9 ms·

Coding Horror: Paul Graham's Participatory Narcissism

121 points by sharksandwich 19y ago

gruseom 19y ago
Paul Graham's essays have this weird Rorschach quality whereby people see wildly different things in them. Some readers even get infuriated and seek relief in the judgment that Paul Graham is an arrogant asshole. But I don't buy that. (For one thing, if he were, then this site would be more of a personality cult than it is, and many of us would be long gone.) So I'm curious as to why his essays have this effect on people. It is the essays, by the way. You don't hear people saying, "He sold Viaweb to Yahoo? What an asshole!" or "He started a new kind of investment fund, the arrogant prick!" I've got a little theory. It seems to me that the provocative thing about the essays is their aesthetic. They're governed by a particular style. One principle in it is minimalism: compress the writing until everything extraneous is gone. Another is vividness: whatever is being said, seek the phrase or image that throws the point into the sharpest possible relief. The dominant quality of the essays is that they pursue this aesthetic ruthlessly. Anything that would use a few extra words to reassure the reader is thrown out. Anything that would tone down an idea a little bit to make it more palatable is thrown out. There isn't any room for these things because the author is optimizing for something else - say, meaning per word count. In fact, an entire dimension of language, the phatic dimension, is thrown out. So, Paul Graham's writing is radically aphatic. That's disorienting. People are used to writing that includes, among its threads, one whose purpose is to reassure you that the author is a nice guy, that he might be wrong, you can still get along even if you disagree, and so on. This is not only absent from the essays, it's been deliberately excised. On top of that, what is there has been distilled for maximum impact and often touches subjects that people have strong emotions about, such as programming languages and what we're doing with our lives :). Not surprisingly, some readers feel punched in the gut. For them, an obvious explanation is ready at hand: Paul Graham's writing is like this because he is like this. He must be someone who doesn't care how others feel and wants only to magnify his own grandiose ideas. In short, an arrogant asshole. I think this explains why people project so much emotion into what they read in those essays. "Oh... you haven't founded a company? You suck." But the essays never say anything like that. People don't read them this way because they say such things. They read them this way because they lack the kinds of things writers are expected to put in to stave off provocation. They lack these things not because the author is an asshole but because he cares about a certain style of writing. Enough, in fact, to pursue it ruthlessly... in his writing. To naively map that back to the personality of the writer is an obvious error, a kind of reverse ad hominem. But it's an understandable error. There aren't many people who care that much about an aesthetic. (I mean "aesthetic" in a broad sense, by the way. As much a way of thinking as a cosmetic thing.) No doubt there is a connection between an author's personality and his style, but it's hardly an isomorphism. I don't know Paul Graham, but I know he doesn't talk the way he writes. For one thing, one can point to examples (like the interview in Founders At Work). For another, nobody talks like that.
- pg 19y ago
  Wow; I think this is exactly right. I'm always surprised by how offended people get by things I write. It seems totally unpredictable. I didn't expect people to be so offended by this one. In fact, I thought I was saying something rather smarmily ingratiating, if anything: that the famous startup founders you keep reading about in the press are not that different from you, but that they just have, in effect, a healthier work environment. See the last paragraph. And yet somehow that message has gotten completely twisted around. It's as if people wanted to misunderstand this essay. I've been mulling over why this happens, and one reason is certainly the one you suggest. I try to cut every unnecessary word, and I don't say things unless I'm pretty sure of them. The result sounds arrogant, because it doesn't have any of the hedging people usually surround ideas with to make them palatable. But there's no alternative. People won't read essays if they're too long. If you want to get a lot of ideas into an essay short enough to read, you have to be so curt you sound arrogant.
  - mightybyte 19y ago
    I had the same thought when I read gruseom's post. His zooming in on your writing style is right on the money. (By the way, I could have begun that last sentence with "I think", but I thought better of it.) This is one thing I struggle with myself. I find that I tend to want to write things that cannot be disputed, but to do so I usually have to include all the phatic cruft that you take out. I'll have to work on that. On another note, I also get the impression that you write to a certain type of person. Possibly a type that is similar to you. People like Jeff who take issue with your essays are simply not the target audience (whatever that means). As someone who is currently caged in a 9-5 job with a big company, I have to say that your essay resonated deeply with me...and I loved it. I appreciate the way your essays frequently force me to take a good hard look at what I'm doing, where I want to go, and what I need to do to get there.
    - tigerthink 19y ago
      >I find that I tend to want to write things that cannot be disputed, but to do so I usually have to include all the phatic cruft that you take out. I'll have to work on that. Keep in mind that different situations demand different writing styles. For instance, if you are trying to resolve a bitter conflict, "writing things that cannot be disputed" is just the way to go. In that situation, your #1 objective would be to find things that both parties agree on, and build up from that. (This also might be a good way to win an argument.)
hbien 19y ago
WTF? I understood this post about Joel: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000679.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000679.html And this one about DHH: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001065.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001065.html Now it's PG. I need to start writing blog posts attacking people so I can get some more ad revenue.
johns 19y ago
Jeff Atwood blogging about another writer's narcissism is the epitome of irony.
- murrayh 19y ago
  It is pretty easy to level the "Participatory Narcissism" attack at most people with extensive, opinionated writing. Quite often I will look at comments I have made and reflect at how skillful I had been (before being methodically torn to shreds by smart people), so I hope narcissism is a common phenomenon. And I also hope (for my own sake) that for most people the matter at hand is trying to suppress self-gratuity in their writing, rather than not having it in the first place.
- whacked_new 19y ago
  Expressing one's opinion is, to a degree, a narcissistic act. IMO it's more ironic when critics cannot be critical of themselves (not saying it is the case here).
