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

Write simply (2021)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 182 posts

Re: Write simply (2021)

#81

Post by brhsagain »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

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.…

Related comment that you made 15 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=143575

Re: Write simply (2021)

#82

Post by camillomiller »

This is probably the 200th reposting of this anthology of trite platitudes, a banal commingling of self-entitled truths and survival bias, a self-absorbed egotistical outburst aimed at enslaving written prose to the one mere end: convincing fellow capitalists of the importance of effective communication to absolve oneself of one’s world-destroying aptitude and thirst for accruing compounding wealth.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#83

Post by dang »

vore wrote: post #63
dang wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't really buy this idea of "thinking for yourself". We are nothing more than the product of our experiences: there are no axioms at the root of at any of our beliefs; fundamentally everything that goes through our heads is cobbled together from other sources that's cobbled together from other sources before that. And that's good! Because if we were attempting to derive everything from axioms that would be 1) imp…

You're right, the moment one uses language one is full of other-peopleness. But there's still a big difference between thinking for oneself (and claiming the right to think for oneself, which most of us won't) and not daring to. And also: not having the energy to. I mostly don't do it because I'm too lazy. Cowardice too, but laziness is more pleasant to admit to.

You're wrong about "position as a wealthy VC". As I said in the GP (but not before you replied! I was busy editing) - he was (1) exactly this way long before that, and (2) it was by being this way that he became a wealthy investor in the first place. YC was an exercise in exactly the same kind of thinking and writing that his essays are. And I do mean exactly.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#84

Post by camillomiller »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

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.…

What is exactly that moves people to venerate, defend, and even battle for venture capital multimillionaires who wouldn’t take a minute to expend y’all as necessary casualties, if that would push their agenda and their wealth forward?

I’m not dismissing their cultural relevance, I’m just constantly baffled at the fideism, and it honestly scares me a bit, as if people were prey to a global hallucination making them believe that by appreciating and praising such figures then one day, maybe, they could be like them?

Re: Write simply (2021)

#85

Post by brhsagain »

vore wrote: post #63
dang wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't really buy this idea of "thinking for yourself". We are nothing more than the product of our experiences: there are no axioms at the root of at any of our beliefs; fundamentally everything that goes through our heads is cobbled together from other sources that's cobbled together from other sources before that. And that's good! Because if we were attempting to derive everything from axioms that would be 1) imp…

I don't know about this. If what you're saying is true, strictly speaking, novel thought would be impossible. I think the whole game of thinking is picking a set of existing words and concepts you inherit and independently reasoning through/with them to arrive at novel or useful conclusions. The "thinking for yourself" part is all the thinking that goes on in the gap between the existing ideas and the reasoned conclusions you synthesize with them.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#86

Post by nextos »

vishnugupta wrote: post #79
paulpauper wrote: post #10

This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's…

Of late, I'm reading diverse authors, and I noticed that I get drawn to more aesthetically pleasant writings. So I'm beginning to pay more weightage and attention to the aesthetics of writing than before. Good content and pleasing aesthetics go together. It means the writer made an effort to make the writing beautiful besides bringing forth insightful points. It could also be about appreciating subtler aspects of lif…

I think one needs to understand PG's bias.

He has written excellent technical books that are both deep and a pleasure to read.

He is not in the business of writing the next War and Peace, i.e. aesthetics is secondary to his goals.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#87

Post by dang »

camillomiller wrote: post #84
dang wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

What is exactly that moves people to venerate, defend, and even battle for venture capital multimillionaires who wouldn’t take a minute to expend y’all as necessary casualties, if that would push their agenda and their wealth forward? I’m not dismissing their cultural relevance, I’m just constantly baffled at the fideism, and it honestly scares me a bit, as if people were prey to a global hallucination making them be…

As I explained above (in a later edit), this gets the arrow of causality backwards. In pg's case, all the qualities I am commenting on were completely in place before he ever invested in anything. Not only that but I admired and commented on them years before he became known for YC - because I had been turned on to his programming essays before that (thanks Joel Spolsky!) So I don't have to ask myself if I'm being a "fideist" - I know I'm not! As my sister in law used to say, you barely ever get that.

What I'm defending are qualities that I love and admire because they're admirable and which people are wrong to dismiss. Net worth, btw, is a terrible criterion to judge an individual by, even if wealthy people do bad and class dynamics are a thing. If a good and smart person becomes rich, do they instantly cease to be good or smart? Of course not.

Edit: I just noticed this part:

> wouldn’t take a minute to expend y’all as necessary casualties

On what basis can you possibly say that? Do you think this is true of everybody?

Re: Write simply (2021)

#88

Post by [deleted] »

paulpauper wrote: post #10

This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's…

[deleted]

Re: Write simply (2021)

#89

Post by daveslash »

paulpauper wrote: post #10

This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's…

"Why use many word, when few word do trick." ~Kevin Malone, The Office.

I agree with you.The point of language is to get an idea from my head into your head with as little loss-of-signal as possible. That is much more challenging than it might sound. Note: an idea might be an emotion.

If I were to write that as simply as possible, I might say: "Yes. Talk is communication. That is hard", or even more simply "Talk hard!!!"

Too much simplification is reductionist, and something is lost. Excessive verboseness is too high a noise-to-signal ratio, and something is lost. There is a balance to be had, and that balance is a moving target, depending on the complexity and importance of the idea and your audience. If I'm trying to convey deep-technical knowledge to a fellow engineer, then I'll be precise and "jargony" - it won't be "simple"; if I'm trying to show that I'm having a good time to my inlaws with whom I don't share a common verbal language, then a beaming smile may be all that's needed.

Post reply on HN