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

You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 180 posts

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#31

Post by rglullis »

airstrike wrote: post #22
tetromino_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class Consider Egyptian and Mesopotamian irrigation and flood management, Persian and Roman roads, Chinese canals...

Roman aqueducts, modern railroads, the moon landing, the LOTR films, CERN, or Wikipedia... This seems like an open-and-shut case of failing to look for disconfirming evidence.

The moon landing is definitely a fruit of war efforts.

Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down process.

Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment.

LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you bring a cultural landmark that it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#32

Post by dyauspitr »

zkmon wrote: post #9

I don't think the analogies of animals in the wild or groups of hunter-gatherer is correct to the modern companies. A better analogy is the teams who built pyramids or armies who empowered Alexander or the medieval peasant settlements who regulated societies. It's not about acting on your own or achieving something for yourself. It's about building something which is only possible with collective effort of hundreds o…

But that is only 4000 years ago when we’ve been evolving for millions.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#33

Post by echelon_musk »

airstrike wrote: post #22
tetromino_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class Consider Egyptian and Mesopotamian irrigation and flood management, Persian and Roman roads, Chinese canals...

Roman aqueducts, modern railroads, the moon landing, the LOTR films, CERN, or Wikipedia... This seems like an open-and-shut case of failing to look for disconfirming evidence.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the bosses ever done for us?

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#34

Post by dentemple »

Without a firm proposal of what a company can or should do instead, this just becomes another example of complaints being easier to make than actual solutions. We all know that large corps are structured in a way that eliminates individual initiative. So what can we do about it?

I've heard of "hierarchy-less" company structures being attempted before. I've also heard that each and every one of those attempts always ended up with hierarchies anyway, only now they became "shadow" hierarchies, unofficial and undocumented. Because that's just how human nature works. Not everyone can stay locked in on what every else is doing while still also keeping up with their own responsibilities, so other people get deferred to instead.

Is there happy middle-ground that can be found here? Is there any research out that offers tree-less company structures that might actually work in the real world?

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#35

Post by Filligree »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #21
wavemode wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are "naturally" meant to die at 21 Not really? Historical life expectancies were low because it was so common to die in infancy and childhood (thus dragging down the "average"). For people who made it to 20, it was common to live past 60.

Yeah people get that one wrong all the time. They don't realize what a bad argument it is. I'm guessing they are ignorant of historical facts and are just repeating what they heard from somebody else.

People do get that wrong. But the corrected version is “you were supposed to die as a baby”, and…

That doesn’t sound any better.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#36

Post by skrebbel »

lordkrandel wrote: post #3

If I hear the argument of "naturality" and "natural design" I explode. We are "naturally" meant to die at 21, after getting whatever illness, never to move with massive transport, not even speak. 'cause all we naturally are is monkeys, right? AaaaaRGHHHH This argument makes me nuts

I wish i could upvote you seven times

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#37

Post by airstrike »

rglullis wrote: post #31
airstrike wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman aqueducts, modern railroads, the moon landing, the LOTR films, CERN, or Wikipedia... This seems like an open-and-shut case of failing to look for disconfirming evidence.

The moon landing is definitely a fruit of war efforts. Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down process. Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment. LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you bring a cultural landmark that it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.

You're moving goalposts. You literally said

> I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans".

> It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large.

I'm breaking it up into two statements because sufficient evidence has been provided to contradict the former, and some of your rebuttals did not align with the latter. Let's break those down:

> The moon landing is defintely a fruit of a war effort.

But is it only for war? Or did it "advance the sciences" + "for the benefit of society at large"?

> Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down effort.

Your original statement didn't say it had to be a top-down effort. It's certainly "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large".

> Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment.

Scale and precision also matter and don't negate the fact that these are "something in history" + "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large".

> LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you cultural landmark that only worked because it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.

I only picked LOTR films because they are notorious for being large scale and you never said it didn't have to be an adaptation. I could have picked The Simpsons, Star Wars, Breaking Bad, you name it.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#38

Post by jjulius »

Filligree wrote: post #35
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah people get that one wrong all the time. They don't realize what a bad argument it is. I'm guessing they are ignorant of historical facts and are just repeating what they heard from somebody else.

People do get that wrong. But the corrected version is “you were supposed to die as a baby”, and… That doesn’t sound any better.

>That doesn't sound any better.

It doesn't, because "it was so common to", as OP stated, is not the same thing as "you were supposed to". There's no reason it should be corrected, it's accurate.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#39

Post by lazy_afternoons »

I once worked for a unicorn (1B valuation) company where there were there were No mangers, no product managers, no appraisal (30% hike or out)

The rule was "I will treat you like an adult and you have to act like one"

Easily the best company I worked for and best Colleuges.

But I have seen this model hiccup once it reached ~70 engineers.

May be because of the structure or may be it's difficult to hire more such engineers India. Might scale better in SF.

Re: You weren't meant to have a boss (2008)

#40

Post by samrus »

jjulius wrote: post #13
stabbles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is fair criticism. It's hard to read this blog cause its premise is based on an "appeal to nature" fallacy.

It's flawed criticism because it's rooted in an all-or-nothing perspective.

I think paul graham is biased to always tell people to make startups, but what hes saying resonates to me in that it is a spectrum. You dont have to. Ake a startup, but you can work for a company of 20 people and feel thats its alot more liberating and feel a much stronger sense of purpose. He even concedes that near the end
Post reply on HN