jbyers 19y ago
"Participatory Narcissism" Never have so many syllables been used to incite so many about so little.
- noonespecial 19y ago
  Comment++ for most original re-quote of Churchill I've seen yet.
tel 19y ago
I have to agree with Atwood, sort of. I actually see it as a wider condition. You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss has a very specific "you" in mind: the kind of people who are aching to become founders (well, obviously). That's in no way a bad thing, but it is worth noting that earlier essays by pg had a wider audience. It's not narcissism, it's focus. It's a symptom of "nearly all the programmers I know are startup founders".
- bumbledraven 19y ago
  I don't think so. This comment by Peter on the original article summed it up well: "What gets PG's goat, it seems, is that relatively privileged, smart, hard-working kids should want to participate in this awful existence known as 'the 9 to 5', rather than strike out on their own and attempt to do something great -- possibly something even world-changing. And watching these clones root around some cookie-cutter downtown Palo Alto cafe performing some absurd exercise is more than he can stand. These kids could _be_ something -- they could _do_ something, but instead, some nutjob decided it'd be cool to send them on some wacky easter egg hunt. They could be busy trying to save the world, but instead, they're busying conditioning their brains to be subservient to the dictatorship that is modern corporations."
  - Alex3917 19y ago
    Phrased that way, the scenario is reminiscent of Plato's cave allegory.
  - tel 19y ago
    Hah, that's a great quote. I think we're both looking at it the same way. PG is in a fantastic position where he gets to spend most of his time around some of the smartest, most driven, and most interesting people all the time. He loves it, and with good reason. His essays are targeted toward those people who could become the kind of person he respects, and they have not a little bit of force behind them because he believes in what he says a whole lot.
- Xichekolas 19y ago
  As a 9-to-5-er that feels caged, I can attest that I read the 'you' as me (and people like me). It seems like everyone that dislikes working the day job just loved his article, and everyone that likes their day job loves Jeff Atwood's... does it really matter?
cperciva 19y ago
Jeff Atwood could certainly have made his case in a better way, but I think he has a point here. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons for working at a large company; family responsibilities (yes, there are mid-twenties and early-thirties programmers with a spouse and children), a chronic medical condition (if I were living in the US, my medical bills would be upwards of $20k/year, and I know I'm not alone), or being dedicated to a non-economically-profitable pursuit (if you want to spend 2 months a year volunteering in sub-Saharan Africa, many employers will let you have the time off -- a startup won't) are a few possibilities. Comparing people who decide to work for a large company to caged animals, and suggesting that they are "ten times [less] alive" is condescending, and ignores the fact that they might seem far more lively when they are with their families or pursuing whatever activities they enjoy -- or that if they worked for a startup, they might not be able to afford the medicine which keeps them alive. I consider myself fortunate that I can do something I enjoy and have a reasonable chance of making money doing it; but not everybody is so lucky, and we should not insult such unfortunates by suggesting that they made poor choices or are somehow behaving unnaturally.
- staunch 19y ago
  I don't think you're arguing here that they're not caged animals, just that they've elected to work in a cage for some good reason.
  - cperciva 19y ago
    That's one way of looking at it, yes -- except that the comparison to caged animals has misleading connotations. A lion doesn't weigh its options and choose to live in a cage; so to compare someone to a caged lion carries with it the suggestion that they lack agency.
    - Darmani 19y ago
      All metaphors break when pushed hard enough, or when pushed gently in the wrong direction.
    - mechanical_fish 19y ago
andreyf 19y ago
The essay does take advantage over the common "naturalistic fallacy", where people imply something as being "good" from its being "natural". As a simple counterexample, many diseases are "natural" and many antibiotics, not. However, I think it's only fair that Paul's motivation for some of his essays is, at least in part, PR work for YC, and hence the fibs (that being the harshest word I'd use) are understandable.
- asdflkj 19y ago
  This is not a "naturalistic fallacy" (more properly called an appeal to nature), because PG uses "natural" in the very narrow sense of "evolutionarily optimal". PG must have thought his target audience is discerning enough to dereference such things without any hand-holding.
  - andreyf 19y ago
    Hm, "appeal to nature" does seem to fit the bill better, as "naturalistic fallacy" means something slightly different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy It seems funny that I trust wikipedia+random guy on the internet over my economics professors.
- icky 19y ago
  > The essay does take advantage over the common "naturalistic fallacy", where people imply something as being "good" from its being "natural". The essay avoids that fallacy by making the case that humans, having evolved under certain social conditions, might be much better equipped at present to cope with similar conditions. This itself may be true or false, but it is not fallacious reasoning.
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
staunch 19y ago
A lot of the comments I've read about this essay remind me of the comments on the idea that being in the silicon valley is an advantage for startups. 98% of the negative comments are from people who are responding defensively out of pure emotion. > I work with young startup founders in their twenties. They're geniuses, and play by their own rules. Oh... you haven't founded a company? You suck. The guy that wrote this is saying more about himself than the essay.
lst 19y ago
I never read his essays, but if anyone here is able to arc-ify them (say max. 1-3 sentences each), maybe I would start reading (the arc versions).
- rms 19y ago
  You weren't missing anything by skipping this one. Iamelgringo's post in this thread is much more insightful.
  - edw519 19y ago
    It usually is.
davidw 19y ago
I don't really agree with Mr. Horror, but sometimes I do wonder what PG does to, shall we say, "stay challenged". Surrounding yourself with younger, less experienced people (albeit very smart ones) who owe you is not an environment I would think of as one likely to create a lot of pushback. Maybe it shouldn't, either, as that's not what YC is for, but you do need that kind of thing from somewhere in your life if you wish to continue your intellectual growth.
- gordianknot 19y ago
  Arc, obviously. Inventing a programming language is like founding a religion. As history bears witness, that's one hell of a challenge.
- pg 19y ago
