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

221–230 of 249 posts

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#221

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

munificent wrote: post #219
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comment. I remember someone I knew, saying “I can’t tell if it’s an asset or a defect! If I’m stubborn , it’s a defect, but if I’m tenacious , it’s an asset.” > That's no indictment of contentment, maybe changing the world is overrrated. I think a significant number of “world-changers” have not had personal happy endings. They may have done a lot of good, but it didn’t do much for their own personal happiness.…

> I remember someone I knew, saying “I can’t tell if it’s an asset or a defect! If I’m stubborn, it’s a defect, but if I’m tenacious, it’s an asset.” I've had very similar conversations with my therapist many times. The conclusion I've come to is that almost every personality trait has both adaptive and maladaptive aspects. You can try to maximize the former and avoid the latter, but ultimately any personality superp…

> ultimately any personality superpower you have is going to bring some consequences along with it.

This has been my experience. Some of the most talented, kindest, people that I've ever known, have "rough" exteriors. Many times, it's due to being treated like crap, for their assets.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#222

Post by pastorhudson »

smusamashah wrote: post #138
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…

Having someone close who is obstinate makes the article very relatable (my father, talking him into something is like to talking to a stone, no matter how convincing you are and even if he seems to budge, it will take just a single moment to spring back). For me this line "The persistent are attached to the goal. The obstinate are attached to their ideas about how to reach it." explained what's going on but the artic…

I think one solution is to help them have your idea and take credit for it. If it’s their idea then they are already convinced it’s a good one. Persistent people can get a lot done when they don’t care about who gets the credit.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#223

Post by brabel »

hi_dang_ wrote: post #136
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…

Bob, Since you’re the GPP author - as someone who recently published a Steam title and has glowing community reviews, I wish your comment was the article. pg just doesn’t do it for me. It’s a nonsensical word salad of half-baked conjectures and aphorisms. There’s nothing to discuss because there’s nothing thought provoking in there. I am however glad it spurred you to write something worth reading (again).

> It’s a nonsensical word salad of half-baked conjectures and aphorisms.

I found this article excellent and definitely thought provoking, and I am just wondering how can someone read that and come out with a bad impression like that?!

Do you have some undisclosed issue with PG??

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#224

Post by timdellinger »

I'm a day late to the comments, but...

I like the lens of the Big Five model of personality. I think what's at play here is

(1) Low neuroticism = resilient and confident

(2) Low agreeableness = willing to go against the prevailing tide

and then you need

(3) high openness = inventive/curious

The first two personality traits without the third = stubborn

Add the third = persistent

(some people don't even need #2 to be stubborn, when they consider their tribe to be correct even if it goes against prevailing thought in the broader world)

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#225

Post by matheusmoreira »

brabel wrote: post #223
hi_dang_ wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bob, Since you’re the GPP author - as someone who recently published a Steam title and has glowing community reviews, I wish your comment was the article. pg just doesn’t do it for me. It’s a nonsensical word salad of half-baked conjectures and aphorisms. There’s nothing to discuss because there’s nothing thought provoking in there. I am however glad it spurred you to write something worth reading (again).

> It’s a nonsensical word salad of half-baked conjectures and aphorisms. I found this article excellent and definitely thought provoking, and I am just wondering how can someone read that and come out with a bad impression like that?! Do you have some undisclosed issue with PG??

I think articles like TFA are a big reason why so called "obstinate" people exist to begin with. Look at the incredibly harsh judgement it passes out on them. At one point it stops just short of directly calling them stupid.

The simple fact is people want to be good. People are afraid of being wrong. They are afraid of failure. They look for the one deep truth that will guide them and protect them from wrong. Once they believe they have found that truth, is anyone surprised that they cling to it?

TFA would have you believe these fears are irrational. Just keep at it, right? Just power through the judgement of your fellow humans. But it is not irrational. Nor is it stupid as TFA seems to imply. The simple fact is if you put yourself out there, there will be consequences. You will be judged.

I sent some code for an idea I had to a mailing list. At some point someone called it "schizophrenic". Maybe to you this is literally nothing, just an innocuous comment that promptly slides off. However, for a long time I actually thought I was insane for thinking and imagining the things that I did. I have to make an effort to suppress thoughts like that to even so much as write this comment on this website. So for me that was a particularly harsh judgement. I don't think I'll forget the moment I read that word until the day that I die. I will certainly never show my face there again.

It takes a certain audacity to put yourself out there. It takes a certain sociopathy, a certain arrogance. Succeed, and it actually leads to the judgement of your naysayers instead of you. They are quite literally judged by history as wrong. Such judgement is even observed in TFA, look at how the so called "obstinate" are singled out for being stupid failures. Such is the nature of humanity.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#226

Post by Suppafly »

scubbo wrote: post #106
Suppafly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. My brother is an artist and absolutely refused to believe that the hype around NFTs was just bullshit. I'm sure if I called and asked right now, he'd still give me some word salad about how it's going to start paying off any day now. Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs,…

I have a friend who's still convinced that GameStop's going to the moon. Any day now...

The thing with GameStop being a meme stock is crazy. If they were smart they would have used their increased value to restructure the business and make it viable so that it would actually be worth what the stock is worth.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#227

Post by loughnane »

Montaigne, in 'on the education of children' agrees:

Let him be taught to be curious in the election and choice of his reasons, to abominate impertinence, and, consequently, to affect brevity; but, above all, let him be lessoned to acquiesce and submit to truth so soon as ever he shall discover it, whether in his opponent's argument, or upon better consideration of his own;

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#228

Post by gofreddygo »

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…

> Content people who feel almost everyone already loves them rarely change the world.

What's wrong with that ?

I've grown tired of listening to people's tales and rants on their constant need to disrupt something, change some industry , empower someone and put a dent somewhere.

Stop, Look around, why is it so hard to find something meaningful ? Because it isn't profitable (without being exploitative).

More people ought to learn to be content. When the need arises, it will find its heroes.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#229

Post by danielmarkbruce »

breck wrote: post #208
rqmedes wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing people write a lot more

> Marketing people write a lot more https://breckyunits.com/dataset-needed.html

lol - so your opinions are valid, everyone else must bring data.

Here the dumb thing about this - almost anything worth discussing is uncertain, else it wouldn't be discussed. If the only way you can change your mind is for someone to present an absolute, water tight, backed up by data argument, you'll never change your mind. You make several assertions in this thread with zero data.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#230

Post by danielmarkbruce »

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.

Please bring data for that.
Post reply on HN