61–70 of 182 posts
I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a similar vein, I got to the word "saltimbocca", two paragraphs in, and was painfully and utterly bored. And frankly, skimming the rest, I found most of the "conclusions" rather insulting. Imagine a world where fancy words can both give a simple idea, as well as provide a deeper meaning to those that look. Indeed some of the most profound and lasting prose is that which paints a scene in your mind. So what brings…
Good writing is hard. Word choice is more about style and vibe than good writing. For example, I can tell from your first paragraph that the character is a little boring, a bit plan. They get to the point and don’t have time to mess around. The character in your second paragraph is a pompous ass, they think highly of themselves, perhaps love to hear themselves think. Like a teenager who discovered depth and can’t wai…
Ultimately you have a good point. My second example was over-the-top, and the first was over-simplified. I think it's safe to say there can be some middle-ground.
Or at least not "yo dawg, write simple bro, because words be hard" as a teenager close to me might say.
I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.
If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…
I think what you are getting at, though, is not so much "thinking for yourself" as pg is unafraid to say unpopular things that are on his mind. And I don't mean this in a derogatory way: it's good to have people who aren't just posting sycophantic opinions following the zeitgeist. But I don't think that's what causes my reaction to pg's writings. I think he gives advice that is overly universalizing from his position as a wealthy VC: for example, his "The Two Kinds of Moderate" post strikes me as very much the kind of thing that is really only taking his own experiences into account.
I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.
He makes a point and talks about it. There doesn't appear to be an attempt to come off smarter than he is.
Kind of ironic he starts off with "I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences" then dedicates an entire paragraph to making up an Italian word that really doesn't add anything to his point.
> dedicates an entire paragraph
You're technically right, but this entire paragraph consists of two sentences.
I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.
If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…
It seems a key issue is that he often speaks in terms of what others should or should not do, rather than inviting others to see what has worked for him. Objectivity versus subjectivity. What makes it less palatable is that it appears carefully selected wording is used to (thinly) veil it to sound like something it isn't.
Ultimately it means the writing can come across as very self-indulgent. It does not often strike me as coming from a place of feeling genuine, authentic passion about sharing with other humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not only limited to pg, either. There are lots of big-name programmers that look at their programming skills and think it means they're good to speak on other, totally unrelated topics as if they're super geniuses.
It's his personal website, not a philosophy journal. Can we scrutinize all your comments for subject matter expertise? What is your expertise anyway?
>Can we scrutinize all your comments for subject matter expertise?
Absolutely.
For example, in this essay I agreed with the main thrust and laughed at the irony of his Italian food example (which is certainly not a universal experience). Simple writing is good. Often. That's it right? There are contexts where we should strive to write more simply, and there are contexts in which we should encourage others to write simply. Does it make sense to qualify these contexts in his essay, or would the essay be any better for it? It would certainly be longer. More accurate perhaps, but better? Surely it would not be any more thought provoking to try and list all of the contexts under which a "write simply" rule ought to apply.
If a reader interprets any argument to follow a general rule such as this as literal an absolutist they're doing both the author and themselves a disservice.
Personally, I like to use a long word where a short word will do because it's fun. But when I write for the broadest audience it's better to follow this advice.