  Surrounding yourself with younger, less experienced people (albeit very smart ones) who owe you is not an environment I would think of as one likely to create a lot of pushback. Oh yeah? It does when they're the type of people who want to start startups. The main thing we look for in founders is spirit and determination. We have to, because that's what makes startups succeed. And dealing with the group of people this produces is not like being a professor, believe me.
  - davidw 19y ago
    Well, all I can go by is what I see in the relationship from outside, and occasional comments and fragments of things, like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41257 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41257 which perhaps paint an incorrect picture. Point being, though, is that the group you're dealing with sounds like a great deal of fun, and doubtless provides a lot of intellectual stimulation - no question about that. What they probably don't have, though, is a very dissimilar view of certain things to your own - you hand pick them after all (and vice versa). Also, in the end, to be blunt, you're the guy giving them money, and even if you try to get around it, that conditions relationships between people. It's sort of like this site - most of us found it and got into it because we like your writing and attitude, so it's not likely to be a source of wildly different opinions either. That's not entirely a bad thing - keeping points of contention to a minimum is probably a good way of keeping the community from imploding. Anyway, this isn't meant to be a critique of YC in any way, just my hope that you find ways to look at the world from a completely different point of view from time to time. Thinking about my own sources of information, it's probably something that everyone needs to try and do more often.
iamelgringo 19y ago
I've worked in Silicon Valley as an ER nurse for the past 2 years, and I've seen a lot of Software Engineers come and go through my department. And, I'll have to say, at the nurses station, when the patients aren't around, there is a stereotype that we have about Software Engineers, and often snicker at. If a man in his 20's and 30's comes in to triage looking haunted and complaining of chest pain, problems sleeping, or weird psycho-somatic complaints, one of the first questions we ask is, "Are you a software engineer?" The answer is invariably, "Yes." And, around the nurses station, we all share a chuckle and a "tsk, tsk" at this poor, overworked, overstressed man. There is a stereotype, and like all generalizations, it has it's exceptions. But, it's enough of a stereotype that the nurses I work with have been very concerned about my going back to school for Computer Science. Most of the nurses that haven worked in the Valley for years thought that being a software engineer was a crap job compared to being an ER nurse. And, that's saying something since a substantial portion of our job involves actual crap. It's wasn't until I explained that I want to start a company that my coworkers became a bit more supportive of the idea. I even had doctors talk to me in concerned tones about the unhealthy levels of stress that engineers work with in the Valley, to try and talk me out of my second career. In the ER, we see the same haunted, caged look that Paul refers to in this article. I think that what PG was referring to was the idea of a powerful animal who's behavior and demeanor changes markedly in different environments. I don't really think that he was trying to put people down who work at a 9-5 for whatever reason. Paul didn't refer to the 9 to 5'ers as caged monkeys, or caged rats, he called them caged lions for a reason. I don't think that it just applies to Software engineers, either. I saw the same change in my father when he left his job at 60 to pursue managing his investments 10 years ago. There was a very marked change in the man. A great metaphor for that would be describing as the difference as that of a caged lion vs lion roaming free on the savanna. I normally like Jeff's writing. I have to disagree with him this time. Perhaps the problem is that maybe Jeff hasn't been on safari. Perhaps he hasn't seen enough men change like lions set free once they don't have to work a 9-5 that they hate. Paul says that he's seen similar changes in a number of founder's they've funded over the past couple of years. As someone who feels rather caged in their day job, I hope I get to see those same changes in myself this fall as I start my first business.
- jeroen 19y ago
david927 19y ago
I think all of this is too simplistic. Follow your passion, and take bigger risks while you can (because when you're older it gets harder), is great advice. But Paul needs to understand that his passion is not everyone else's. I know many people who found a start-up for the wrong reasons. There's a get-rich-quick-scheme premise in a lot of Web 2.0 start-ups that I find sad. To look down on employees is to not understand that their passion may lie elsewhere, or that they're waiting for the right moment. I've had three start-ups and was an employee several times as well. None of it defines me.
edw519 19y ago
<EssayFormula> Observe Something (mostly objective) Generalize (subjective leap) Expand (more subjective) Conclude & Recommend (very subjective) Let It Go (expose bullseye) </EssayFormula> Observe corporate programmers --> zoo animals = small leap Writing about what you know ---> "Participatory Narcissism" = large leap Funny, Jeff Atwood does EXACTLY what he accuses pg of doing, albeit with less style. pg is at a unique intersection to observe that which most never see. We don't have to agree with the leap - that's what makes this a forum instead of a circle jerk. I, for one, look forward to pg writing about what he knows. If only others did it as well.
ojbyrne 19y ago
While I realize that YCombinator is trying to change this, here's my startup experience. 1. Inspired by PG's rhetoric, go into partnership with semi-famous TV talk show host to build site. 2. Work ass off for 9 months. Site grows like gangbusters, VCs banging on the doors. 3. VCs/Partner bring in new CEO. Partner/CEO fill every position above entry level with new hires. 4. My job is now 9-5, cubicle, no chance of advancement. 5. CEO and partner now described as "founders" in the press. So I mostly followed PG's advice, only to end up in the exact same mind-numbing job he's saying to avoid.
- andreyf 19y ago
  When you went "into partnership with semi-famous TV talk show host", how much equity did you get?
  - ojbyrne 19y ago
    I got some equity. Some day it might actually be worth something. I was participating in a conversation about how being a founder is better than being an employee, and pointing out that they often end up exactly the same (except for the equity). I edited the post a little, remembering that I do still have friends there.
    - obelix 19y ago
      Isn't equity a big deal? I was employee #2 in a just funded startup. I ended up busting my ass the whole time only to realize that my equity was a fraction of what the founders took in. IMHO, if you do a startup, do it as a founder, or join after Series B, from a pure risk-rewards perspective.
      - ojbyrne 19y ago
        I didn't mean to inject my bitch-fest into this thread, my point is that the idea that being a founder is going to lead to a job where you have control and independence, can run into a big road block as soon as you take VC money. It's important to get stuff clear with your co-founders before you sign anything.
