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

Earnestness

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 478 posts

Re: Earnestness

#351

Post by slashdev »

foxes wrote: post #343

Another Paul Graham blogspam that takes a stereotype, a limited sample of datapoints, or a simple idea, then assumes its true and then generalises it immediately to a rambling wall of text. The actual point of the article is to really just drop the -- quote -- "bogus" -- dogwhistle so all the other racists can identify them. Otherwise why would you choose that paper on such a controversial topic as "bogus"? I think a…

> The actual point of the article is to really just drop the -- quote -- "bogus" -- dogwhistle so all the other racists can identify them.

Wow. That's beyond being uncharitable.

Also, as I mentioned elsewhere down below at length, I think bogus is too kind a word for that kind of crap masquerading as an academic discipline.

But to get back to the actual content, I think he's got a point. There is no substitute for genuine passion and interest - otherwise known as eagerness. Little surprise it should be a signal of success.

But hey what would one of the world's most successful venture capitalists know about it - you're the real expert on the subject.

Re: Earnestness

#352

Post by neilv »

analog31 wrote: post #104
neilv wrote: post #20

Great. Now my company's engineering recruiting email "honest and earnest" turn of phrase about culture is less likely to make candidates pause and consider why I focused on that, but instead probably gets classified as regurgitating whatever everyone read on HN. :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25088200

Goodheart's law at work. This is why you have to change metrics every six months. Just when I figured out "engagement," now "earnestness." Now a potential issue that you're probably already aware of is that many of these traits can serve as culture / age filters.

Yep, although I'm thinking "honest and earnest" is further from a typical metric, and closer to the end goal.

One of my concerns, when I decided to be very forthright in the intro email, was that it would simply be taken as a cheat-sheet by a poor-match candidate for what culture to fake.

But I figured there would be a greater risk that we'd miss recognizing or resonating with some of the best candidates, because they were trying to stick to the rules that the interview prep books told them.

(Funny: were my company to become a FAANG, then the interview prep industry would coach everyone on the exact 5 notes to hit, at what formulaic points in the process. And to practice expressions of curiosity, to have ready in reaction to standard prompts by interviewer. Dictionaries eventually would be updated to redefine "genuine" to mean projecting a particular kind of professional persona mandated by my company. :)

Re: Earnestness

#353

Post by [deleted] »

escape_goat wrote: post #196

What Graham is attempting to prescribe here is an unmediated engagement with a problem. In truth, "making the world better" is no less ulterior a motive in engaging with that problem than "making piles of money."

[deleted]

Re: Earnestness

#354

Post by tempodox »

tardismechanic wrote: post #342

"You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction." Possibly the most famous verse (2-47) from the Bhagavad Gita. https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2/verse/47

That's exactly what every corporation would tell their employees.

Re: Earnestness

#355

Post by rebelos »

cpufry wrote: post #347
foxes wrote: post #343

Another Paul Graham blogspam that takes a stereotype, a limited sample of datapoints, or a simple idea, then assumes its true and then generalises it immediately to a rambling wall of text. The actual point of the article is to really just drop the -- quote -- "bogus" -- dogwhistle so all the other racists can identify them. Otherwise why would you choose that paper on such a controversial topic as "bogus"? I think a…

yea its general tech/sv thought leader styles content. there's the other guy on twitter nevel or something? i cant remember. i hate follow a bunch of these guys idk why really. they're like living memes but also really rich with cult like following. im probably just a hater though. who can never be sure these days.

Naval Ravikant is a bit of a "head in the clouds" type, but he does have some genuinely interesting ideas that are worth paying attention to.

The problem with both Ravikant and Graham is that they're pontificating in a space where the ideas seem superficially trite but become powerful when applied.

I think of Dale Carnegie's book 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' as a good illustration of this. People around here especially love to hate on it, but that's because they don't quite understand the point of it. The point of that book (and of the musings of people like Ravikant and Graham) is to explain to people that success is a product of attitude and behavior as much as it is a product of intellect. That simple ideas, routinely applied, can yield wondrous outcomes. And, perhaps most importantly, that the ingredient for success absent in most STEM-inclined minds is the capacity to restrain analytical/cynical impulses in just the right way.

