4 ms·

I haven't formed opinion on whether pg is right or not but if I were him, I would do the same. Honestly, what good does defending your opinion serve? except it

I haven't formed opinion on whether pg is right or not but if I were him, I would do the same. Honestly, what good does defending your opinion serve? except it being a huge time sink and a total "mind fuck". Whenever someone disagrees with me, I politely accept it, instead of defending my case because I know it will rapidly turn into an ego war. The much better feeling than winning an argument is overcoming the urge to argue and defend.

giantqqq 11y ago
pg's best essays are those on topics he knows well. Topics where he has unusual experience and expertise. A lot of his essays around new ventures and how new ideas work are worth reading because even if they're imperfect personal experiences, they come from a place of knowledge. His worst essay was one where he has no real knowledge. The notion that entrepreneurship is valuable is not a terribly novel stand, and it's one that only a few extremists would argue with. But he doesn't have depth in the social sciences or politics; he doesn't have unique experiences and knowledge that bring an interesting new angle on the subject. Instead he just created a silly straw man, burned it down, said good, and now said 'f the haters'. Honestly... my hope is that at some point he'll realize that when he writes about subjects he knows well, that things are quiet and positive for him. And that when he writes on subjects where he's ignorant, that he gets a lot of bullshit. And maybe a way to avoid that bullshit is to stop writing on shit where he's ignorant. I mean, I know that his ego is now bloated to a level where this notion won't occur to him. The notion that being rich isn't a qualification for all things won't go through his head... but hey... maybe he'll want to avoid the bullshit that comes with writing shallow social darwinistic bullshit.

giantqqq 11y ago

pg's best essays are those on topics he knows well. Topics where he has unusual experience and expertise. A lot of his essays around new ventures and how new ideas work are worth reading because even if they're imperfect personal experiences, they come from a place of knowledge. His worst essay was one where he has no real knowledge. The notion that entrepreneurship is valuable is not a terribly novel stand, and it's one that only a few extremists would argue with. But he doesn't have depth in the social sciences or politics; he doesn't have unique experiences and knowledge that bring an interesting new angle on the subject. Instead he just created a silly straw man, burned it down, said good, and now said 'f the haters'. Honestly... my hope is that at some point he'll realize that when he writes about subjects he knows well, that things are quiet and positive for him. And that when he writes on subjects where he's ignorant, that he gets a lot of bullshit. And maybe a way to avoid that bullshit is to stop writing on shit where he's ignorant. I mean, I know that his ego is now bloated to a level where this notion won't occur to him. The notion that being rich isn't a qualification for all things won't go through his head... but hey... maybe he'll want to avoid the bullshit that comes with writing shallow social darwinistic bullshit.