revorad 19y ago
Brad Bollenbach once wrote: "Complaining and inactionable criticism is the highest form of mental masturbation." http://30sleeps.com/blog/?s=criticism&x=0&y=0&paged=4 http://30sleeps.com/blog/?s=criticism&x=0&y=0&pa... Does anyone other than pg even attempt to write essays?
wumi 19y ago
so Jeff went through YC? what was his startup?
Xichekolas 19y ago
It seems like everyone is focusing on this 'caged lion' thing just like they focused on the lack of unicode support in Arc at first. You have a decently sized essay and the entire internet goes berserk over one line. Did Jeff actually read the whole thing or did he get to the lion part, have some overly-emotional gut reaction, and turn on the flame machine? Talk about blowing something out of proportion. I guess you can consider the article a huge success by the criteria of 'the more people that you piss off, the closer you are to truth' ... http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
pg 19y ago
This, judging from the fact that it's in bold, appears to be his main gripe: "The problem with this particular essay is the way Mr. Graham implies the only path to true happiness as a young programmer lies in founding a startup." whereas the essay actually contains the sentence: "Working for yourself doesn't have to mean starting a startup, of course. I mean, how much clearer can I be? As for this point about "participatory narcissism," you can make the same attack on practically every nonfiction writer. Every (good) essayist writes from experience. Most people who have the freedom to work on what they want, work on things they admire. Every book on robotics or carpentry or surfing has woven through it the sinister subtext that robotics or carpentry or surfing is an admirable activity. But to accuse the writer of "participatory narcissism" is to confuse cause and effect: the writer of the robotics book isn't claiming robotics is admirable to make himself look good; it was because he thought it was admirable that he chose to work on it. A claim you could make with equal justification about any essayist isn't much of a claim. But people will still believe it means something if they disagree with him.
- jotto 19y ago
  3 people who have had disrupted the normal thinking track: DHH, PH, and AS, and many people hate them for it - defending their hatred or anger by accusing these people of arrogance or narcissism. think about it.
  - raganwald 19y ago
    David. Got it. Paul. Got it. AS???
    - ronin 19y ago
      arnold schwarzenegger
    - jotto 19y ago
      aaron swartz
- tptacek 19y ago
aflag 19y ago
I think the essay is much more about telling people they should seek freedom than anything else. Of course, the path Graham knows is through opening a startup, so that's what he advises you to do. It doesn't mean there aren't other means to be free, but working for big companies doesn't look like one. Is the author of coding horror saying it is? I don't even think so, actually. Jeff Atwood is just ranting on Graham, but he's not telling much about Graham's article. He just picks on things that can be seen as polemic or too extreme and trolls away. When you read someone's opinion you have to realise that he's talking about their experience. If Graham had said the only path to true happiness is through a startup -- and he didn't say it like that -- you must acknowledge that he's just saying it's the only path he knows. It's just an opinion, it's not absolut truth. People mix those sometimes. If Jeff wanted to be more helpful he could have told us what paths one has to follow in order to be free. Does he think working for a big company sets you free? Why is he just ranting instead of giving his say on all this?
allenbrunson 19y ago
i don't agree with the coding horror writer, but i think a lot of people would agree that pg's essays tend to be polarizing. paul's essays sometimes follow a formula. explain three or four alternatives, present arguments for why all but one of them suck. assume the reader will go with the one remaining option. from there, you've got another choice to make. paul presents another three or four options, and explains why all but one of them suck. and so on. a lot of times, while reading, i think: hey, he's just eliminated the option i would have taken for reasons that don't apply to me so much. now, that doesn't mean paul is wrong. but from over here, it seems like he IS somewhat adamant about choosing the One True Way through the sea of the problem he's talking about. whereas other writers might emphasize things like "you could go this way if you want this type of result," or "you could go that way if you've got this type of constraint," etc etc. paul does that sometimes, but his consideration of those constraints almost always leads to dead ends. for example: so you've got a wife and kids to support, therefore you need a steady income. okay then, startups are probably not for you, and you fall off the edge of paul's decision tree. that's got to be maddening for people who buy into paul's philosophy about 80 or 90 percent, except for a few details here and there. it seems to me like a mistake many readers tend to make. paul's not wrong, he's just describing a path that does not fit their situation exactly.
startingup 19y ago
OK, I agree with 70% of pg's essay, but here is something that worried me. Most YC start-ups want to sell to large companies (they pay better!). Is pg saying that they go from being free men/women to caged animals? Or is he telling them "take your money and run?" If so, wouldn't a large company knowing pg's advice assume that people will leave quickly, so put a lesser valuation on a deal? After all, companies like Google acquire companies like Zenter for the talent as much as for the product. If the attitude is "take your money and run", wouldn't that necessarily lower the value of every YC company in the eyes of the large acquirer? To an extent, there was always an element of start-up founders taking the money and walking, but by making things so explicit ahead of time, isn't pg unwittingly devaluing the very companies he has nurtured? Second, what should an employee number 18 in a Loopt or a Scribd think? Should they start thinking "I am not a founder, so I am missing something". Apply this recursively ... is pg in effecting talking away the very talent that his companies need to grow?
electric 19y ago
So what happened to the Reddits and the Zenters? Lions roaming free and now caged lions as well. Okay maybe a little richer than other caged lions ;).
Prrometheus 19y ago
There is no One Right Way. Grow up. Paul Graham is helping people by expounding on his way. Why don't you expound upon yours?
Gavin 19y ago
The funny thing about all this is that the main criticism of PG's argument is that it is condescending and belittles the huge mass of programmers working for big companies. As with much criticism, it never quite attempts to prove him wrong. Proving that he's offensive is a very different thing.
danbmil99 18y ago
"I don't know Paul Graham, but I know he doesn't talk the way he writes. For one thing, one can point to examples (like the interview in Founders At Work). For another, nobody talks like that." heh lol

