12 ms·

Mr Graham, I respect you and you've accomplished more that I will in my life, but I sincerely hope that this essay against "bullshit" and "arguing online" isn't

Mr Graham, I respect you and you've accomplished more that I will in my life, but I sincerely hope that this essay against "bullshit" and "arguing online" isn't you declaring that you'll be "bubbling" yourself after your last essay was met with wide disagreement. It's possible that sometimes, no matter how smart you are, your experiences have been limited in a way and you're missing a part of something everyone else sees. And if thats the case, it's not something to be afraid of or to shut yourself off from. Anyway good luck!

the_watcher 11y ago
I didn't read it as him suggesting that he'd stop writing, just that he'd make a conscious effort to stop defending himself from online attacks. I agree that it would be terrible if he quit writing his essays.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jl 11y ago
  Don't worry, he won't stop writing essays. I was going to expand this thought but when I thought what some of the responses might be, I thought, "Life is too short!" and left it as is :)
- aamar 11y ago
  I think you're interpreting pg correctly. But isn't posting an essay "arguing online"? An essay is partly a matter of working out one's thoughts on some matter. But _posting_ an essay advances some point of view with a supporting argument, attacking the beliefs of others (e.g. Sanders was not named by pg, but could have been). That seems to be _arguing_ just as much as the additional step of responding to one's critics. I suppose what makes the latter wearying is that it's hard to hear attacks on you personally, and tedious to respond to attacks which are loud but bad. But it still seems that we should (and usually do) value those who engage with their high quality critics.
tremguy 11y ago
I'm sure he's well aware of the critizism. I think this is mostly about the random hate one gets for doing original thought.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  Graham’s essay that got dumped on was hardly an “original thought”. The whole “we rich people deserve to have 100x more than the poors because we’re pushing humanity forward” schtick is as old as civilization, and Graham’s version was a particularly lazy and poorly argued one.
  - invalidOrTaken 11y ago
    That is a hostile interpretation of the essay.
    - giaour 11y ago
      PG claimed that some rich people "create wealth" and are thus entitled to it. He further argued that they're extra entitled to it because even if you eliminated all other sources of inequality, you couldn't stop them from creating more wealth for themselves: "creating wealth, as a source of economic inequality, is different from taking it—not just morally, but also practically, in the sense that it is harder to eradicate." This is not a hostile but a literal interpretation of the essay and is the same viewpoint advanced by Atlas Shrugged.
      - invalidOrTaken 11y ago
        > PG claimed that some rich people "create wealth" and are thus entitled to it. Close enough. But, like, is anyone really going to argue with this? With scare quotes, sure, OK, I guess there's an example of someone out there churning out widgets from their blood-diamond-financed widget factory, and that's more of a grey area, but without weird factors like this...yes, people ought to be entitled to what they create. There are valid arguments on definitions of that (patents, land use, etc.) but all of those are disputes on how to apply the main principle, not whether it is legitimate. > He further argued that they're extra entitled to it because even if you eliminated all other sources of inequality, you couldn't stop them from creating more wealth for themselves: "creating wealth, as a source of economic inequality, is different from taking it This is a straw man. He didn't argue that they're "extra entitled," he simply pre-empted the (reasonable) argument that not all the rich got rich in good ways. But in any case: your description of his argument does not match the description I responded to: “we rich people deserve to have 100x more than the poors because we’re pushing humanity forward” Do you think the above is a hostile interpretation? I did, so I said so.
mildbow 11y ago
Lots of people will pick fights with people who have an audience (like pg) just so they can borrow that audience for a short while. I'm not convinced that most of the aforementioned responses weren't motivated by that. So, given that almost anything pg will write/has written will get the same treatment, why would he play their game by bothering to defend himself? In fact, there is a pureness to insulating yourself from the cacophony of opinions that you get online: someoen will always have an adversarial opinion and life really is too short to try to address any or even some of them. If I was him, I would let my friends be my guide to when I'm talking out of ass, rather than randos on the internet. Is that "bubbling"?
- cryoshon 11y ago
