Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fierce Nerds

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 482 posts

Re: Fierce Nerds

#251

Post by psyc »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #224

For years I've labeled this nonsense the Midas Delusion: people get dramatically unusual success with their startup, and then conclude that they somehow have superior insight into every banal topic they choose to opine on. They fail to properly understand the path dependency and sheer luck that played a roll in their success, nor that the biggest lesson their success should teach them is humility in the socratic igno…

> but from the narrative in this essay it's clear he does not even understand how that happened

I find this accusation very ironic, considering that it started with writing essays a lot like this one.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#253

Post by fraud »

carlisle_ wrote: post #180
davidhunter wrote: post #13

Although questionable as a psychometric test, he is describing the Myers–Briggs INTJ [1] or INTP [2] personality type here. In terms of the Big-Five [3], I would suggest: Moderately-high Openness, High Conscientiousness, Average-to-Low Extraversion, Low Agreeableness, Average-to-low Neuroticism. [1]: https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality [2]: https://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality [3]: https://en…

>Although questionable as a psychometric test That's an understatement. It's meritless pseudoscience.

What makes you say so?

Re: Fierce Nerds

#254

Post by RobRivera »

>[1] To be a nerd is to be socially awkward, and there are two distinct ways to do that: to be playing the same game as everyone else, but badly, and to be playing a different game. The smart nerds are the latter type.

while I value the observation and concur, I'd like to semantically edit it vis :%s/socially awkward/behaviorally atypical/g

'awkward' just rubs me as poor word choice. for instance, throw me into a cs:go chat and I am the norm, complete with trolling, voices, and other things.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#255

Post by junkilo »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #224

For years I've labeled this nonsense the Midas Delusion: people get dramatically unusual success with their startup, and then conclude that they somehow have superior insight into every banal topic they choose to opine on. They fail to properly understand the path dependency and sheer luck that played a roll in their success, nor that the biggest lesson their success should teach them is humility in the socratic igno…

I have less problems with stereotyping than with the hum of a million managers patronizing remarks, like this article from PG.

I've grown accustomed to negs' (microaggressions) like these, but they do a greater injustice to actual genius. Mutual respect in a team will never be achieved when people treat others in this manner.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#256

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

chmod600 wrote: post #245
version_five wrote: post #197

I see the description he puts forward as essentially fitting contrarian types. Speaking as a contrarian myself, I think the biggest challenge / trap is it's easy to point out things that are wrong or stupid, but tougher to do anything positive about it. I think this equates to the idea about avoiding becoming bitter. Also, something he missed, and the curse of the contrarian, is "the market can stay irrational long e…

I'm not convinced that it's a bigger problem now. In many ways, the ancient world was much stickier. A king could have a bad idea, and it could persist through generations before it falls to better ideas.

Are we talking about the Bronze Age, or about the early '00s?

In the '00s, before the FAANG giants had arisen, I would say things were more dynamic than they are now, and there was more room for smaller players.

If we're talking about the Bronze Age then this is a different conversation entirely. Then there was more continuity in each place with the past, but more difference between different places.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#257

Post by FnControlOption »

chmod600 wrote: post #245
version_five wrote: post #197

I see the description he puts forward as essentially fitting contrarian types. Speaking as a contrarian myself, I think the biggest challenge / trap is it's easy to point out things that are wrong or stupid, but tougher to do anything positive about it. I think this equates to the idea about avoiding becoming bitter. Also, something he missed, and the curse of the contrarian, is "the market can stay irrational long e…

I'm not convinced that it's a bigger problem now. In many ways, the ancient world was much stickier. A king could have a bad idea, and it could persist through generations before it falls to better ideas.

Regardless of the ancient world, a lot of people today would say that there’s more polarization with the advent of social media.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#258

Post by SilurianWenlock »

marvin wrote: post #142
HeyImAlex wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, born in 92 and his characterization of being nerdy and young seems super antiquated. “Nerdy” interests don’t make you a social pariah, they transcend groupings all together; the star quarterback plays dnd, the head cheerleader builds robots in her basement, the stigma on having unique or “nerdy” hobbies and interests is mostly gone. When I think of what PG is describing, it’s characterized by poor social skills…

I'm just five years older than you and strongly relate to these descriptions of being a nerd, having academic interests not shared by young peers and consequently caring very little for social games. Even in adulthood, unless I carefully choose who I hang out with. And I'm from Europe, not the US, so it's not a thing local to the US either. If it's truly a generational change, that would be a very interesting develop…

I think that a total disinterest in politicking is why so many people on here complain about how software engineers are treated at non tech companies

Re: Fierce Nerds

#259

Post by judofyr »

johnsillings wrote: post #238
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #224

For years I've labeled this nonsense the Midas Delusion: people get dramatically unusual success with their startup, and then conclude that they somehow have superior insight into every banal topic they choose to opine on. They fail to properly understand the path dependency and sheer luck that played a roll in their success, nor that the biggest lesson their success should teach them is humility in the socratic igno…

I interpret this pretty differently, and PG seems pretty well positioned to make claims about something like this. I don't think this is so much about PG's journey as a founder. PG has personally mentored hundreds, perhaps thousands of founders – whatever it is, a sufficiently huge sample size to identify some traits that correlate with founder success and happiness. Sure, the truth is probably more nebulous than pre…

> PG has personally mentored hundreds, perhaps thousands of founders – whatever it is, a sufficiently huge sample size to identify some traits that correlate with founder success and happiness.

However, in this article the correlation only goes one way: He's not saying that most successful founders have these traits; he's saying that people with these traits can become successful founders. And the traits he talks about happen to perfectly match his own traits?

I'm sorry, but this reads very much like someone looking at their own past, not the result of an extensive, unbiased review of successful startup founders.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#260

Post by spamizbad »

version_five wrote: post #197

I see the description he puts forward as essentially fitting contrarian types. Speaking as a contrarian myself, I think the biggest challenge / trap is it's easy to point out things that are wrong or stupid, but tougher to do anything positive about it. I think this equates to the idea about avoiding becoming bitter. Also, something he missed, and the curse of the contrarian, is "the market can stay irrational long e…

The biggest problem facing contrarians is how more people are people stake out contrarian positions for the express purpose of building personal brands, despite any genuine conviction. A contrarian used to be dependably passionate. Now it's just another tool for audience building. As such, all contrarians now have an uphill battle of gaining trust because not only do you have to convince people of your views but you also have to convince them you're not just some charlatan on their latest grift.
Post reply on HN