121 points by sharksandwich 19y ago

Paul Graham's essays have this weird Rorschach quality whereby people see wildly different things in them. Some readers even get infuriated and seek relief in the judgment that Paul Graham is an arrogant asshole. But I don't buy that. (For one thing, if he were, then this site would be more of a personality cult than it is, and many of us would be long gone.) So I'm curious as to why his essays have this effect on people. It is the essays, by the way. You don't hear people saying, "He sold Viaweb to Yahoo? What an asshole!" or "He started a new kind of investment fund, the arrogant prick!" I've got a little theory. It seems to me that the provocative thing about the essays is their aesthetic. They're governed by a particular style. One principle in it is minimalism: compress the writing until everything extraneous is gone. Another is vividness: whatever is being said, seek the phrase or image that throws the point into the sharpest possible relief. The dominant quality of the essays is that they pursue this aesthetic ruthlessly. Anything that would use a few extra words to reassure the reader is thrown out. Anything that would tone down an idea a little bit to make it more palatable is thrown out. There isn't any room for these things because the author is optimizing for something else - say, meaning per word count. In fact, an entire dimension of language, the phatic dimension, is thrown out. So, Paul Graham's writing is radically aphatic. That's disorienting. People are used to writing that includes, among its threads, one whose purpose is to reassure you that the author is a nice guy, that he might be wrong, you can still get along even if you disagree, and so on. This is not only absent from the essays, it's been deliberately excised. On top of that, what is there has been distilled for maximum impact and often touches subjects that people have strong emotions about, such as programming languages and what we're doing with our lives :). Not surprisingly, some readers feel punched in the gut. For them, an obvious explanation is ready at hand: Paul Graham's writing is like this because he is like this. He must be someone who doesn't care how others feel and wants only to magnify his own grandiose ideas. In short, an arrogant asshole. I think this explains why people project so much emotion into what they read in those essays. "Oh... you haven't founded a company? You suck." But the essays never say anything like that. People don't read them this way because they say such things. They read them this way because they lack the kinds of things writers are expected to put in to stave off provocation. They lack these things not because the author is an asshole but because he cares about a certain style of writing. Enough, in fact, to pursue it ruthlessly... in his writing. To naively map that back to the personality of the writer is an obvious error, a kind of reverse ad hominem. But it's an understandable error. There aren't many people who care that much about an aesthetic. (I mean "aesthetic" in a broad sense, by the way. As much a way of thinking as a cosmetic thing.) No doubt there is a connection between an author's personality and his style, but it's hardly an isomorphism. I don't know Paul Graham, but I know he doesn't talk the way he writes. For one thing, one can point to examples (like the interview in Founders At Work). For another, nobody talks like that.

pg 19y ago
Wow; I think this is exactly right. I'm always surprised by how offended people get by things I write. It seems totally unpredictable. I didn't expect people to be so offended by this one. In fact, I thought I was saying something rather smarmily ingratiating, if anything: that the famous startup founders you keep reading about in the press are not that different from you, but that they just have, in effect, a healthier work environment. See the last paragraph. And yet somehow that message has gotten completely twisted around. It's as if people wanted to misunderstand this essay. I've been mulling over why this happens, and one reason is certainly the one you suggest. I try to cut every unnecessary word, and I don't say things unless I'm pretty sure of them. The result sounds arrogant, because it doesn't have any of the hedging people usually surround ideas with to make them palatable. But there's no alternative. People won't read essays if they're too long. If you want to get a lot of ideas into an essay short enough to read, you have to be so curt you sound arrogant.
- mightybyte 19y ago
  I had the same thought when I read gruseom's post. His zooming in on your writing style is right on the money. (By the way, I could have begun that last sentence with "I think", but I thought better of it.) This is one thing I struggle with myself. I find that I tend to want to write things that cannot be disputed, but to do so I usually have to include all the phatic cruft that you take out. I'll have to work on that. On another note, I also get the impression that you write to a certain type of person. Possibly a type that is similar to you. People like Jeff who take issue with your essays are simply not the target audience (whatever that means). As someone who is currently caged in a 9-5 job with a big company, I have to say that your essay resonated deeply with me...and I loved it. I appreciate the way your essays frequently force me to take a good hard look at what I'm doing, where I want to go, and what I need to do to get there.
  - tigerthink 19y ago
    >I find that I tend to want to write things that cannot be disputed, but to do so I usually have to include all the phatic cruft that you take out. I'll have to work on that. Keep in mind that different situations demand different writing styles. For instance, if you are trying to resolve a bitter conflict, "writing things that cannot be disputed" is just the way to go. In that situation, your #1 objective would be to find things that both parties agree on, and build up from that. (This also might be a good way to win an argument.)

hbien 19y ago

WTF? I understood this post about Joel: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000679.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000679.html And this one about DHH: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001065.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001065.html Now it's PG. I need to start writing blog posts attacking people so I can get some more ad revenue.

johns 19y ago

Jeff Atwood blogging about another writer's narcissism is the epitome of irony.

murrayh 19y ago
It is pretty easy to level the "Participatory Narcissism" attack at most people with extensive, opinionated writing. Quite often I will look at comments I have made and reflect at how skillful I had been (before being methodically torn to shreds by smart people), so I hope narcissism is a common phenomenon. And I also hope (for my own sake) that for most people the matter at hand is trying to suppress self-gratuity in their writing, rather than not having it in the first place.
whacked_new 19y ago
Expressing one's opinion is, to a degree, a narcissistic act. IMO it's more ironic when critics cannot be critical of themselves (not saying it is the case here).

jbyers 19y ago

"Participatory Narcissism" Never have so many syllables been used to incite so many about so little.

noonespecial 19y ago
Comment++ for most original re-quote of Churchill I've seen yet.