Neither Ravikant nor Graham is an intellectual slouch. They have noteworthy backgrounds in STEM that categorically refute any possible accusation of dimwittedness. When they decide to discuss 'soft' ideas, it's because their experience in the real world, pattern matching against countless observations made in the trenches of the tech industry, has taught them that these ideas are crucial.

Re: Earnestness

#356

Post by foxes »

slashdev wrote: post #351
foxes wrote: post #343

Another Paul Graham blogspam that takes a stereotype, a limited sample of datapoints, or a simple idea, then assumes its true and then generalises it immediately to a rambling wall of text. The actual point of the article is to really just drop the -- quote -- "bogus" -- dogwhistle so all the other racists can identify them. Otherwise why would you choose that paper on such a controversial topic as "bogus"? I think a…

> The actual point of the article is to really just drop the -- quote -- "bogus" -- dogwhistle so all the other racists can identify them. Wow. That's beyond being uncharitable. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere down below at length, I think bogus is too kind a word for that kind of crap masquerading as an academic discipline. But to get back to the actual content, I think he's got a point. There is no substitute for ge…

There are plenty of people who have genuine passion and interest yet don't succeed. Sounds like survivor bias. Funny that you also appeal to authority -- PG cant possibly be wrong because he is rich and successful :).

Also studying society/people is an academic discipline. There is plenty of hard science which is equally "bogus". What about bad neural network papers, or bad physics papers?

Regardless, these things are not new ideas, or something people don't know about. Yes being eager/earnest can help. Yes bad papers exist. The issue is why choose that particular example? Why are all of PG's blog posts exactly the same -- none of them have anything particularly deep or offer new insight -- but there always seems to be controversial content mixed into the supposedly honest discussion.

If they are not doing it deliberately and its somehow internalised then people should at least call them out.

Re: Earnestness

#357

Post by eloff »

I don't understand why Paul Graham puts himself out there in the public sphere like this. To read all the haters and cynicism here that he gets in response - a lesser man like myself would just say screw it and walk away.

Like his critics here are terribly accomplished people. Paul Graham is a expert with a proven track record and some multiple of billions of "market votes" behind him. But the armchair critics on HN know better. I expect that on YouTube comments, I have higher expectations here.

Whatever his motivations, I enjoy his essays and find them thought provoking. I just hope the peanut gallery here and elsewhere doesn't discourage him.

Re: Earnestness

#358

Post by [deleted] »

eloff wrote: post #357

I don't understand why Paul Graham puts himself out there in the public sphere like this. To read all the haters and cynicism here that he gets in response - a lesser man like myself would just say screw it and walk away. Like his critics here are terribly accomplished people. Paul Graham is a expert with a proven track record and some multiple of billions of "market votes" behind him. But the armchair critics on HN…

[deleted]

Re: Earnestness

#359

Post by selestify »

indymike wrote: post #19
croissants wrote: post #10

My perception is that one drawback of earnestness is that it often comes off as just being boring. The most earnest people I know are not popular. The most popular people I know are more like twinkle-in-the-eye-kind-of-BS-but-not-pathological-liars. I don't mean to say "grr, why aren't nerds more popular!". I mean more that this specific kind of earnestness seems to preclude the playing of certain conversational game…

Earnestness is what happens when people "let the guard down" and just be themselves. That's a rare state for a lot of people, who have spent a lifetime trying to be anyone but who they really are.

> That's a rare state for a lot of people, who have spent a lifetime trying to be anyone but who they really are.

If you do it enough, who you "really are" is someone who doesn't enjoy letting their guard down. Who's to say that's not your "authentic" self at that point?

Re: Earnestness

#360

Post by selestify »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #126

I think this essay would be more effective if the author defined what they mean by “earnest”. I think based on the essay, they mean seriousness + sincerity. But there is also a sense that the author considers “correct” as part of the definition: >“when you call someone earnest, you’re making a statement about their motives. It means both that they’re doing something for the right reasons [my emphasis] and they’re try…

Does PG not already define earnest as

> interest in the problem for its own sake. That is the root of earnestness

Post reply on HN