  If you propose a radical idea like "income inequality isn't bad", you need to expect a debate because the idea is far from proven. It sounds lame, but PG's essay is a stanza in a larger societal conversation, and conversations involve more than one person. To weigh in on one side invites response, especially if you're influential.
  - mattmcknight 11y ago
    It certainly doesn't seem like a radical idea. Most of the responses started out with some variation of "well, we didn't mean literally all income inequality is bad. Obviously some income inequality is good. We just have too much. No one actually wants perfect income equality. pg is arguing against a strawman". In that sense, he successfully pointed out that the shorthand phrase "income inequality" causes equivocation when taken literally, where both sides of it are using to mean different things. Unfortunately, most of the responses never made it much past identifying this confusion between the literal meaning of income inequality and what they meant, by saying we have "too much" income inequality. This is a tautology, and most responses failed to address the important question of "how much is too much?". Most responses instead then focused on inventing or imagining a lot of things pg didn't say, things they thought he might be implying. pg responds by simplifying his essay, so that there is less stuff to read into it. People still try to read too much into it. pg gives up at responding to things he didn't say, no time for BS. I think he added to the conversation a good point, that many people are sloppy when they refer to income inequality, and that it is not all bad, and that we need to be more precise when we talk about what the real problems are. However, people mostly ignored that...despite actually agreeing with what he actually said, they wanted to disagree with what they thought he said...
vcarl 11y ago
I read some "rebuttals" to the previous essay, and while there were definitely some valid points brought up, a lot of them seemed to me to have misinterpreted a lot of what was said. PG tweeted about feeling like a lot of his side of the "debate" was pointing out that he hadn't said something. [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875
- drhayes9 11y ago
  From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a rather breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty, its causes and its inhabitants. This blames poor people for being poor. How am I misreading this? I don't feel like I'm cherry-picking, I feel like I'm finding the theme of the text. If that's not it, then what is its theme? Its central idea? From later in the same essay: "Louis Brandeis said 'We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.' That sounds plausible. But if I have to choose between ignoring him and ignoring an exponential curve that has been operating for thousands of years, I'll bet on the curve." Again: this sounds like PG saying "In the choice between fostering political power in people at large and concentrating money in the hands of those who already have it, I'll choose the latter." What's there to misinterpret? I thought this essay, without context, was very sweet. Life is too short. But read as a non-response to critics of the "Income Inequality" essay it takes on a callous tone.
  - natrius 11y ago
    > This blames poor people for being poor. No it doesn't. A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. The portion you quoted makes this distinction clear: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." If we found a way to give everyone the same opportunities, there'd still be economic inequality. Is inequality what we should attack? It's probably better to attack the undesirable causes directly. The essay made this point clearly.
ageek123 11y ago
Wide disagreement? Sure, the people who disagreed wrote essays, but people who agree are usually invisible (how do you write an essay about agreeing with some other essay? and why would you bother?). I think the reason some people got so riled up was that there was so much uncomfortable truth in those essays. Just as people usually don't bother to post when they agree with something, they usually don't bother to post when they disagree with something that is obviously nonsense. Graham's essay created the perfect storm by hitting a raw nerve with a vocal community -- but that doesn't mean there was "wide disagreement."
- cryoshon 11y ago
  In general I think you're right regarding uncomfortable truths riling people up, but my response to PG was more out of a desire to correct what I perceived to be incorrect thoughts on PG's part. I think there was in fact wide disagreement, though.
- wfo 11y ago
  People got riled up because he touched an issue that effects people a lot in real life, is seriously effecting our society and democracy for the worse and got it really, really laughably wrong. And as one of the hyper-rich he has a bully pulpit with which to broadcast his thoughts. Also because most of his essays are very good, so this one was uncharacteristic and surprising.
  - xiaoma 11y ago