tel 19y ago

I have to agree with Atwood, sort of. I actually see it as a wider condition. You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss has a very specific "you" in mind: the kind of people who are aching to become founders (well, obviously). That's in no way a bad thing, but it is worth noting that earlier essays by pg had a wider audience. It's not narcissism, it's focus. It's a symptom of "nearly all the programmers I know are startup founders".

bumbledraven 19y ago
I don't think so. This comment by Peter on the original article summed it up well: "What gets PG's goat, it seems, is that relatively privileged, smart, hard-working kids should want to participate in this awful existence known as 'the 9 to 5', rather than strike out on their own and attempt to do something great -- possibly something even world-changing. And watching these clones root around some cookie-cutter downtown Palo Alto cafe performing some absurd exercise is more than he can stand. These kids could _be_ something -- they could _do_ something, but instead, some nutjob decided it'd be cool to send them on some wacky easter egg hunt. They could be busy trying to save the world, but instead, they're busying conditioning their brains to be subservient to the dictatorship that is modern corporations."
- Alex3917 19y ago
  Phrased that way, the scenario is reminiscent of Plato's cave allegory.
- tel 19y ago
  Hah, that's a great quote. I think we're both looking at it the same way. PG is in a fantastic position where he gets to spend most of his time around some of the smartest, most driven, and most interesting people all the time. He loves it, and with good reason. His essays are targeted toward those people who could become the kind of person he respects, and they have not a little bit of force behind them because he believes in what he says a whole lot.
Xichekolas 19y ago
As a 9-to-5-er that feels caged, I can attest that I read the 'you' as me (and people like me). It seems like everyone that dislikes working the day job just loved his article, and everyone that likes their day job loves Jeff Atwood's... does it really matter?

cperciva 19y ago

Jeff Atwood could certainly have made his case in a better way, but I think he has a point here. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons for working at a large company; family responsibilities (yes, there are mid-twenties and early-thirties programmers with a spouse and children), a chronic medical condition (if I were living in the US, my medical bills would be upwards of $20k/year, and I know I'm not alone), or being dedicated to a non-economically-profitable pursuit (if you want to spend 2 months a year volunteering in sub-Saharan Africa, many employers will let you have the time off -- a startup won't) are a few possibilities. Comparing people who decide to work for a large company to caged animals, and suggesting that they are "ten times [less] alive" is condescending, and ignores the fact that they might seem far more lively when they are with their families or pursuing whatever activities they enjoy -- or that if they worked for a startup, they might not be able to afford the medicine which keeps them alive. I consider myself fortunate that I can do something I enjoy and have a reasonable chance of making money doing it; but not everybody is so lucky, and we should not insult such unfortunates by suggesting that they made poor choices or are somehow behaving unnaturally.

staunch 19y ago
I don't think you're arguing here that they're not caged animals, just that they've elected to work in a cage for some good reason.
- cperciva 19y ago
  That's one way of looking at it, yes -- except that the comparison to caged animals has misleading connotations. A lion doesn't weigh its options and choose to live in a cage; so to compare someone to a caged lion carries with it the suggestion that they lack agency.
  - Darmani 19y ago
    All metaphors break when pushed hard enough, or when pushed gently in the wrong direction.
  - mechanical_fish 19y ago

andreyf 19y ago

The essay does take advantage over the common "naturalistic fallacy", where people imply something as being "good" from its being "natural". As a simple counterexample, many diseases are "natural" and many antibiotics, not. However, I think it's only fair that Paul's motivation for some of his essays is, at least in part, PR work for YC, and hence the fibs (that being the harshest word I'd use) are understandable.

asdflkj 19y ago
This is not a "naturalistic fallacy" (more properly called an appeal to nature), because PG uses "natural" in the very narrow sense of "evolutionarily optimal". PG must have thought his target audience is discerning enough to dereference such things without any hand-holding.
- andreyf 19y ago
  Hm, "appeal to nature" does seem to fit the bill better, as "naturalistic fallacy" means something slightly different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy It seems funny that I trust wikipedia+random guy on the internet over my economics professors.
icky 19y ago
> The essay does take advantage over the common "naturalistic fallacy", where people imply something as being "good" from its being "natural". The essay avoids that fallacy by making the case that humans, having evolved under certain social conditions, might be much better equipped at present to cope with similar conditions. This itself may be true or false, but it is not fallacious reasoning.

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

staunch 19y ago

A lot of the comments I've read about this essay remind me of the comments on the idea that being in the silicon valley is an advantage for startups. 98% of the negative comments are from people who are responding defensively out of pure emotion. > I work with young startup founders in their twenties. They're geniuses, and play by their own rules. Oh... you haven't founded a company? You suck. The guy that wrote this is saying more about himself than the essay.

lst 19y ago

I never read his essays, but if anyone here is able to arc-ify them (say max. 1-3 sentences each), maybe I would start reading (the arc versions).

rms 19y ago
You weren't missing anything by skipping this one. Iamelgringo's post in this thread is much more insightful.
- edw519 19y ago
  It usually is.

davidw 19y ago

I don't really agree with Mr. Horror, but sometimes I do wonder what PG does to, shall we say, "stay challenged". Surrounding yourself with younger, less experienced people (albeit very smart ones) who owe you is not an environment I would think of as one likely to create a lot of pushback. Maybe it shouldn't, either, as that's not what YC is for, but you do need that kind of thing from somewhere in your life if you wish to continue your intellectual growth.

