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

How to Do Great Work

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 464 posts

Re: How to Do Great Work

#441

Post by beacham »

artisanspam wrote: post #255

As I've gotten older, I believe more and more that having a desire for great work has more negatives than it does positives. This post really demonstrates why I believe this – mainly because PG doesn't touch at all on why someone would want to do great work while romanticizing how great it is to have that desire. I don't think the question that ambitious people should be asking themselves is "what is work that I can…

This comment reminded me so much of the movie Whiplash. If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth a watch, given your history.

Re: How to Do Great Work

#442

Post by magnifyhim »

artisanspam wrote: post #255

As I've gotten older, I believe more and more that having a desire for great work has more negatives than it does positives. This post really demonstrates why I believe this – mainly because PG doesn't touch at all on why someone would want to do great work while romanticizing how great it is to have that desire. I don't think the question that ambitious people should be asking themselves is "what is work that I can…

> Ambition is still an admirable trait to have because, among other things, it demonstrates that you have curiosity and a love for life.

Thanks for a very beautiful response in general. I particularly liked this formulation. Ambition is not the (proper) end; curiosity and a love for life are ends in and of themselves. My personal experience -- I wonder if others feel the same -- is that working on a "big problem" or "something" great is far too abstract a motivation.

Re: How to Do Great Work

#443

Post by magnifyhim »

Octokiddie wrote: post #135

> What are you excessively curious about — curious to a degree that would bore most other people? That's what you're looking for. This is a great article, but there are many, many people for whom this advice is going to lead nowhere or worse. They have often been to fancy universities and have often earned fancy degrees. But what they don't realize is that they've also been trained to respond to the praise of authori…

This really resonates with my personal experience.

Still, I can hear my inner contrarian asking: to what extent are people happier/more productive if their work follows their curiosity? We're encouraged to get in touch with your true curiosity/interest, free ourselves from expectations, etc. Personally, I've found the greatest satisfaction, peace, and even freedom when I work on things that are useful to my friends (let's include authority figures in this framing for the sake of argument). Typically, these aren't things I particularly care about. It turns out I want to help my friends, get praise from them, and maybe learn new things along the way.

Without getting too far into evolutionary psychology reductionism, this seems... kind of reasonable? I don't necessarily think I have excessive curiosity towards any particular thing. I can empathize with people who, assuming they had a relatively stable/privileged upbringing, don't have an inner voice telling them what to work on -- maybe that's asking more than is reasonable?

Re: How to Do Great Work

#444

Post by 331c8c71 »

helicalmix wrote: post #434
331c8c71 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a post-factum rationalization of personal experience possibly mixed with some anecdata. Fine as a motivational material but that's all this is.

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s a survival bias for all winners. But the pendulum swings too far if you believe you can’t learn anything at all from winners. Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?

I think there are probably some persistent differences between the superachievers and the normals but I am very skeptical in the ability of the former to teach (and of the latter to learn from the former).

Re: How to Do Great Work

#445

Post by Wowfunhappy »

sanderjd wrote: post #411
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I think this conflict is actually visible within the essay. One particular parenthetical jumped out at me: > So avoid the kind of distraction that pushes your work out of the top spot, or you'll waste this valuable type of thinking on the distraction instead. (Exception: Don't avoid love.) PG never explains why love is an exception. Perhaps he thought it was obvious. I disagree. I agree that familial lov…

I don't think this essay ever actually made the value judgment that doing "great work" is "the most important thing in life" or even a good thing in life. Did I miss that part? I read it as, "for better or worse, some people are driven to do great work, here are some techniques to accomplish that". I think it's true, right?, that such people do exist, whether that is good or bad for them. I suppose I know enough of h…

It's true that I'm mostly responding to tone. But again: if this is just a guide for people who want a certain lifestyle, for better or worse, why the warning to not avoid love? I think it speaks to an unresolved conflict.

The parenthetical shouldn't be there if PG really does want this to be a no-judgement how-to guide. Love is distracting, for better or worse.

Re: How to Do Great Work

#446

Post by helicalmix »

331c8c71 wrote: post #444
helicalmix wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s a survival bias for all winners. But the pendulum swings too far if you believe you can’t learn anything at all from winners. Can you say that, for all winners of any field, there’s no correlation between the winners and the losers that is not attributable to luck?

I think there are probably some persistent differences between the superachievers and the normals but I am very skeptical in the ability of the former to teach (and of the latter to learn from the former).

Oh, this is an interesting point that I think I agree with on some level.

Are you saying superachievers can’t teach others to be superachievers, or are you saying that superachievers can’t teach non achievers to be achievers

Re: How to Do Great Work

#447

Post by [deleted] »

sagarpatil wrote: post #359

Some of you might not have time to read 10,000+ words. I’ve tried my best to summarise the essay here: https://twitter.com/sagarpatil/status/1675438574140006401?s=... If you have time, I recommend you reading the whole essay.

[deleted]

Re: How to Do Great Work

#448

Post by culopatin »

mkoubaa wrote: post #311
culopatin wrote: post #93

Ive been conflicted for 12 years now on what field to pursue. I’m between mechanical engineering because of my interest in materials and aerodynamics (I’d love to do research in this field), and software engineering (I don’t know what I’d do research in, but I like the idea of making tools people use). I work in IT/light software dev, and I think I’m inclined towards software because that’s where I’ve been building m…

Similar background. I write software for mechanical engineers and enjoy it very much

Can I pick your brain a bit? What is your involvement in the mechanical side and how did you get in it?

Re: How to Do Great Work

#449

Post by mkoubaa »

culopatin wrote: post #448
mkoubaa wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar background. I write software for mechanical engineers and enjoy it very much

Can I pick your brain a bit? What is your involvement in the mechanical side and how did you get in it?

I have a degree in Mechanical engineering, the role I have is mostly application architecture, development and ops.

Re: How to Do Great Work

#450

Post by sanderjd »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #445
sanderjd wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this essay ever actually made the value judgment that doing "great work" is "the most important thing in life" or even a good thing in life. Did I miss that part? I read it as, "for better or worse, some people are driven to do great work, here are some techniques to accomplish that". I think it's true, right?, that such people do exist, whether that is good or bad for them. I suppose I know enough of h…

It's true that I'm mostly responding to tone. But again: if this is just a guide for people who want a certain lifestyle, for better or worse, why the warning to not avoid love? I think it speaks to an unresolved conflict. The parenthetical shouldn't be there if PG really does want this to be a no-judgement how-to guide. Love is distracting, for better or worse.

Playing devil's advocate a bit, imagining an argument that definitely wasn't made in the essay itself, and which I don't necessarily think is right: It's possible that he meant that love seems like a distraction like others, but is actually critical in some way for doing great work. There are both kinds of stories out there, both those whose loving partnership was clearly critical to their work, and those who were isolated and loveless (but maybe would have been even more successful if it were not so?).

But I do tend to agree with you that if it is "how to pursue great work at all cost", then singling out love as the only distraction worth keeping is contradictory to that thesis.

Post reply on HN