    He doesn't have a "bully pulpit" because he's hyper rich. He's been writing fantastic essays that have been widely shared for much longer than YC has existed (including one responsible for modern spam filters which made email usable again 16 years ago). Also, I think the last 2 essays pretty much nailed it. If you found them "laughably wrong", it was likely due to the assumptions you brought with you to reading them, not due to any fallacies in the content itself.
    - sjg007 11y ago
      The Bayesian spam thing was already known before the essay. Essayists should expect critiques. His argument was that technology is the creator of inequality and it can't be stopped. That startups (and stock options) capture a lot of that wealth is a side effect. This is the capitalist thesis. It's not quite Randian but it's close enough that it comes across as one dimensional. In his defense he said we should focus on other drivers of inequality. However the counter to the capitalist thesis and the most direct way to address inequality is taxation. This is the basic political argument that defines society.
melling 11y ago
Nope, you've completely missed the point. This entire conversation is a waste of time, for example. And yes, I am self-aware and realize that I'm adding zero value too. People will reference his "long-form" for years, while this conversation will be forgotten within days. Don't waste your time on things that add zero value, or are quickly forgotten.
geofft 11y ago
Yeah, I'm curious why this essay was written. A week after having finished spending (evidently) quite a while writing two essays about economic inequality and your personal role in increasing society-wide inequality, why the sudden change to caring about spending time with your kids? And why the need to say this out loud? This essay strongly feels like rationalizing to oneself an unwillingness to engage with reasoned criticism (of which there was quite a bit). If pg wants to spend time with his kids, good for him, that's certainly going to be more fulfilling than arguing online. But throwing arguments over the fence and then proclaiming the desire to spend time with your kids genuinely does not seem fulfilling.
- jl 11y ago
  No, there's no connection with this essay and the last one. He's been thinking about writing about this topic for a long time. In fact, one of the things Paul and I talk most about is that life is short and we need to savor time with our kids and do things that are meaningful to us. So trust me when I say that, as PG's wife, I believe you are mistaken.
  - geofft 11y ago
    All right, I can totally accept that. Thanks for the response!
  - ZoF 11y ago
    Eh, we've collectively read at least a few of pg's essays; I think it's fair to say that we know him better than you do :)
    - ZoF 11y ago
      Judging by these downvotes you all actually think that pg's wife knows him better than psuedonymous hn posters? Ridiculous.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        I think the sarcasm was a bit too subtle, at the same time maybe this isn't the time for it?
tootie 11y ago
It's funny because my kids have shown (really reminded) me of the age old strategy of declaring a game to be stupid as soon as they're losing.
kelukelugames 11y ago
PG is throwing a tantrum. I can't believe he is upset when people disagree with him. Even normal people are misquoted and browbeatend.
- eruditely 11y ago
  In what way is he throwing a tantrum? He hardly writes anything at all! Human neurological uniformity is false.
- fsloth 11y ago
  I disagree. This is an important topic in life. Too bad he published this one just after the previous ones about wealth inequality. Having lost my parents some time ago and having two kids I can concur with his sentiments fully and can confirm they are spot on. The incentive to respond to acidic comments and trolls in online discourse is a pervasive feature of the medium - and it seldom creates any value. Thus it's a perfect example of useless bullshit. The discussions are usually ephemeral in nature - quickly forgotten - and not influential. This is not to say there are no influential discussions - but that at the heat of the moment most discussions feel more important than they really are.
geniium 11y ago
I think Paul Graham is just sharing his thoughts openly. He has his up and downs like everyone, but he has a public too. It's his way of sharing his inner thoughts and he's got all the rights to express himself.
meterplech 11y ago
I don't know what you mean by bubbling. The overall essay produces a quite useful heuristic. Perhaps the specific example is inspired by recent experience... But it has power for me. It's amazing to watch how many young people get caught up in various online outrage missions. Hours spent browsing Twitter or Reddit to dive incredibly deep into some current news outrage is bull shit wasted time. Get back to work and try to build something (if that's what you want). Or be with your family (if that's what you want). Or do whatever. But this stuff (including my post right now) is addicting.

