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

The Right Kind of Stubborn

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 249 posts

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#81

Post by lelanthran »

Suppafly wrote: post #71
arp242 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure…

>I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. My brother is an artist and absolutely refused to believe that the hype around NFTs was just bullshit. I'm sure if I called and asked right now, he'd still give me some word salad about how it's going to start paying off any day now. Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs,…

> Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them.

When someone talks to you about a topic you don't want to engage in you send them a link to a 2.5 hour long video?

I mean, can't the point be made in 3m?

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#82

Post by bbayles »

arp242 wrote: post #59
wkcheng wrote: post #44

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way that Paul does. What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. For example, let's say that someone points out a flaw in a plan. Person A responds by saying "That's not a real problem. It doesn't matter." Perso…

There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure…

The story you're thinking of is about Leonhard Euler, though it may not have actually happened (see Wikipedia on Euler).

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#83

Post by singleshot_ »

lelanthran wrote: post #81
Suppafly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. My brother is an artist and absolutely refused to believe that the hype around NFTs was just bullshit. I'm sure if I called and asked right now, he'd still give me some word salad about how it's going to start paying off any day now. Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs,…

> Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them. When someone talks to you about a topic you don't want to engage in you send them a link to a 2.5 hour long video? I mean, can't the point be made in 3m?

Making the point over and over and over for two and a half hours gives you time to run away and hide.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#84

Post by AnimalMuppet »

lelanthran wrote: post #81
Suppafly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I found that no, it really is that dumb, and I had understood it correctly months ago, and all the jargon was just meaningless bollocks word salad. My brother is an artist and absolutely refused to believe that the hype around NFTs was just bullshit. I'm sure if I called and asked right now, he'd still give me some word salad about how it's going to start paying off any day now. Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs,…

> Now if anyone talks to me about NFTs, I send that me that Folding Ideas youtube video, 'Line goes up' and refuse to engage with them. When someone talks to you about a topic you don't want to engage in you send them a link to a 2.5 hour long video? I mean, can't the point be made in 3m?

Well, it gets them out of your hair for 2.5 hours...

Unless they don't bother to watch it. Then it gets them out of your hair permanently, because they know they're supposed to watch it before hassling you about it again.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#85

Post by pilingual »

arp242 wrote: post #59
wkcheng wrote: post #44

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way that Paul does. What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. For example, let's say that someone points out a flaw in a plan. Person A responds by saying "That's not a real problem. It doesn't matter." Perso…

There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure…

Why are NFTs dumb?

How can I buy a digital asset sold by an artist?

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#86

Post by w10-1 »

Vegenoid wrote: post #53
hi wrote: post #19

> "The persistent are attached to the goal. The obstinate are attached to their ideas about how to reach it." I didn't know what the word "obstinate" meant so here you go: "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion." While PG's quote suggests a clear distinction, it's overly simplistic. Persistence and obstinacy often overlap in practice, sharing traits like en…

> Persistence and obstinacy often overlap in practice, sharing traits like energy, imagination, resilience, good judgment, focus on a goal, and listening intently. Obstinacy is defined by a lack of imagination, good judgement, and intent listening. > For example, Copernicus and Galileo were considered obstinate for his heliocentric theory, but history proved him right. This shows that the line between persistence and…

> Obstinacy is defined by a lack of imagination, good judgement, and intent listening

I think that may be a mistake.

Any value strategy that is primarily conservative (e.g., protecting sunk or resource assets) will be obstinate. That doesn't make it slower or stupider.

So oil and timber companies and monopolists et al will keenly monitor opposition and respond immediately and deftly -- with reality-avoidance. As will individuals who are primarily guarding something they feel is at risk of being taken away.

They have the same or more intelligence, judgment, and active listening; it's just that their strategy is not creation or innovation.

Indeed, in a fair fight the innovator will lose to the conservative, because it's just plain harder to make things happen, particularly when it involves convincing others to change their patterns or minds.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#87

Post by FloorEgg »

hammock wrote: post #15
jimhi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't fully grasp what he was trying to say and your summarization is both shorter and gets the point across better. Thanks

Persistent = stubborn about achieving a goal = good Obstinate = stubborn about executing a solution = bad

Might be worth considering that in a specific example or context this may make sense, but zoom out further you will find that goals are solutions and solutions are goals.

