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

561–570 of 874 posts

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#561

Post by tartoran »

aerovistae wrote: post #522
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I may not necessarily be as harsh as the commenter you are responding do, I will say that I am starting to feel a certain way about pg, and it's much less positive than it was 5-10 years ago. I feel like a common thread in his most recent essays has been separating people into, for lack of a better term, "desirables" vs. "undesirables". True, he doesn't use those terms, and he often couches the language he uses…

100%. I've gotten that impression about everything him and his protege Sam say since the first time I read anything they wrote. It's like their mantra. It's so tiring. "Surround yourself with smart people, cut out anyone who doesn't inspire you to move fast and break things." What about my fucking parents? What about the friends I grew up with who have ordinary jobs that aren't pushing the boundaries of human innovat…

I think this is a misreading of PG’s essay and although I agree with some criticism of sorts that PG’s recent essays are lacking in what his early essays did for us, I really didn’t get that he was insinuating what you think. It was more of choose the career and surround yourself with the type of people that are good for your type..

But again, some criticism here is spot on for different resons while other is quite unfounded. But it seems to me that mr PG hasn’t changed much, his essays stayed pretty much the same while the whole landscape has transformed quite a bit since his early essays. If one of his vhehement critics is to read an old PG essay thinking it is recent they’d probably have the same reaction.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#562

Post by Apocryphon »

meheleventyone wrote: post #388
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…

If that's true then this essay is hilarious . Independent thinkers are the ones adhering to the capitalist status quo rather than the people trying to challenge it? Sounds backwards.

It’s the libertarian- particularly Objectivist- myth that valorizes the (capitalist) individual.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#563

Post by epsilonclose »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #175

Are there only a few paths for independent thinkers? > Independent-mindedness seems to be more a matter of nature than nurture. Which means if you pick the wrong type of work, you're going to be unhappy. If you're naturally independent-minded, you're going to find it frustrating to be a middle manager. And if you're naturally conventional-minded, you're going to be sailing into a headwind if you try to do original re…

I'm going to ignore "being an artist" and "being a writer" and assume you want to work on technical things. I'm also going to ignore academia because that opens a whole new can of worms about what it means to be independent within academia, how to achieve that independence, whether it is worth it, etc. But you should note that I think most people who want to work in the "independent, technical, research-first" mode would traditionally pursue academia.

Anyway, examples: Colin Percival runs Tarsnap by himself, and it turns a profit.

As another commenter mentioned, there are independent game developers who get to do technically interesting work (e.g. Marc Ten Bosch, who got a SIGGRAPH paper out along the way while making Miegakure, or Jonathan Blow, who is building a programming language [although his team grows and shrinks, so he must be acting in a management capacity, or at least like a film director]).

Sylph Bioscience is a lean team of three that seems to me to be doing very interesting work (and I don't think any of them have "traditional" educational backgrounds, though I might be wrong).

Matt Keeter works a day job and pumped out a SIGGRAPH paper largely for fun.

You can do consulting, freelance, contract work, etc. etc. until you land on what you want.

You can start some technical product with the aim to sell it in its entirety ASAP to some other entity (though of course the less work you put in on the "business-bits," the less you'll be selling that product for).

It's going to be harder to find these things or make them happen, and often they may not be very financially attractive compared to more standard paths (nor are they necessarily stable), but it seems that autonomy and creative control don't come for free in this life: you have to trade off money, time, stability, and status to do things in this manner.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#565

Post by spitfire »

Arubis wrote: post #421

Over the years, I've found PG's essays much less compelling. As some sibling comments here have noted, there's a level of self-assuredness that feels increasingly disconnected from reality, like PG's become a synecdoche of SF VC-fuelled startup culture as a whole. Whether that's him changing, or me, or the world, I'm not certain--but I still look forward to them simply because the ensuing discussions here on HN tend…

Just so I'm clear on this, how do you pronounce "synecdouche"?

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#566

Post by Geminidog »

ska wrote: post #483
Kranar wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough but I did all the things you regret and I am very very happy I did them. Bought a house in 2009 when everyone said it was stupid because of the great recession, avoided partying, drinking or doing any kind of drugs, or "having fun" all throughout high school and university, and instead of using all the newest and greatest popular technologies I made my own libraries. That house is now worth 3 times more t…

> Bought a house in 2009 when everyone said it was stupid I don't know who your "everyone" is, but to do this is extremely conventional financial advice...

Depends on the time period. Overall buying a house has been part of the American way of life, however during 2009 it ill advised by most people due to the bubble pop.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#567

Post by lilactown »

Kranar wrote: post #515
ska wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that I think the conventional wisdom here is to do exactly what you did, not the other way around.

Maybe that's conventional wisdom, but I simply disagree then. Just because everyone tells you not to buy a house doesn't mean you should buy one. I didn't buy my house because everyone told me not to, that would be incredibly stupid. In fact I would even go further and say that doing the opposite of what everyone tells you to do for the sake of being contrarian is worse than just going with the flow. You can listen t…

I am 99% sure ska is saying that "lots of people would have suggested to buy a house in 2009."

I was not in a position to buy then, but IIRC the market had plummeted the previous year and was at an all-time low; if you were in a position to buy, it was a great time to do it.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#568

Post by Geminidog »

eruci wrote: post #524

It's always going to be a tiny number of people that'll be the principal cause of progress, along with the rest of us being reasonable enough and simply go along with it. Independent thinking is hard, that's why the majority of people will opt instead to adopt the common thinking of the group of their choice - a choice that comes principally from feelings. One can be perfectly happy however, regardless on which categ…

>Independent thinking is hard,

Not only is it hard it's frowned upon and attacked. You can't help but mock flat earthers but you gotta admit they're independent thinkers.

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#569

Post by pell »

closeparen wrote: post #543
ceilingcorner wrote: post #234

Can someone explain the constant reference to nerds in PG's essays? I feel like it's a concept straight out of a 1970s-90s low-budget movie and hasn't been accurate or relevant since...

There is a pretty clear strain of personality that shows up early in life and is suspiciously correlated with becoming a programmer. It’s rare enough that most people don’t meet others who share it until they get past K12 and start to aggregate in self-selected universities and workplaces. It’s pronounced enough to be obvious to one’s peers and often causes some degree of social alienation. In the 1970s-90s the stere…

I think you're overlooking a lot of people who don't fit this description at all, yet also became "programmers".

Re: How to Think for Yourself

#570

Post by typon »

pembrook wrote: post #495
Arubis wrote: post #421

Over the years, I've found PG's essays much less compelling. As some sibling comments here have noted, there's a level of self-assuredness that feels increasingly disconnected from reality, like PG's become a synecdoche of SF VC-fuelled startup culture as a whole. Whether that's him changing, or me, or the world, I'm not certain--but I still look forward to them simply because the ensuing discussions here on HN tend…

Your view of PG and SV culture is following the standard sentiment curve. Just like the culture at large. 20 years ago we were the innovative pioneers shaking up the all-powerful old guard, and everybody loves to root for the underdog. Now we’re the new seemingly all-powerful incumbents (look at the top 5 S&P 500 companies right now). Underdogs no longer. You can see this very clearly in media coverage of Silicon Val…

But there wasn't that much bad stuff to ignore in the past - because it wasn't that bad. Google did not have that much influence or power, so their bad tendencies (assuming they have been the same throughout their lifetime) were just benign. There is no point in holding up a big magnifying glass on underdogs - things can't go horribly wrong. But it is completely justified to hold the powerful accountable, and that's what people are doing now.
Post reply on HN