the_watcher 11y ago

I didn't read it as him suggesting that he'd stop writing, just that he'd make a conscious effort to stop defending himself from online attacks. I agree that it would be terrible if he quit writing his essays.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jl 11y ago
Don't worry, he won't stop writing essays. I was going to expand this thought but when I thought what some of the responses might be, I thought, "Life is too short!" and left it as is :)
aamar 11y ago
I think you're interpreting pg correctly. But isn't posting an essay "arguing online"? An essay is partly a matter of working out one's thoughts on some matter. But _posting_ an essay advances some point of view with a supporting argument, attacking the beliefs of others (e.g. Sanders was not named by pg, but could have been). That seems to be _arguing_ just as much as the additional step of responding to one's critics. I suppose what makes the latter wearying is that it's hard to hear attacks on you personally, and tedious to respond to attacks which are loud but bad. But it still seems that we should (and usually do) value those who engage with their high quality critics.

tremguy 11y ago

I'm sure he's well aware of the critizism. I think this is mostly about the random hate one gets for doing original thought.

jacobolus 11y ago
Graham’s essay that got dumped on was hardly an “original thought”. The whole “we rich people deserve to have 100x more than the poors because we’re pushing humanity forward” schtick is as old as civilization, and Graham’s version was a particularly lazy and poorly argued one.
- invalidOrTaken 11y ago
  That is a hostile interpretation of the essay.
  - giaour 11y ago
    PG claimed that some rich people "create wealth" and are thus entitled to it. He further argued that they're extra entitled to it because even if you eliminated all other sources of inequality, you couldn't stop them from creating more wealth for themselves: "creating wealth, as a source of economic inequality, is different from taking it—not just morally, but also practically, in the sense that it is harder to eradicate." This is not a hostile but a literal interpretation of the essay and is the same viewpoint advanced by Atlas Shrugged.
    - invalidOrTaken 11y ago
      > PG claimed that some rich people "create wealth" and are thus entitled to it. Close enough. But, like, is anyone really going to argue with this? With scare quotes, sure, OK, I guess there's an example of someone out there churning out widgets from their blood-diamond-financed widget factory, and that's more of a grey area, but without weird factors like this...yes, people ought to be entitled to what they create. There are valid arguments on definitions of that (patents, land use, etc.) but all of those are disputes on how to apply the main principle, not whether it is legitimate. > He further argued that they're extra entitled to it because even if you eliminated all other sources of inequality, you couldn't stop them from creating more wealth for themselves: "creating wealth, as a source of economic inequality, is different from taking it This is a straw man. He didn't argue that they're "extra entitled," he simply pre-empted the (reasonable) argument that not all the rich got rich in good ways. But in any case: your description of his argument does not match the description I responded to: “we rich people deserve to have 100x more than the poors because we’re pushing humanity forward” Do you think the above is a hostile interpretation? I did, so I said so.

mildbow 11y ago

Lots of people will pick fights with people who have an audience (like pg) just so they can borrow that audience for a short while. I'm not convinced that most of the aforementioned responses weren't motivated by that. So, given that almost anything pg will write/has written will get the same treatment, why would he play their game by bothering to defend himself? In fact, there is a pureness to insulating yourself from the cacophony of opinions that you get online: someoen will always have an adversarial opinion and life really is too short to try to address any or even some of them. If I was him, I would let my friends be my guide to when I'm talking out of ass, rather than randos on the internet. Is that "bubbling"?

