Live data from Hacker News

How to Think for Yourself

paulgraham.com

21–30 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#21
If you have an idea and nobody else is doing it, odds are not that you had a good idea; instead it is probably a bad idea that many others have had and failed at.

When you have a seemingly original idea figure out who else had it and ask why they failed. That will give you insight into what you need to do better. Sometimes you will realize that it was a bad idea, other times you will know what to change to make it work.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#22
post #14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2a. Then you not only will start thinking for yourself. You will also start overthinking about why Apple didn’t put macOS on the iPad Pro, or why your friends don’t care about org-mode.

Friends? Overthinking - relative to standard set by who?

Right...

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#23
Did anyone find the article too long? Don't get me wrong - the first few paragraphs were engaging and thought-provoking. The rest of the article looked as if it could be condensed to two paragraphs.

This is not a criticism - I'm just curious to know if I was bored because I have a short attention span, or if the amount of novel/useful content in the article plummeted sharply beyond the first few paragraphs.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#25
Mark Twain said, whenever you find yourself siding with the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.

I have found this saying to serve me well enough to memorize it.

I think the reason is that by the time an opinion has propagated to the majority, it is already outdated, and several years (sometimes decades) behind the newest available knowledge.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#27
post #24

It is surely a mere coincidence that every time PG makes up some category of elite people he finds himself right in the middle of it.

when people achieve success too early in life they start thinking they're hot stuff

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#30
post #20

It seems to me that throughout the essay Paul Graham keeps undermining his own claims. Early on he states: > Independent-mindedness seems to be more a matter of nature than nurture. Subsequently he starts giving advice about how to make yourself more independently-minded: > Can you make yourself more independent-minded? I think so. This quality may be largely inborn, but there seem to be ways to magnify it, or at lea…

Yes, he just paraphrased the agreeableness trait of the OCEAN/Big Five personality model here. His nature/nurture musing are off the mark, though: Of the five traits agreeableness has the lowest heritability with about 42%.

The curiosity part he mixed in would be opennes to experience, with about 57% heritability.

Post reply on HN