4 ms·

Abbreviated Parody of Paul Graham's "Boss"

53 points by dshah 19y ago

dshah 19y ago
Although I fall in the camp of agreeing mostly with the original, this was just too funny to resist posting.
Prrometheus 19y ago
I for one believe this conversation has reached an absurd level.
- Zak 19y ago
  Are you saying the idea that maybe humans shouldn't be monogamous is absurd? This seems more like one of those things you can't say than an inherently absurd idea. How many other primate species are monogamous?
  - Prrometheus 19y ago
    Human societies have had much variety in family structure, from polygamy to promiscuous monogamy. I don't think the suggestion that loosening up on the Judeo-Christian rooted idea of strict monogamy is absurd. However, I am quite tired of discussing Paul's most recent piece. I've already digested the point and I haven't seen much merit in the criticism. Moving on to parody is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but there has to be other ideas to explore. Anyone else on Hacker News young, beautiful, smart, and interested in exploring the possibilities of clan marriage?
- astrec 19y ago
  Obviously intended as a parody, but I think he's inadvertently on to something.
  - greendestiny 19y ago
    Yes he's revealed that we are past the point of flogging a dead horse, indeed people are now interfereing with horse's corpse in unfortunate ways.
  - ArcticCelt 19y ago
    Yes, and the funniest part is that he is probably oblivious to it. Consequently is argument can be turned against himself; if he can't understand fully the concept he try to present has ridiculous, no surprise he can't get an article written by someone else.
pdorrell 19y ago
The analogy that this parody depends on is a very weak one, because PG's point is that the modern job in the modern company did not exist when we were hunter-gatherers, i.e. any time prior to the invention of modern agriculture. Marriage, on the other hand, is the result of an intrinsic human tendency to form long-term relationships and raise children within those relationships. This tendency has probably existed for longer than the "modern" human species (the major evidence for this, as I remember, is the similarity between male and female size, and the fact that human monogamy is determined by the combination of helplessness and large size of the new-born infant, so that the mother requires major help from the father in order to raise her child successfully). Modern civilisation has not done anything to prevent men and women getting together the way they always have, and it has had limited success in providing "artificial" alternatives.
- ambition 19y ago
  I would argue the opposite: that lifelong monogamous marriage is unnatural. Witness divorce rates in Western society. (Many other cultures that are overtly polygynous.) Humans, by nature, are slightly biased toward polygyny. Let's assume PG's argument is that employees are unhappy because they are going against the grain of human group-dynamic nature. By analogy, nearly a majority of married couples are unhappy because they are going against the grain of human polygynous nature.
  - pg 19y ago
    I did a lot of reading about hunter-gatherers last year while researching another topic, and I was surprised how universal monogamous marriage is. It's so prevalent I suspect it's in our DNA. It seems to be bad when it's indeterminate who is the father of a child.
    - inerte 19y ago
      It increases our chances of survival, so I guess we can blame on the DNA :) Or it increased, I don't know. By having a family, you took care and was protected by people with similar background and interests. Dumping your wife in the past meant none would take care of your children, who were either laboring to increase home sweet home aggregated value or were your legacy, who would took your inheritance. It gave meaning to work today, because someone would use it after you're gone. And people do some pretty hardcore stuff for love. War, even. I guess you need to justify that kind of behaviour later in your life. What good would be to sacrifice so much and forget about it next week? Nowadays more people have their basic needs covered, and the concept of personal freedom is much more present. So you don't need a family to have a shelter or food on the table, and it's ok to do what's best for you, not for someone or something else.
angstrom 19y ago
I fall into the camp "To each his own". Some people get their kicks at startups, some don't. If anything I would say there are corporate prides and solitary tiger entrepreneurs. And those that can do both without whining are ligers...bred for their skills in magic.
fab13n 19y ago
The "elite" (politicians, rock / sports / business stars...) are indeed known for either fucking their secretaries / fans / interns / homosexual toilet mates, or divorcing every couple of years, depending on their professional constraints. OTOH, people who don't want to dedicate all of their resources to their libido tend to settle for a safer and simpler monogamy. This is more of an additional argument to PG's thesis than a parody, actually.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  They are 'known' for it in the sense that if they do it, we will all 'know' about it. I'm sure that within a block of my home there are more people who've cheated that way than you could find in a week's worth of TMZ and The Drudge Report.
microcentury 19y ago
I can't find the original source now, but the best summary/parody of the original article I read was roughly: "I'm wonderful because I founded a company and made a lot of money. Oh, you haven't founded a company? You suck."