cryoshon 11y ago
If you propose a radical idea like "income inequality isn't bad", you need to expect a debate because the idea is far from proven. It sounds lame, but PG's essay is a stanza in a larger societal conversation, and conversations involve more than one person. To weigh in on one side invites response, especially if you're influential.
- mattmcknight 11y ago
  It certainly doesn't seem like a radical idea. Most of the responses started out with some variation of "well, we didn't mean literally all income inequality is bad. Obviously some income inequality is good. We just have too much. No one actually wants perfect income equality. pg is arguing against a strawman". In that sense, he successfully pointed out that the shorthand phrase "income inequality" causes equivocation when taken literally, where both sides of it are using to mean different things. Unfortunately, most of the responses never made it much past identifying this confusion between the literal meaning of income inequality and what they meant, by saying we have "too much" income inequality. This is a tautology, and most responses failed to address the important question of "how much is too much?". Most responses instead then focused on inventing or imagining a lot of things pg didn't say, things they thought he might be implying. pg responds by simplifying his essay, so that there is less stuff to read into it. People still try to read too much into it. pg gives up at responding to things he didn't say, no time for BS. I think he added to the conversation a good point, that many people are sloppy when they refer to income inequality, and that it is not all bad, and that we need to be more precise when we talk about what the real problems are. However, people mostly ignored that...despite actually agreeing with what he actually said, they wanted to disagree with what they thought he said...

vcarl 11y ago

I read some "rebuttals" to the previous essay, and while there were definitely some valid points brought up, a lot of them seemed to me to have misinterpreted a lot of what was said. PG tweeted about feeling like a lot of his side of the "debate" was pointing out that he hadn't said something. [1] [1]: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/688044252744527875

drhayes9 11y ago
From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a rather breathtaking misunderstanding of poverty, its causes and its inhabitants. This blames poor people for being poor. How am I misreading this? I don't feel like I'm cherry-picking, I feel like I'm finding the theme of the text. If that's not it, then what is its theme? Its central idea? From later in the same essay: "Louis Brandeis said 'We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.' That sounds plausible. But if I have to choose between ignoring him and ignoring an exponential curve that has been operating for thousands of years, I'll bet on the curve." Again: this sounds like PG saying "In the choice between fostering political power in people at large and concentrating money in the hands of those who already have it, I'll choose the latter." What's there to misinterpret? I thought this essay, without context, was very sweet. Life is too short. But read as a non-response to critics of the "Income Inequality" essay it takes on a callous tone.
- natrius 11y ago
  > This blames poor people for being poor. No it doesn't. A claim that most rich people are driven doesn't imply that most poor people are lazy. The portion you quoted makes this distinction clear: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." If we found a way to give everyone the same opportunities, there'd still be economic inequality. Is inequality what we should attack? It's probably better to attack the undesirable causes directly. The essay made this point clearly.

ageek123 11y ago

Wide disagreement? Sure, the people who disagreed wrote essays, but people who agree are usually invisible (how do you write an essay about agreeing with some other essay? and why would you bother?). I think the reason some people got so riled up was that there was so much uncomfortable truth in those essays. Just as people usually don't bother to post when they agree with something, they usually don't bother to post when they disagree with something that is obviously nonsense. Graham's essay created the perfect storm by hitting a raw nerve with a vocal community -- but that doesn't mean there was "wide disagreement."

cryoshon 11y ago
In general I think you're right regarding uncomfortable truths riling people up, but my response to PG was more out of a desire to correct what I perceived to be incorrect thoughts on PG's part. I think there was in fact wide disagreement, though.
wfo 11y ago
People got riled up because he touched an issue that effects people a lot in real life, is seriously effecting our society and democracy for the worse and got it really, really laughably wrong. And as one of the hyper-rich he has a bully pulpit with which to broadcast his thoughts. Also because most of his essays are very good, so this one was uncharacteristic and surprising.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  He doesn't have a "bully pulpit" because he's hyper rich. He's been writing fantastic essays that have been widely shared for much longer than YC has existed (including one responsible for modern spam filters which made email usable again 16 years ago). Also, I think the last 2 essays pretty much nailed it. If you found them "laughably wrong", it was likely due to the assumptions you brought with you to reading them, not due to any fallacies in the content itself.
  - sjg007 11y ago
    The Bayesian spam thing was already known before the essay. Essayists should expect critiques. His argument was that technology is the creator of inequality and it can't be stopped. That startups (and stock options) capture a lot of that wealth is a side effect. This is the capitalist thesis. It's not quite Randian but it's close enough that it comes across as one dimensional. In his defense he said we should focus on other drivers of inequality. However the counter to the capitalist thesis and the most direct way to address inequality is taxation. This is the basic political argument that defines society.

