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

The Right Kind of Stubborn

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#161

Post by gradschoolfail »

munificent wrote: post #58

I like this article a lot. I think a lot of the distinction between persistence and obstinance comes down to identity, attachment, and self esteem. Almost everyone who is persistent or obstinant has something to prove. They have some deep-seated feeling that they need to demonstrate something to their community, a sense that maybe their value is in some ways conditional on what they provide. Content people who feel a…

Feels like you have hit a nail, but! Seems to be more to that introspective vs extraspective difference there! Obstinants are somehow more introspective! Which could be odd!

PG comes across as obstinate, by the way.. (in this essay, but maybe not in real life)

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#162

Post by gradschoolfail »

esafak wrote: post #134
munificent wrote: post #58

I like this article a lot. I think a lot of the distinction between persistence and obstinance comes down to identity, attachment, and self esteem. Almost everyone who is persistent or obstinant has something to prove. They have some deep-seated feeling that they need to demonstrate something to their community, a sense that maybe their value is in some ways conditional on what they provide. Content people who feel a…

Since I'm seeing people repeat the mistake, I'd like to point out that it's obstinate .

Maybe we can use the new word obstinant as a noun, a shorter form of “obstinate people”.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#163

Post by diffxx »

nsguy wrote: post #90
arp242 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure…

I had a similar issue recently. Someone suggested a technical solution that based on my experience has zero chance of being correct. It was said with great confidence that makes me doubt my experience. Great confidence but zero supporting details or experience. For someone observing from the side there's no way to tell who is right and my double-take doubting my own experiences can appear to make the extremely confid…

Yes, and there is an incentive problem too that people are rewarded for being decisive but rarely punished for being wrong. In many contexts the odds are really stacked against you if you have a strong opinion that deviates from the consensus which is perhaps why persistence is a trait that we valorize given that it does require real courage.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#164

Post by skybrian »

> The persistent are quite rational. They focus on expected value.

Maybe there should be a footnote here? I’m not sure what “rational” means in this context, or whether it’s reasonable to focus on expected value. Buying insurance usually has negative expected value, if you measure it in dollars.

We mostly don’t do the math, though. If we assume Graham is just using math metaphorically, there are lots of ways you could interpret “expected value.”

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#167

Post by etothepii »

xivzgrev wrote: post #125

I wish this article hit on an important point: when should the persistent quit? We all know we should know when to hold and when to fold, but in practice that's a hard decision to make especially when we're invested. And someone who is "persistent" vs "obstinate" should be able to do this: quit when it's right to do so. The closest thing he mentions is this, "persistence often requires that one change one's mind. Tha…

Does the answer to this lie with the tree PG discusses. If the goal is, "do something great." Then one should never quit.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#168

Post by rqmedes »

dkarl wrote: post #153

I once inherited a very thorny performance problem with a service. Thorny as in, the previous engineer was ordered to give up and move on because our boss was worried it was adversely affecting their mental health and their performance on other tasks. I quickly learned that every person who found out I was working on this problem was eager to share the same three or four ideas on how to fix it. All of these ideas wer…

Wonderful insight!

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#169

Post by rqmedes »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #55
breck wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but most people who write/publish _a lot_ are not fools.

Still disagree. The most prolific writers are journalists, and most of their stuff is absolute garbage. On top of that, most of the most successful people on the planet write little or nothing. They are too busy doing.

I agree, just look at the reams of rubbish on LinkedIn , people trying to get attention as an example

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#170

Post by rqmedes »

breck wrote: post #120
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You state this as fact without providing a dataset to back it. I think this is not true at all. Look at your own comments. My comment is effectively "people whose day job is to write, write the most". It's borderline self evident. Your argument has devolved into: "people who write a lot are by definition successful. I wonder if there is a correlation between writing a lot and success."

My bet would be that scientists write the most, not journalists. You seem to have changed your position from journalists to "people whose day job is to write", which is good, as that includes scientists.

Marketing people write a lot more
Post reply on HN