53 points by dshah 19y ago

dshah 19y ago

Although I fall in the camp of agreeing mostly with the original, this was just too funny to resist posting.

Prrometheus 19y ago

I for one believe this conversation has reached an absurd level.

Zak 19y ago
Are you saying the idea that maybe humans shouldn't be monogamous is absurd? This seems more like one of those things you can't say than an inherently absurd idea. How many other primate species are monogamous?
- Prrometheus 19y ago
  Human societies have had much variety in family structure, from polygamy to promiscuous monogamy. I don't think the suggestion that loosening up on the Judeo-Christian rooted idea of strict monogamy is absurd. However, I am quite tired of discussing Paul's most recent piece. I've already digested the point and I haven't seen much merit in the criticism. Moving on to parody is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but there has to be other ideas to explore. Anyone else on Hacker News young, beautiful, smart, and interested in exploring the possibilities of clan marriage?
astrec 19y ago
Obviously intended as a parody, but I think he's inadvertently on to something.
- greendestiny 19y ago
  Yes he's revealed that we are past the point of flogging a dead horse, indeed people are now interfereing with horse's corpse in unfortunate ways.
- ArcticCelt 19y ago
  Yes, and the funniest part is that he is probably oblivious to it. Consequently is argument can be turned against himself; if he can't understand fully the concept he try to present has ridiculous, no surprise he can't get an article written by someone else.

pdorrell 19y ago

The analogy that this parody depends on is a very weak one, because PG's point is that the modern job in the modern company did not exist when we were hunter-gatherers, i.e. any time prior to the invention of modern agriculture. Marriage, on the other hand, is the result of an intrinsic human tendency to form long-term relationships and raise children within those relationships. This tendency has probably existed for longer than the "modern" human species (the major evidence for this, as I remember, is the similarity between male and female size, and the fact that human monogamy is determined by the combination of helplessness and large size of the new-born infant, so that the mother requires major help from the father in order to raise her child successfully). Modern civilisation has not done anything to prevent men and women getting together the way they always have, and it has had limited success in providing "artificial" alternatives.

ambition 19y ago
I would argue the opposite: that lifelong monogamous marriage is unnatural. Witness divorce rates in Western society. (Many other cultures that are overtly polygynous.) Humans, by nature, are slightly biased toward polygyny. Let's assume PG's argument is that employees are unhappy because they are going against the grain of human group-dynamic nature. By analogy, nearly a majority of married couples are unhappy because they are going against the grain of human polygynous nature.
- pg 19y ago
  I did a lot of reading about hunter-gatherers last year while researching another topic, and I was surprised how universal monogamous marriage is. It's so prevalent I suspect it's in our DNA. It seems to be bad when it's indeterminate who is the father of a child.
  - inerte 19y ago
    It increases our chances of survival, so I guess we can blame on the DNA :) Or it increased, I don't know. By having a family, you took care and was protected by people with similar background and interests. Dumping your wife in the past meant none would take care of your children, who were either laboring to increase home sweet home aggregated value or were your legacy, who would took your inheritance. It gave meaning to work today, because someone would use it after you're gone. And people do some pretty hardcore stuff for love. War, even. I guess you need to justify that kind of behaviour later in your life. What good would be to sacrifice so much and forget about it next week? Nowadays more people have their basic needs covered, and the concept of personal freedom is much more present. So you don't need a family to have a shelter or food on the table, and it's ok to do what's best for you, not for someone or something else.

angstrom 19y ago

I fall into the camp "To each his own". Some people get their kicks at startups, some don't. If anything I would say there are corporate prides and solitary tiger entrepreneurs. And those that can do both without whining are ligers...bred for their skills in magic.

fab13n 19y ago

The "elite" (politicians, rock / sports / business stars...) are indeed known for either fucking their secretaries / fans / interns / homosexual toilet mates, or divorcing every couple of years, depending on their professional constraints. OTOH, people who don't want to dedicate all of their resources to their libido tend to settle for a safer and simpler monogamy. This is more of an additional argument to PG's thesis than a parody, actually.

byrneseyeview 19y ago
They are 'known' for it in the sense that if they do it, we will all 'know' about it. I'm sure that within a block of my home there are more people who've cheated that way than you could find in a week's worth of TMZ and The Drudge Report.

microcentury 19y ago

I can't find the original source now, but the best summary/parody of the original article I read was roughly: "I'm wonderful because I founded a company and made a lot of money. Oh, you haven't founded a company? You suck."