gordianknot 19y ago
Arc, obviously. Inventing a programming language is like founding a religion. As history bears witness, that's one hell of a challenge.
pg 19y ago
Surrounding yourself with younger, less experienced people (albeit very smart ones) who owe you is not an environment I would think of as one likely to create a lot of pushback. Oh yeah? It does when they're the type of people who want to start startups. The main thing we look for in founders is spirit and determination. We have to, because that's what makes startups succeed. And dealing with the group of people this produces is not like being a professor, believe me.
- davidw 19y ago
  Well, all I can go by is what I see in the relationship from outside, and occasional comments and fragments of things, like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41257 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41257 which perhaps paint an incorrect picture. Point being, though, is that the group you're dealing with sounds like a great deal of fun, and doubtless provides a lot of intellectual stimulation - no question about that. What they probably don't have, though, is a very dissimilar view of certain things to your own - you hand pick them after all (and vice versa). Also, in the end, to be blunt, you're the guy giving them money, and even if you try to get around it, that conditions relationships between people. It's sort of like this site - most of us found it and got into it because we like your writing and attitude, so it's not likely to be a source of wildly different opinions either. That's not entirely a bad thing - keeping points of contention to a minimum is probably a good way of keeping the community from imploding. Anyway, this isn't meant to be a critique of YC in any way, just my hope that you find ways to look at the world from a completely different point of view from time to time. Thinking about my own sources of information, it's probably something that everyone needs to try and do more often.

iamelgringo 19y ago

I've worked in Silicon Valley as an ER nurse for the past 2 years, and I've seen a lot of Software Engineers come and go through my department. And, I'll have to say, at the nurses station, when the patients aren't around, there is a stereotype that we have about Software Engineers, and often snicker at. If a man in his 20's and 30's comes in to triage looking haunted and complaining of chest pain, problems sleeping, or weird psycho-somatic complaints, one of the first questions we ask is, "Are you a software engineer?" The answer is invariably, "Yes." And, around the nurses station, we all share a chuckle and a "tsk, tsk" at this poor, overworked, overstressed man. There is a stereotype, and like all generalizations, it has it's exceptions. But, it's enough of a stereotype that the nurses I work with have been very concerned about my going back to school for Computer Science. Most of the nurses that haven worked in the Valley for years thought that being a software engineer was a crap job compared to being an ER nurse. And, that's saying something since a substantial portion of our job involves actual crap. It's wasn't until I explained that I want to start a company that my coworkers became a bit more supportive of the idea. I even had doctors talk to me in concerned tones about the unhealthy levels of stress that engineers work with in the Valley, to try and talk me out of my second career. In the ER, we see the same haunted, caged look that Paul refers to in this article. I think that what PG was referring to was the idea of a powerful animal who's behavior and demeanor changes markedly in different environments. I don't really think that he was trying to put people down who work at a 9-5 for whatever reason. Paul didn't refer to the 9 to 5'ers as caged monkeys, or caged rats, he called them caged lions for a reason. I don't think that it just applies to Software engineers, either. I saw the same change in my father when he left his job at 60 to pursue managing his investments 10 years ago. There was a very marked change in the man. A great metaphor for that would be describing as the difference as that of a caged lion vs lion roaming free on the savanna. I normally like Jeff's writing. I have to disagree with him this time. Perhaps the problem is that maybe Jeff hasn't been on safari. Perhaps he hasn't seen enough men change like lions set free once they don't have to work a 9-5 that they hate. Paul says that he's seen similar changes in a number of founder's they've funded over the past couple of years. As someone who feels rather caged in their day job, I hope I get to see those same changes in myself this fall as I start my first business.

jeroen 19y ago

david927 19y ago

I think all of this is too simplistic. Follow your passion, and take bigger risks while you can (because when you're older it gets harder), is great advice. But Paul needs to understand that his passion is not everyone else's. I know many people who found a start-up for the wrong reasons. There's a get-rich-quick-scheme premise in a lot of Web 2.0 start-ups that I find sad. To look down on employees is to not understand that their passion may lie elsewhere, or that they're waiting for the right moment. I've had three start-ups and was an employee several times as well. None of it defines me.

edw519 19y ago

<EssayFormula> Observe Something (mostly objective) Generalize (subjective leap) Expand (more subjective) Conclude & Recommend (very subjective) Let It Go (expose bullseye) </EssayFormula> Observe corporate programmers --> zoo animals = small leap Writing about what you know ---> "Participatory Narcissism" = large leap Funny, Jeff Atwood does EXACTLY what he accuses pg of doing, albeit with less style. pg is at a unique intersection to observe that which most never see. We don't have to agree with the leap - that's what makes this a forum instead of a circle jerk. I, for one, look forward to pg writing about what he knows. If only others did it as well.

ojbyrne 19y ago

While I realize that YCombinator is trying to change this, here's my startup experience. 1. Inspired by PG's rhetoric, go into partnership with semi-famous TV talk show host to build site. 2. Work ass off for 9 months. Site grows like gangbusters, VCs banging on the doors. 3. VCs/Partner bring in new CEO. Partner/CEO fill every position above entry level with new hires. 4. My job is now 9-5, cubicle, no chance of advancement. 5. CEO and partner now described as "founders" in the press. So I mostly followed PG's advice, only to end up in the exact same mind-numbing job he's saying to avoid.

andreyf 19y ago
When you went "into partnership with semi-famous TV talk show host", how much equity did you get?
- ojbyrne 19y ago
  I got some equity. Some day it might actually be worth something. I was participating in a conversation about how being a founder is better than being an employee, and pointing out that they often end up exactly the same (except for the equity). I edited the post a little, remembering that I do still have friends there.
  - obelix 19y ago
    Isn't equity a big deal? I was employee #2 in a just funded startup. I ended up busting my ass the whole time only to realize that my equity was a fraction of what the founders took in. IMHO, if you do a startup, do it as a founder, or join after Series B, from a pure risk-rewards perspective.
    - ojbyrne 19y ago
      I didn't mean to inject my bitch-fest into this thread, my point is that the idea that being a founder is going to lead to a job where you have control and independence, can run into a big road block as soon as you take VC money. It's important to get stuff clear with your co-founders before you sign anything.

revorad 19y ago

Brad Bollenbach once wrote: "Complaining and inactionable criticism is the highest form of mental masturbation." http://30sleeps.com/blog/?s=criticism&x=0&y=0&paged=4 http://30sleeps.com/blog/?s=criticism&x=0&y=0&pa... Does anyone other than pg even attempt to write essays?

wumi 19y ago

so Jeff went through YC? what was his startup?

