How to Think for Yourself • Hacker News Board

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#161

Post by jimbokun » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #34

The distinction between independent-mindedness and conventional-mindedness is captured more correctly I think by a trait called politeness as defined here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5863998_Between_Fac... Independent-mindness would be similar to low politeness (coupled with high openness, but I'll ignore that for now), and those people would be more likely to be like this than not: * Make enemies. * Opp…

> For instance, most conspiracy theorists are highly independent-minded people.

I agree with Graham's take that conspiracy minded people are not independent minded at all. They just have a different group whose authority they accept without question.

Very few conspiracy minded people come up with the conspiracies they believe in entirely on their own, or deeply investigate to find out if the conspiracy is true. They just latch on to a conspiracy someone else articulated and accept it unquestioningly.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#162

Post by edw519 » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #131

PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. It's clear in all of his writing that he's perpetually beating around the bush about some current itch he has, I wish he would just come out and say it with out pretending to be a deep thinker: > Do you want to do the kind of work where you can only win by thinking differently from everyone else? I mean, taken outsi…

Disagree. This sounds a bit harsh, nitpicking at one instance of a class.

Go back and read all his essays. You'll learn more than if you got your MBA. (I know. I've done both.)

Believe me, I'm not PG fan boy, but he doesn't have to do this and I hope he never stops.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#163

Post by dougmwne » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #39

So, I might have a controversial opinion here. My mother raised me to think for myself, it was a heavy emphasis of my upbringing and important for her. However I'm now in situations where the world is divided and asking questions (in order to make my own mind up) is considered some kind of admission of guilt for being part of the "other". For example: Asking someone why they think immigration is good/bad. If it's a b…

I think questioning someone's ideology or beliefs to their face has never and will never win them as a friend. These things generally aren't rationally founded anyway. If you ask about some political issue, you're going to get regurgitated talking points and tribalism, not a thesis. I think it's quite rare to meet someone willing to suspend belief for a bit and engage in unbiased debate, or at least I haven't met too many. This line of thinking can be helpful in a technical context though.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#164

Post by glitchc » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

_jy3k wrote: post #9

1. Start by following someone's else advice, about how to think for yourself. That should work. Because why not? 2. In case it did not work out, for whatever reasons, became an autist, in whatever way you can. Not that it is possible, or that you will really understand anybody after the fact, but hey. 3. Still interested? Learn a different (alternative) language (semantics), based on nothing (emptiness) at all. You m…

Bravo!

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#165

Post by glitchc » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #137

Is it helpful to differentiate Discovery vs. Invention? When a scientist discovers a physical behavior, or a oceanographer a new species, it's a discovery that others could make. The phenomena exists, they happened to find it first. When a composer invents, they are likely creating music that no other human would have created. If they hadn't composed it, it would never have existed. Both of these activities seem to r…

Is rearranging existing chords into a new sequence "Invention" or "Discovery"?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#166

Post by fallingfrog » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #150

fallingfrog wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but how do you have a lively discussion but also have nobody’s ideas getting shouted down? Would a lively discussion involve everyone agreeing with one another? Edit: people are apparently not getting my central point here: it might be that, if you’re a conformist, you see a whole bunch of people nodding and saying roughly the same things and think, “this is a lively discussion!” But then see people disagreeing…

shoutedDown != disagreed

If you’re the one with the unpopular opinion, even if it is correct, then you will always find yourself being the one “shouted down”. But if you never find yourself shouted down, perhaps you are less nonconformist than you think?

You can’t be both nonconformist and also never shouted down. It’s a contradiction.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#167

Post by fractionalhare » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #131

PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. It's clear in all of his writing that he's perpetually beating around the bush about some current itch he has, I wish he would just come out and say it with out pretending to be a deep thinker: > Do you want to do the kind of work where you can only win by thinking differently from everyone else? I mean, taken outsi…

> This essay is an object lesson in how this leads to profoundly conventional thinking. This entire thing reads like it was torn from the journal of a clever middle-schooler who thinks he's so much more clever then the world.

You've hit upon something that's always bothered me with this characterization of nerds. It's like if someone framed adult life by superimposing stereotypical high school nerd vs jock social dynamics onto it, and then went on to portray nerds as heroes.

In real life "nerds" are part of the same system. They are utterly conventional. You don't get to call yourself unconventional just because you deride sportsball and like computers.

This essay reminds me of an xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/610/. I think it would be too harsh to call him self-aggrandizing, but he does seem to dress up otherwise good insights about how to think critically with celebration of how unconventional this is.

It's like when Peter Thiel expanded one good insight about critically finding ideas from uncommon beliefs into an entire book.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#168

Post by meheleventyone » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

DrNuke wrote: post #160

Folks, do not shoot the messenger (aka PG) here: he actually created something novel fifteen years ago, while coalescing brilliant minds around something people needed. He even went on making an institution of that! With the miracle turned institution and now organization, it is human to look back and preach to the good savages of today. More in depth, this is maybe the difference between the do-it-first American app…

A headmaster for outsiders or a thought leader for independent thinkers if you will?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#169

Post by hedberg10 » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #150

fallingfrog wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but how do you have a lively discussion but also have nobody’s ideas getting shouted down? Would a lively discussion involve everyone agreeing with one another? Edit: people are apparently not getting my central point here: it might be that, if you’re a conformist, you see a whole bunch of people nodding and saying roughly the same things and think, “this is a lively discussion!” But then see people disagreeing…

shoutedDown != disagreed

The reddit trap. Upvotes are supposed to be given for a good reply, even if it's against your opinion, not a reply that you happen to agree with. Same with downvotes.

Never happens, thus censorious fence sittery.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#170

Post by edw519 » Fri, Nov 27, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #156

edw519 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shoutedDown != disagreed

Explain. In what way? Edit: I tried to just post that I think I understand where you’re coming from: people disagreeing but without giving actual reasons. Which is toxic. And guess what: I got “you’re posting too fast”. Thanks for enabling real discussions by nonconformists, hacker news!

Somewhere between DH3 and DH4 here: http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html