different sides in a w…
Except that a lot of it is just made up! Both the Greeks and Romans were happy to make up foundational and battle stories to support their cultural lodestones; we don't really know much about how Rome was founded other than that it certainly wasn't Romulus and Remus. Even our best period sources (Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Livy) were (1) 800 years too late, and (2) under immense political pressure to "prove" (there's that word again) that the myths were real.
And note: the greatness of Rome is conditioned on the greatness of their founding myth, which goes from Romulus and Remus to the great Aeneas of Troy[1]. The greatness of the Western neoclassicial period (democracy, free speech, property, capitalism!), in turn, is conditioned on the greatness and intellectual rightness of Greece and Rome. There's a reason why George Washington is apotheosized on the Capitol Rotunda, and it's not just because Brumidi thought it would look cool.
If you can see why these kinds of observations and analysis might be interesting, you can get an inkling of why people find gender and other critical studies interesting: they don't exist to destroy Western culture, only to reconcile its lionizations with what we actually know. And, as it turns out, we don't know a whole lot other than what our progenitors want us to know.
[1]: This, among many other reasons, is why Rome had its own reactionary anti-Hellenic scholars. Modern conservative groups frequently borrow their names. Parallels abound.
Re: Earnestness
#350My perception is that one drawback of earnestness is that it often comes off as just being boring. The most earnest people I know are not popular. The most popular people I know are more like twinkle-in-the-eye-kind-of-BS-but-not-pathological-liars. I don't mean to say "grr, why aren't nerds more popular!". I mean more that this specific kind of earnestness seems to preclude the playing of certain conversational game…
> Earnestness, for example, is pretty far away from my conception of "playful" or "flirty" or even "fun". Cliff Stoll is the most earnest person I have talked to in the past year, and also one of the most playful and fun. See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k3mVnRlQLU I think you have a non-standard personal definition of “earnest”. As I understand the words, earnestness and playfulness are completely orthogona…
Still, the above chain of reasoning is longer and less convincing than I thought it would be.