Fierce Nerds • Hacker News Board

Re: Fierce Nerds

#261

Post by westernmostcoy » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #244

flaubere wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if you write something which says 'I am biased', the burden of proof is now on you to show hiring managers that it was all a bit, rather than on them to demonstrate that it wasn't.

Well you're wrong. The burden of proof is to show examples of bias.

This feels like an unreasonable expectation for the people who would be reporting to him.

If someone in your future/present management chain wrote a "I think people like slibhb are bad at this job" missive somewhere, would you then feel the need to wait for examples of bias?

Re: Fierce Nerds

#262

Post by mempko » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

Paul Graham, The Fierce Nerd Eater. Feed him fierce nerds. Many will be chewed and spit out. Some will succeed. Like highly competitive athletes (even more so, some become billionaires!). Those spit out need help with mental health.

Or maybe instead of abusing mentally fragile people, we need something a bit more healthy.

We need to make it honorable to fail and those that fail get the help they need. We need to make the harms as small as possible and the benefits as broadly shared as possible. But many nerds trying many things don't need to be fierce. We can have many experiments with cooperation not competition. We need decentralization not centralization.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#263

Post by sn9 » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

fraud wrote: post #253

carlisle_ wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What makes you say so?

Probably an awareness of the history of MB and the research about its utility: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personali...

Re: Fierce Nerds

#264

Post by chalst » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

> And moreover it's clear from the story that Crick and Watson's fierce nerdiness was integral to their success.

I dare say PG's analysis of the psychology of Crick & Watson is correct, but one should not take only Watson's word for it about the source of their success. Rosalind Franklin was the first to observe the double-helix structure, a fact omitted from Watson's book.

https://sites.psu.edu/magdaliapassionblog/2018/02/08/watson-...

Re: Fierce Nerds

#265

Post by kragen » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:47 PM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #123

tchalla wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think PG is trying to justify some kind of assholish behaviour in his past by reframing it as a virtue. I wonder how much Bill Gates triggered this write up.

If we really want to go in this direction and criticize other people calling famous tech businessmen assholes, at least give credit where it's due - Jobs deserves this much more than Gates. Gates documented unethical behavior was mostly against other companies, not so much individuals, with a few notable exceptions.

Wozniak was the nerd. Jobs was just a manipulator. As a nerd he never progressed beyond assembling circuit boards.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#266

Post by mjburgess » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #249

mjburgess wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> practically everything in "wokeness" is about saying.... Please don't paint me with the broad brush you're using. Err.. really? I mean, that's the definition of individualism against which many "woke" people would object. Even you say, "since the affected people are usually a minority". This is just false, if we take minority to refer to the usual "protected subgroups". The relevant sense of Woke here, seems to me,…

> It's a sort of perverse individualism. It's just substituting a different type of broad brush. Rather than starting with a maximally individual analysis (and hence construe treatment in terms of procedural fairness), rather, start by a group analysis and place individuals within those groups (and hence talk about aggregate distributional outcomes). > Don't paint me with a broad brush" means let me speak for myself…

Well I think we have to take "woke" to mean the most plausible worst version of this ideology; or else we'd just name it charitably. Ie., the OP comment is nervous about being associated with the type of thinking i'm talking about.

It's entirely fair to say that whilst accommodating and judging people individually we need to account for that person's particular difficulty in first being judged in this manner -- because we, the judger, may be unable to properly understand their situation; and likewise they may not be able to argue their case, state their need, etc.

The problem enters when we take the goal of our project to actually be removing such "prejudices and obstacles" and, not rather, the empowerment of each individual. The former is an often optional detour to the latter.

Consider, for example, the most effective civil rights president in US history (LBJ) was a racist: did we need to solve his prejudice first? Would that have done anything positive?

Wokeism, if it means anything at all, I think has to be identified with this ends-means confusion. It's raising to the status of an end in itself the elimination of (minority) group hatred, (minority) group prejudice, etc.

This a deeply confused project; and routinely gets in the way of the actual end everyone cares about: each person, in their own particular situation, being able to live the way that best suits them.

If I read the message here correctly, the woke-dissenter is saying this: "My difficulties are particular to me, and all I want is to be able to solve them. I don't want to participate or "ally" with a society-wide war against the possibility I will be misunderstood or mistreated; rather I simply want the rules (,tools, practices) in place to empower me when I am."

Wokeism is the political incarnation of New Atheism, or likewise Evangelism: first we fight a total war against The Sins of The Mind themselves; and then, much much later, we help people in their particular situations.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#267

Post by lvs » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

Is this not just a broad ad hominem against people with whom this venture capitalist has had prior disagreements? If only you choose to do risky things that are (inexplicably in many cases) capital intensive -- i.e. engage investors in ways good for them -- then you will be a good nerd. Investors will make you rich. Everyone will be happy. But if you don't engage investors, then you will become a bad nerd! Bad nerd! Bad!

Re: Fierce Nerds

#268

Post by johnsillings » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

judofyr wrote: post #259

johnsillings wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

> I'm sorry, but this reads very much like someone looking at their own past

What makes you say that?

Re: Fierce Nerds

#269

Post by kragen » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

PG is not particularly "fierce" in the way he's describing. He's talking about what he's observed in other people more than in himself. He's more laid-back and encouraging and positive than aggressive and competitive.

> If you don't see that plainly and transparently I'm not sure what to say to you.

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Or, to say it differently, sometimes people might disagree with you, not because they're stupid, but because they know something you don't, or because you've made an error.

Re: Fierce Nerds

#270

Post by hazeii » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

chalst wrote: post #264

> And moreover it's clear from the story that Crick and Watson's fierce nerdiness was integral to their success. I dare say PG's analysis of the psychology of Crick & Watson is correct, but one should not take only Watson's word for it about the source of their success. Rosalind Franklin was the first to observe the double-helix structure, a fact omitted from Watson's book. https://sites.psu.edu/magdaliapassionblog/2…

Very much agree on not taking Watson's word for it. As for Franklin, it would be nice to think the Nobol committee would have agonised long and hard had she lived long enough to make it an issue for them (given at most 3 people can share a nobel, her early death ruled her out - a fact often ignored).