It's a hierarchy, as Paul referred to as a "tree".

Each node in the acyclic graph is connected to a "why" node above it (goal) and a "how" node below it (solution).

OKRs reflect this in an organization.

People make decisions based on their values hierarchy, implicit or explicit.

If this isn't easy to follow maybe an example will help...

Let's say I have a goal of "provide reliable shelter for my family", the solution may be to "buy a house". Buying a house is also a goal, which maybe is slightly out of reach. So my solution is to "save a large portion of my income" and "secure a high paying job", these are also goals. The solution to saving may be a fintech app, discipline, good communication with my spouse, etc.. every solution is a goal with its own solutions and you can follow this tree down until you get into really specific motor tasks like taking a credit card out of a wallet or opening a door or turning the key to start a car.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#88

Post by senthil_rajasek »

wkcheng wrote: post #44

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way that Paul does. What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. For example, let's say that someone points out a flaw in a plan. Person A responds by saying "That's not a real problem. It doesn't matter." Perso…

There are certain areas where the popular opinion is irrelevant. Warren Buffet said this in a more folksy way,

“It’s very important to live your life by an internal yardstick,” he told us, noting that one way to gauge whether or not you do so is to ask the following question: “Would you rather be considered the best lover in the world and know privately that you’re the worst — or would you prefer to know privately that you’re the best lover in the world, but be considered the worst?”

source: https://time.com/archive/6904425/my-650100-lunch-with-warren...

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#89

Post by wkcheng »

cassepipe wrote: post #74
wkcheng wrote: post #44

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way that Paul does. What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. For example, let's say that someone points out a flaw in a plan. Person A responds by saying "That's not a real problem. It doesn't matter." Perso…

Could we say that biologically/culturally receptive to performed dominance and being dominant has nothing to do with rationally understand the world. I think this is the whole point of the jock/geek binary opposition in culture even though, as all oppositionnal pairs in culture, they are often porquenolosdossed : Some people can perform dominance and do master rationality quite well and some can do neither. Maybe we…

Yeah, "performed dominance" as you call it definitely is orthogonal to rationally understanding the world.

The problem is exacerbated by content and replies trending shorter over time. It's hard to have a nuanced and thoughtful take in 10 seconds. It's much easier to have a simple, easy to understand, "dominant" take in the same amount of time.

I wonder if there's a social solution to this, somehow.

Re: The Right Kind of Stubborn

#90

Post by nsguy »

arp242 wrote: post #59
wkcheng wrote: post #44

This is a great article on the difference between an obstinate person and a persistent person, but I'm not sure the general public perceives them the same way that Paul does. What I've found is that many times, people like the perceived confidence that obstinacy can bring. For example, let's say that someone points out a flaw in a plan. Person A responds by saying "That's not a real problem. It doesn't matter." Perso…

There's an old anecdote where I think Pascal, but I'm not sure, argued the existence or non-existence of God in front of the king with another philosopher. Maybe-Pascal exclaimed loudly and with great confidence "A plus C equal B squared! Therefore God exists! COUNTER!" The other philosopher didn't know much about mathematics, had no idea to reply, got flustered, and "lost" the argument.[1] And honestly, I'm not sure…

I had a similar issue recently. Someone suggested a technical solution that based on my experience has zero chance of being correct. It was said with great confidence that makes me doubt my experience. Great confidence but zero supporting details or experience. For someone observing from the side there's no way to tell who is right and my double-take doubting my own experiences can appear to make the extremely confident but likely wrong person be the right one. For someone that really knows stuff, being 100% confident on nuanced/complex issues is very hard, you're used to moving forward with 90% or 80% or 95% confidence. I.e. you're very likely right, but there are can be surprises or something you didn't anticipate. For someone confident but wrong they have like 100% confidence for something that's 0% chance of success. As you say, this is a lot more difficult when you're put on the spot, e.g. the CEO might question what's the right decision in a meeting (the king in your example.). Often there's not enough time for a deep study and even after studying a problem it might still not be 100%.

Tough situations to handle.

Post reply on HN