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

Fashionable Problems

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: Fashionable Problems

#141

Post by r00fus »

jacques_chester wrote: post #136
jandrewrogers wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.…

There's also the cost that you are likely to just spin your wheels retreading old ground. Examples to the contrary are notable, but notable because they are rare .

So this is a worthwhile investment when the existing solutions are insufficient to the task and there is great opportunity in reshaping the landscape.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#142

Post by Aloha »

warent wrote: post #139
jacques_chester wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the cost that you are likely to just spin your wheels retreading old ground. Examples to the contrary are notable, but notable because they are rare .

This here is the real danger. Many people choose to reinvent the wheel and end up finding out that their approach was actually horribly flawed compared to what already existed, or they turned out not to have the resources to see it through. It takes a brilliant person with a lot of luck to make this work in an advantageous way. Two great examples come to mind right away, both from Elon Musk. SpaceX was founded on fir…

I think the older and more competitive a space is, the less likely a first principles approach will bring success.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#143

Post by strogonoff »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #67
rgbrenner wrote: post #23

I think pg understates the problem. It isn't just fashionable. Think about how the solutions we use today evolved. Someone had an idea originally and certain decisions were made about that approach.. those that best adapted to the conditions of the time were successful... rinse and repeat over several decades. Those ideas that preserved the past were more likely to succeed because they preserved the ecosystem that al…

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.…

I find that mentoring a novice apprentice (both teaching general domain knowledge and describing specific architecture decisions in projects they’re getting involved in) is a great way to get back to first principles.

The expected outcome is increased human resource so it somewhat offsets the economic costs.

One caveat is that this process requires the willingness to rethink your own established models, and recognising when they might’ve been outdated or incorrect takes some self-discipline.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#144

Post by jandrewrogers »

jacques_chester wrote: post #136
jandrewrogers wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.…

There's also the cost that you are likely to just spin your wheels retreading old ground. Examples to the contrary are notable, but notable because they are rare .

I made this assumption for many years, and yes, that cost would be high. I eventually discovered that, more often than not, everyone assumed that someone must have already investigated a particular hypothesis but if you tried to identify that "someone" it turned out that they didn't actually exist. After doing this exhaustive search a few times in a few different domains and coming up empty handed, it changed my perspective on the matter, to my great benefit.

Searching for evidence that someone has actually done the work is relatively efficient. It never fails to astonish me the number of times that everyone believes a particular bit of ground has been thoroughly tread yet, if I try to find concrete evidence that someone has done the work, there is no evidence that anyone actually has. There is a strong cognitive bias (I don't know if it has a name) where everyone assumes that someone else has already tried every obvious or reasonable approach and that belief is treated as factual.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#145

Post by leave_a_legacy »

strogonoff wrote: post #143
jandrewrogers wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.…

I find that mentoring a novice apprentice (both teaching general domain knowledge and describing specific architecture decisions in projects they’re getting involved in) is a great way to get back to first principles. The expected outcome is increased human resource so it somewhat offsets the economic costs. One caveat is that this process requires the willingness to rethink your own established models, and recognisi…

Mentoring is the fastest way for one to learn or relearn first principles. Explaining an idea to someone requires that you speak to their level of understanding. Thus, explaining a complex idea to someone with understanding of only fundamental truths (novices), requires that you only speak in first principles. If you cannot, you will provide a bad explanation. When you eventually are able to provide a good explanation, you will know you have grasped the fundamental truths of the idea.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#146

Post by chii »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #67
rgbrenner wrote: post #23

I think pg understates the problem. It isn't just fashionable. Think about how the solutions we use today evolved. Someone had an idea originally and certain decisions were made about that approach.. those that best adapted to the conditions of the time were successful... rinse and repeat over several decades. Those ideas that preserved the past were more likely to succeed because they preserved the ecosystem that al…

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.…

and how is that different to the NIH syndrome?

Re: Fashionable Problems

#147

Post by afthonos »

chii wrote: post #146
jandrewrogers wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.…

and how is that different to the NIH syndrome?

It’s the exact same thing, but successful. Part of being “brilliant” is knowing when to apply first principles and when to build on what exists.

I put “brilliant” in quotes because unless you can do this consistently, you can also just get lucky...

Re: Fashionable Problems

#148

Post by modo_mario »

darksaints wrote: post #104
thaumasiotes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting theory as to why we never evolved with wheels is the idea that an evolutionary improvement requires a viable intermediate state Not really; wheels aren't an improvement in the first place so there is no need to explain why they didn't develop. Note that it's easy to make robots that use wheels, and difficult to make robots that use legs, but we make legged robots anyway so that they'll be able to han…

Okay, but evolution has given us some pretty expansive diversity in traits across the biological world. No single trait is pareto optimal, but relatively superior/inferior depending on context. Wheels have some pretty extreme efficiency advantages, useful for both speed as well as endurance. They come with disadvantages too, but there are plenty of animals who never need to leave environments where legs are optimal o…

Have you considered how these elements essentially detached from the body (it's why they'd be able to spin around) would grow and the like?

Re: Fashionable Problems

#149

Post by ddxxdd »

drchewbacca wrote: post #106
majos wrote: post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

In mathematics I'd put forward the conjecture that "for every proven theorem you could ask at least 5 more similar questions which are unproven." For example it is proven there are infinitely many primes. Are there infinitely primes that differ by 2? By n for any n? Are there infinitely many palindromic primes? Are there infinitely many primes of form n^2 + 1? Is there always a prime between n^2 and (n+1)^2? If this…

>Are there infinitely primes that differ by 2?

Pardon the digression, but the Twin Primes conjecture was proven by a Subway restaurant worker a few years ago.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#150

Post by philwelch »

CM30 wrote: post #90
account73466 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am wondering how far the essay would go if it were not from PG.

Probably not very. I get the distinct feeling that the last few essays were very light on content/interesting insights, and did well on name value alone. Would be interesting to actually test that to be honest. Get Paul Graham to set up another site under a fake identity, post the next say, three essays there, then submit 'em to HN under the same identity and see the stats.

In some cases it’s because the territory is mostly mapped by his previous work. “Novelty and Heresy” was a belated sequel to “What You Can’t Say”, for instance.

OTOH, seeing pg write essays again pleases me in much the same way that one might be pleased if their favorite long-defunct rock band started recording a new album.

Post reply on HN