Live data from Hacker News

Fashionable Problems

paulgraham.com

71–80 of 195 posts

Re: Fashionable Problems

#71
post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

Okay, but to play devil's advocate -- if you study something controversial and/or unfashionable in academia (such as economics of inequality) aren't you just going to be ignored by the community?

I think being unfashionable is more viable in fields that are meritocratic and don't require popular approval to succeed.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#73
post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

I have this suspicion that, in economics, trends and fashions have sometimes formed around principles whose primary attraction is that they make the math tractable.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#74
post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

There are a large number of people working on inequality.

The two most common fields studying it are: 1) Development 2) Labor Although there are a number of Macro-Economists who have studied the impact of inequality on growth. The reason you may not read about it is that the relationship between inequality and growth is a largely "solved" problem. It is "unfashionable" because of that.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#75
This advice is just so... airy. Like most of his advice. "Build something people love" Got it, now what? What do I build, exactly? Like the incredible Onion talk on startup: "Step 1: come with up an idea. Step 2: Build it. We're at step 2 - we're half way there"

Re: Fashionable Problems

#76
post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

I genuinely don't understand where these ideas about economics come from. Inequality is a hot topic, and it has been for years.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many insights to be made by this comment. One that is easily missed is how hard it is to fight against the existing ecosystem/assumptions. I've found that a lot of people either don't, or make a point of challenging everything. A strategy they've worked fairly well for me so far is to challenge one(!) assumption after a lot of careful analysis, and then try to adapt to the ecosystem as best as possible. Most revoluti…

The problem is that multi-layered problem solving is superhard to execute. It's not that it's hard to find a solution that would be orders better, but it's just that it's risky, as it's an all-or-nothing path. It at least requires a lot of confidence for the existing market. With waterfall-kind of planning, that would work. Unfortunately it got a bad name in the '90s and early '00s. The wild-west of inexperienced dev…

Aren't those companies great examples of this though? They have a great vision, but really try to play inside the existing system except for one thing. Tesla for example haven't yet done much innovation that the other car companies don't, except for betting hard on electricity (or more specifically, batteries). A more radical approach challenging the whole system on all fronts would be to re-think personal transportation (perhaps cars VS horses is a better example of that). Sure, they realize that in order to make electrical cars viable, they have to put up chargers. But that's really just a means to an end (batteries/electricity as fuel). Same goes with how they sell cars - they have to in order to break through the market, it's not something that is necessarily core to their business or why they exist. They exist to replace ICEs with battery driven mirrors. The rest can stay. (autonomous driving might be more revolutionary if they succeed and create something different than what cars are today, but that's a lot of ifs and buts)

Apple is also very much in that corner. The smartphone existed long before the iPhone. They just packaged it and polished the concept so it made sense for a broader market (and they are/were really great at that), but how radical were they really? Revolutionary after a while perhaps (if you can be a slow revolutionary - seems a little bit contradictory), but technologically they just put a lot of existing techs together and packaged it differently than the existing players for a different market/crowd and had tremendous timing (I bet the smartphone revolution was coming either way, they just helped define the concept and bridge the gap from early adopters to mass market).

Re: Fashionable Problems

#78
I think it goes much deeper than people choosing to work on fashionable problems. Here are my thoughts

1. The more defined and mature the problem space is, the more the assumptions that underpin that field are taken as a given.

2. These assumptions may become so deeply ingrained that people become effectively blind to the entire range of possibilities.

3. These assumptions frame how the problem/solution space is looked at. Therefore the solution space is constrained by the set of assumptions (about what the problem is , how to solve it, what to do)

4. These assumptions are recursive, in that they are contained within other assumptions. It is turtles all the way down. At some level, someone working in the space may not even understand what the core assumptions are. We have to have these assumptions though. See the next point.

5. The interesting thing about this is: The constraining of the problem/solution space is actually a positive. It enables co-ordination and incremental improvements and refinement. It allows people new to the domain to quickly get productive.

I like to think about it this way:

Picture yourself in a massive area that is pitch black. You are grasping around and can not see much. Someone figures out how to get a tiny fire started. With this tiny fire you get to see a little bit. Using this you can build a bigger fire illuminating more of the area (but still leaving the entire space unexplored). This eventual results in the ability to build a permanent light illuminating a specific corner of this space.

This specific space with light illuminating it becomes highly productive, people can do all sort of things. Like read etc. Yet, there are still areas left unexplored. The light cannot simply be taken across. It takes work, and it takes turning your back towards the current "lit" up space, and taking a step back into the dark. A scary thought for some.

5. Importantly: These assumptions have been inherited from the past. So they existed and were relevant at a specific point in time. They may or may not be relevant as of today. We would have to peel several layers to get to the core.

6. While 4 is a positive, it is also a negative. The idea/areas greatest strength (maturity, constant improvements, efficiencies) is also its greatest weakness (constraining the search space)

To take a step into the dark, is to turn your back to the lit up parts. You have to question the underlying assumptions and see if they are still relevant. If you discover an assumption about the world that is no longer accurate, then you found a new space to illuminate.

To put it in another way, to explore the dark is to shift your perspective on the problem/solution. It is to see with "new eyes". Initially it may be dark, but slowly with diligent work, and passion you could light up a completely new and novel area.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#79
post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

Both examples are wrong. Lots of economists working on inequality , it is even a hot topic. Your physics example is so vague that is meaningless. Name one promising theory/approach in physics which is not getting interest because it goes against "the currently dominant theory of the field".Tip: LQG does not count.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#80
post #31
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually surprised that PG doesn't feel uncomfortable about the 'acclaim' that he is getting for writing many of the things he has said that are not related to anything he has expertise in. Reminds me of celebrities who opine about politics with their thoughts (sometimes not always with PG). Paul is authoritative on many topics. General thoughts about life and people are great to hear what he thinks. Why not? Bu…

They're essays. The word means 'attempt' and the genre has always been about non-expertise. Montaigne was the ultimate non-expert.

For what it’s worth, I explained the situation to a friend, and they read the essay and said it was their favorite. They said most of pg’s essays feel exhausting, and they don’t generally like reading them. So I guess I was mistaken, since the audience is the ultimate test of an essay.

It just felt painful to see so much left unsaid. But my friend said that it was immediately injected into the reader’s mind, and didn’t need to be said.

Post reply on HN