Xichekolas 19y ago

It seems like everyone is focusing on this 'caged lion' thing just like they focused on the lack of unicode support in Arc at first. You have a decently sized essay and the entire internet goes berserk over one line. Did Jeff actually read the whole thing or did he get to the lion part, have some overly-emotional gut reaction, and turn on the flame machine? Talk about blowing something out of proportion. I guess you can consider the article a huge success by the criteria of 'the more people that you piss off, the closer you are to truth' ... http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

pg 19y ago

This, judging from the fact that it's in bold, appears to be his main gripe: "The problem with this particular essay is the way Mr. Graham implies the only path to true happiness as a young programmer lies in founding a startup." whereas the essay actually contains the sentence: "Working for yourself doesn't have to mean starting a startup, of course. I mean, how much clearer can I be? As for this point about "participatory narcissism," you can make the same attack on practically every nonfiction writer. Every (good) essayist writes from experience. Most people who have the freedom to work on what they want, work on things they admire. Every book on robotics or carpentry or surfing has woven through it the sinister subtext that robotics or carpentry or surfing is an admirable activity. But to accuse the writer of "participatory narcissism" is to confuse cause and effect: the writer of the robotics book isn't claiming robotics is admirable to make himself look good; it was because he thought it was admirable that he chose to work on it. A claim you could make with equal justification about any essayist isn't much of a claim. But people will still believe it means something if they disagree with him.

jotto 19y ago
3 people who have had disrupted the normal thinking track: DHH, PH, and AS, and many people hate them for it - defending their hatred or anger by accusing these people of arrogance or narcissism. think about it.
- raganwald 19y ago
  David. Got it. Paul. Got it. AS???
  - ronin 19y ago
    arnold schwarzenegger
  - jotto 19y ago
    aaron swartz
tptacek 19y ago

aflag 19y ago

I think the essay is much more about telling people they should seek freedom than anything else. Of course, the path Graham knows is through opening a startup, so that's what he advises you to do. It doesn't mean there aren't other means to be free, but working for big companies doesn't look like one. Is the author of coding horror saying it is? I don't even think so, actually. Jeff Atwood is just ranting on Graham, but he's not telling much about Graham's article. He just picks on things that can be seen as polemic or too extreme and trolls away. When you read someone's opinion you have to realise that he's talking about their experience. If Graham had said the only path to true happiness is through a startup -- and he didn't say it like that -- you must acknowledge that he's just saying it's the only path he knows. It's just an opinion, it's not absolut truth. People mix those sometimes. If Jeff wanted to be more helpful he could have told us what paths one has to follow in order to be free. Does he think working for a big company sets you free? Why is he just ranting instead of giving his say on all this?

allenbrunson 19y ago

i don't agree with the coding horror writer, but i think a lot of people would agree that pg's essays tend to be polarizing. paul's essays sometimes follow a formula. explain three or four alternatives, present arguments for why all but one of them suck. assume the reader will go with the one remaining option. from there, you've got another choice to make. paul presents another three or four options, and explains why all but one of them suck. and so on. a lot of times, while reading, i think: hey, he's just eliminated the option i would have taken for reasons that don't apply to me so much. now, that doesn't mean paul is wrong. but from over here, it seems like he IS somewhat adamant about choosing the One True Way through the sea of the problem he's talking about. whereas other writers might emphasize things like "you could go this way if you want this type of result," or "you could go that way if you've got this type of constraint," etc etc. paul does that sometimes, but his consideration of those constraints almost always leads to dead ends. for example: so you've got a wife and kids to support, therefore you need a steady income. okay then, startups are probably not for you, and you fall off the edge of paul's decision tree. that's got to be maddening for people who buy into paul's philosophy about 80 or 90 percent, except for a few details here and there. it seems to me like a mistake many readers tend to make. paul's not wrong, he's just describing a path that does not fit their situation exactly.

startingup 19y ago

OK, I agree with 70% of pg's essay, but here is something that worried me. Most YC start-ups want to sell to large companies (they pay better!). Is pg saying that they go from being free men/women to caged animals? Or is he telling them "take your money and run?" If so, wouldn't a large company knowing pg's advice assume that people will leave quickly, so put a lesser valuation on a deal? After all, companies like Google acquire companies like Zenter for the talent as much as for the product. If the attitude is "take your money and run", wouldn't that necessarily lower the value of every YC company in the eyes of the large acquirer? To an extent, there was always an element of start-up founders taking the money and walking, but by making things so explicit ahead of time, isn't pg unwittingly devaluing the very companies he has nurtured? Second, what should an employee number 18 in a Loopt or a Scribd think? Should they start thinking "I am not a founder, so I am missing something". Apply this recursively ... is pg in effecting talking away the very talent that his companies need to grow?

electric 19y ago

So what happened to the Reddits and the Zenters? Lions roaming free and now caged lions as well. Okay maybe a little richer than other caged lions ;).

Prrometheus 19y ago

There is no One Right Way. Grow up. Paul Graham is helping people by expounding on his way. Why don't you expound upon yours?

Gavin 19y ago

The funny thing about all this is that the main criticism of PG's argument is that it is condescending and belittles the huge mass of programmers working for big companies. As with much criticism, it never quite attempts to prove him wrong. Proving that he's offensive is a very different thing.

danbmil99 18y ago

"I don't know Paul Graham, but I know he doesn't talk the way he writes. For one thing, one can point to examples (like the interview in Founders At Work). For another, nobody talks like that." heh lol