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

291–300 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#291

Post by epsilonclose »

RickHull wrote: post #281
judofyr wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's writing to and for people like him, trying to help them put words and clear thought to vague understandings and apprehensions they've been wrestling with. Ah, yes, he's writing an article about how to think for yourself to the people who already think like him. So if we don't think like him, but rather in an independent way, then it makes sense that we wouldn't agree with this article. Got it!

Ha, you jest, but you bring up a subtle point. There are degrees and dimensions of similarity. For example, two people who uphold a principle of freedom of speech may nonetheless completely disagree on any particular issue. But they are very similar in an important way. Do you value independent thinking? If so, what part of the article did you most disagree with?

Do independent thinkers read essays that tell them how to think independently?

The irony may have been intentional on the author's part, but I still won't read the essay. Bad juju.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#292

Post by lowcodetv »

Karunamon wrote: post #265
lowcodetv wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely a clear signal that their belief is emotional. If you step on that toe just make it clear that you aren't questioning them at all, in fact, "you agree with them... you just wanted to know some sources to point to when those other nosey people who question our beliefs do so"... and diffuse the situation. You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion , if that's t…

There's a side-effect here. If you're interacting in a place where straight-up calling bullshit on someone is socially unacceptable (HN, Wikipedia talk pages, many professional settings), then your first suggestion will simply take the place of calling bullshit and have the same effect.

Definitely agree. It's difficult to convey that level of charm / diplomacy via text, for me at least. Body language and other props being available also play a big role in making someone switch focus, and at least feel positively about the overall interaction, even if I ultimately agree to disagree (and state that, or not).

If I feel as though the online recipient of my messaging isn't receptive, there's really no need to contend in the first place. I don't have to change everyone's mind, nor is it really my place to do so ...

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#293

Post by brlewis »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #284
nobinstok wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of one of the more embarrassing episodes of my life. My friends and I (pretty nerdy types) were at a bar with an amateur MMA fighter. Guy was like 6'10", covered in huge muscles and tattoos. One of the nicest guys I've ever met, but you definitely wouldn't want to get on his bad side. Anyway we didn't know the guy too well, lots of getting-to-know you type stuff. The MMA fighter after a few hours ment…

It's not a moral thing. It's called inductive learning. We classify people and things based on our past experiences. The more experiences you have the better the inductive method works. It's good to learn about black swans, else you might make the incorrect logical conclusion that swans are ALWAYS white. And more importantly learn that "black swans" is not only about swans. There can be sports-types who also like int…

>> The MMA guy was apparently like "so I guess these guys have just never hung out with any athletes?" Turns out it isn't that abnormal for them to like cool and nerdy stuff.

> "black swans" is not only about swans. There can be sports-types who also like intellectual activity

The gp's experience taught that such sports-types are not black swans. It's not just that the stereotype had exceptions; it's that the stereotype wasn't even accurate at low granularity.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#294

Post by whatever_dude »

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…

You managed to put into words something I always felt about PG. Thanks.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#295

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

eat_veggies wrote: post #190
bob33212 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AB 5 in California is the best example I can think of. It would have been a disaster for workers in most if not all affected businesses; it had to start with dozens of exemptions, and AB 2257 a few months ago added a dozen more. But because AB 5 was written towards the well-meaning progressive goal of good pay and benefits for workers, it's most likely going to stay there, and "lobby the legislature for an AB 5 exemption" will just become part of the cost for building a new industry sector in California.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#296

Post by alecbz »

I don't relish the idea of doing work where I can only succeed when I disagree with others (it feels both risky and lonely) but that's different than if, in practice, I tend to conform to what others think (I don't think I do, on average).

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#297

Post by tchaffee »

fractionalhare wrote: post #247
tchaffee wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PG sure has been on a kick about how brilliant of an independent thinker he is in a sea of conformity. The feeling I get essay after essay is that he's struggling to stay relevant. It's kind of sad to watch tbh.

I disagree, I don't think PG has to struggle to stay relevant. He remains a towering figure in venture capital across the country, and in essentially all of private equity on the West coast in particular.

Yeah, you're right he is still relevant to that specific but small crowd. A crowd that might be described as having similar flaws to PG.

Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say "culturally relevant". He is increasingly seen by younger people, even engineering types, as out of touch and tone deaf. And too many of his recent essays feel like they are a reaction to that. So much patting himself on the back about how the crowds are wrong and he as such an independent thinker has got it right - and so little vulnerability. My gut tells me that he is trying a little too hard to convince himself and others.

He'd be a far better essayist if he were more like Johnny Cash at the end of his life and less like Liam Gallagher.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#298

Post by ncfausti »

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…

I love (and identify with) the sentiment of your last paragraph. One of my favorite cities is Sao Paulo. All outdoor advertisements were banned in 2006.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#299

Post by amelius »

enriquec wrote: post #255
fractionalhare wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with a comment like this is that there's no detailed rebuttal. What you've given here is more of an aloof dismissal which is implicitly judgmental. If you're willing to bucket peoples' minds into greatness or smallness based on a single observation of their message board activity, how is your response substantively different from the thing it's criticizing? This is to say that I reject the premise; your c…

its ad hominem. its not discussing the content. all of what you said could be aimed at the gp parent regarding his characterization of PG's post

It's only ad hominem if you reject something because it came from someone.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#300

Post by auganov »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #50

Like many of pg's essays there's an unqualified glorification of being independent. For example the suggestion that hiring conformist people is something that just happens. It seems more likely that companies more or less consciously hire such people, because a company where everyone thinks independently would be one where everyone wants to do something different, and nothing would get done, no one could agree on any…

> Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.

Perhaps, but in high-skill fields most qualified people will be graduates regardless. Whatever you think of college degrees as an employer, most of your employees will have them.

It's not entirely obvious demand for formal education is driven by the industry.

It's tautologically true that college signals conformism since most (in a given field) go. And companies may indeed use it as a signal for conformism (or lack of the opposite). But it doesn't necessarily follow that the industry actively thinks college is uniquely good at creating this signal.

Post reply on HN