melling 11y ago

Nope, you've completely missed the point. This entire conversation is a waste of time, for example. And yes, I am self-aware and realize that I'm adding zero value too. People will reference his "long-form" for years, while this conversation will be forgotten within days. Don't waste your time on things that add zero value, or are quickly forgotten.

geofft 11y ago

Yeah, I'm curious why this essay was written. A week after having finished spending (evidently) quite a while writing two essays about economic inequality and your personal role in increasing society-wide inequality, why the sudden change to caring about spending time with your kids? And why the need to say this out loud? This essay strongly feels like rationalizing to oneself an unwillingness to engage with reasoned criticism (of which there was quite a bit). If pg wants to spend time with his kids, good for him, that's certainly going to be more fulfilling than arguing online. But throwing arguments over the fence and then proclaiming the desire to spend time with your kids genuinely does not seem fulfilling.

jl 11y ago
No, there's no connection with this essay and the last one. He's been thinking about writing about this topic for a long time. In fact, one of the things Paul and I talk most about is that life is short and we need to savor time with our kids and do things that are meaningful to us. So trust me when I say that, as PG's wife, I believe you are mistaken.
- geofft 11y ago
  All right, I can totally accept that. Thanks for the response!
- ZoF 11y ago
  Eh, we've collectively read at least a few of pg's essays; I think it's fair to say that we know him better than you do :)
  - ZoF 11y ago
    Judging by these downvotes you all actually think that pg's wife knows him better than psuedonymous hn posters? Ridiculous.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      I think the sarcasm was a bit too subtle, at the same time maybe this isn't the time for it?

tootie 11y ago

It's funny because my kids have shown (really reminded) me of the age old strategy of declaring a game to be stupid as soon as they're losing.

kelukelugames 11y ago

PG is throwing a tantrum. I can't believe he is upset when people disagree with him. Even normal people are misquoted and browbeatend.

eruditely 11y ago
In what way is he throwing a tantrum? He hardly writes anything at all! Human neurological uniformity is false.
fsloth 11y ago
I disagree. This is an important topic in life. Too bad he published this one just after the previous ones about wealth inequality. Having lost my parents some time ago and having two kids I can concur with his sentiments fully and can confirm they are spot on. The incentive to respond to acidic comments and trolls in online discourse is a pervasive feature of the medium - and it seldom creates any value. Thus it's a perfect example of useless bullshit. The discussions are usually ephemeral in nature - quickly forgotten - and not influential. This is not to say there are no influential discussions - but that at the heat of the moment most discussions feel more important than they really are.

geniium 11y ago

I think Paul Graham is just sharing his thoughts openly. He has his up and downs like everyone, but he has a public too. It's his way of sharing his inner thoughts and he's got all the rights to express himself.

meterplech 11y ago

I don't know what you mean by bubbling. The overall essay produces a quite useful heuristic. Perhaps the specific example is inspired by recent experience... But it has power for me. It's amazing to watch how many young people get caught up in various online outrage missions. Hours spent browsing Twitter or Reddit to dive incredibly deep into some current news outrage is bull shit wasted time. Get back to work and try to build something (if that's what you want). Or be with your family (if that's what you want). Or do whatever. But this stuff (including my post right now) is addicting.