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

How to Think for Yourself

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#181

Post by fallingfrog »

One of the consequences of thinking for yourself is that you’re often going to find that the majority of other people disagree with you. So you’re always going to be having disagreements where it’s an unfair fight; you’re outnumbered and easy to ignore. It’s exhausting, and people generally cope in two ways: keep their thoughts private, which looks like conformity from the outside, or find like minded people, which puts them back in the majority, arguably making them a conformist again. Either way something feels off about claiming oneself to be a consistent nonconformist.

Edit: the other aspect of this to consider is the power relationships involved. If you’re the boss you probably feel free to express your opinions to anyone of equal or lower status: employees and other founders. But if you’re the employee, doing so to the boss might involve personal risk. So for pg to paint his employees as conformists leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#182

Post by fanzhang »

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…

I don't see the point of the essay as how brilliant of an independent thinker he is, or even that being an independent thinker makes you a better person.

The essay is useful because has specific tactical points on how to think better: questioning whether a statement you hear is true, or watching how other people find their beliefs.

What do you think people should be doing more in the world? Or mental habits people should have?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#183

Post by eat_veggies »

goto11 wrote: post #88

Fun observation that everybody in this community consider it positive to be "independent minded". But the author seem to fall into the same trap at the end: When I wrote "The Four Quadrants of Conformism" I expected a firestorm of rage from the aggressively conventional-minded, but in fact it was quite muted. They sensed that there was something about the essay that they disliked intensely, but they had a hard time f…

It's funny because no matter how people react, he can spin it to confirm his world view. If people reacted with a "firestorm of rage" like he expected, then it's because he really angered those conventional-minded losers, and he's doing something right! And if they didn't, then it was because they're too stupid to refute his trenchant critique.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#185

Post by toyg »

darkerside wrote: post #124
peterlk wrote: post #8

Excellent article > When you hear someone say something, stop and ask yourself "Is that true?" This is one of my favorite things to do, though the list of people who will talk to me again after I do it is very short. (Edit: To be extra clear... While this is a bitter pill - I do not like it when others do it to me - I do find it to be very effective for reinforcing good faith in close, trusting relationships. I also…

While this activity can be useful, I think it is simultaneously at the root of many of our social problems today. You cannot ask this question about literally everything. Well, you can, but you'll end up questioning things that are universally accepted (Which way is North? Is gasoline flammable?). So naturally you dial it back, and you ask questions only about things that seem wrong, or that you particularly care abo…

> that means less independent thinking, paradoxically.

This is indeed the paradox of our times. An accelerated technology shift (the global computer network) has generated large amounts of people who are rationally self-reliant to a fault, since they are either the only ones in their social circles who understand the new tech or the only ones who can spend a lot of time reading stuff from the internet. This cult of "independent thinking" leads them down dark alleys for which they simply don't have the necessary preparation (conspiracies, flat earth, etc), but from which they cannot get out (because admitting your own reasoning is wrong is extremely difficult).

How do you get out of flat-earth on your own, without re-living centuries of astronomic research? How do you get out of moonlanding negationism, without personally examining all the retrieved moon rocks? How do you get out of antivaxxing, without personally living through pestilence? (well, at least Covid19 should help with that...)

I guess it's a balance. Society simply would not hold if we all were radical independent thinkers, since we'd be constantly questioning everything that we cannot individually and immediately determine as true. A degree of conformism is actually necessary for progress of any sort.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#187

Post by adnzzzzZ »

jimbokun wrote: post #161
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…

We just disagree then. In my view, most conspiracy theorists actually deeply investigate if the conspiracy is true, they just don't have the tools, knowledge or intelligence necessary to rebuke the arguments themselves so they believe the conspiracy is true. This is more work than most people do when faced with any kind of claim from an authoritative source.

The main reason some conspiracies get more "believers" than others, in my opinion, is because they're contrarian signals, so they'll attract contrarian people, and like with anything, most people will only explore the surface level stuff because that's enough for their contrarian itches.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#188

Post by xen0 »

sct202 wrote: post #121
goto11 wrote: post #88

Fun observation that everybody in this community consider it positive to be "independent minded". But the author seem to fall into the same trap at the end: When I wrote "The Four Quadrants of Conformism" I expected a firestorm of rage from the aggressively conventional-minded, but in fact it was quite muted. They sensed that there was something about the essay that they disliked intensely, but they had a hard time f…

I don't think this community is unique in the number of people who believe themselves to be independently minded. I can't recall the last time someone has told me they are a conformist compared to the number of times I've heard someone describe themselves as an independent out of the box thinker.

"It's one of those irregular verbs isn't it? I have an independent mind. You are an eccentric. He is round the twist."

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#189

Post by lotsofpulp »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #58
amadeuspagel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a funny line, but the majority is clearly right on most questions, such as the color of the sky, the shape of the earth, etc..

>the majority is clearly right on most questions This is exactly the idea which the statement counteracts. You're trusting the majority opinion because it is the majority. Yet it is not always right, and you can give yourself a huge advantage by questioning it for yourself. ... or you can continue being a follower of majority opinion. The choice is up to you. By the way, the majority opinion has been wrong about the…

> Yet it is not always right, and you can give yourself a huge advantage by questioning it for yourself.

Assuming you have a reason to. If the majority assumed the shape of the earth was a cube based on the information they had at the time, and you came along and noticed something to refute that, of course that is valuable.

But if you are refuting that simply because the majority assumed it, that doesn’t seem useful.

People have a limited amount of time on earth, and using the majority’s assumptions is a valuable heuristic for not wasting resources (time) coming to the same conclusion.

Can everyone study sufficient biology and astrophysics to “prove” to themselves how vaccines and planetary systems work? Most likely not.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#190

Post by eat_veggies »

bob33212 wrote: post #177
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…

There is a large socialist/anti-capitalist/woke movement on Twitter and a somewhat in the real world as well. I assume PG would like to call all those people out directly. But he cannot because in the current media and social climate the news summary will read: "Older White SV Billionaire living in England tells poor American minorities to stop complaining because their politics would lead to an economy with less inn…

What are those unintended consequences of progressive goals that he can't say out loud? I assume you're an independent thinker who can spell them out for us.
Post reply on HN