4 ms·

This is wrong, but being a civil argument, at least there are concrete things to refute. One problem with direct observation is that it's hard to get a represe

by asdflkj 19y ago

This is wrong, but being a civil argument, at least there are concrete things to refute. One problem with direct observation is that it's hard to get a representative sample. It can be done, but you have to make it a deliberate project and put some time and thought into it, rather than just stumbling on a bunch of programmers in a café. False dichotomy. PG's sample is neither a deliberate project, nor the people in the cafe. It's the programmers he has known and observed over his life. There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. a case where an ad hominem argument is relevant and valid. There's never a case where ad hominem is valid. If it's valid, it's not ad hominem, by definition. A logical fallacy can't be valid. But I'm nitpicking here. His point is: The fact that this observation confirms his preexisting belief in the worthiness of startups makes it less credible than if the same observation were made by someone who had no particular interest in startups. Occam's Razor suggests that PG works with startups because he thinks they're better, not that he thinks they're better because he works with them. He is rich enough to work on whatever he wants. A creature that's perpetually dissatisfied, always striving for advantage, wins out over a creature that's happy. Then why does happiness exist? Why hasn't it been eradicated millions of years ago? Answer: because it serves a purpose. It's how evolution tells the organism, "keep doing what you're doing". Not everything that mentions nature is an appeal to nature.

smopburrito 19y ago
>Then why does happiness exist? Why hasn't it been eradicated millions of years ago? Answer: because it serves a purpose. It's how evolution tells the organism, "keep doing what you're doing". like the purpose of leadership/management/social groups it can be taken to a detrimental level. example: addiction. "keep doing what you're doing at all costs, care about nothing else, even if it kills you or otherwise destroys your life." >A creature that's perpetually dissatisfied, always striving for advantage, wins out over a creature that's happy. I, too, thought this statement was conspicuously unsupported by any evidence (which is part of what i thought the author disagreed with). moreover, it is in direct contradiction to the parenthetical that it preceeds (are we to take it that monks "override... unhappiness" in order to lose out?)
aggieben 19y ago
Occam's Razor suggests that PG works with startups because he thinks they're better, not that he thinks they're better because he works with them. He is rich enough to work on whatever he wants. Huh? I think you'd have to know pg pretty darn well before being able to apply Occam's Razor to the logic of his preferences. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think that pg works with startups because he thinks they'd be better because he works with them. It also seems to me that might be a distinction between work and play: you work on the things you work on to make them better, you play with the things you play with because they are better. Lastly, if you think startups are better, and that you can make them better by working with them, then it seems like the perfect combination of work and play (read: passion), and Occam's Razor isn't needed.
- asdflkj 19y ago
  It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think that pg works with startups because he thinks they'd be better because he works with them. You know what else would be better if PG worked with it? Potholes in the street. So why doesn't PG work with potholes, or any of the infinity of other things he could be working with, and making better? The obvious answer: because he thinks startups are neat, as opposed to potholes, or big companies.
  - aggieben 19y ago
    My disagreement was directed at your use of Occam's Razor (which didn't even make sense), not on whether pg thinks startups are neat. Clearly, he does.
hobbs 19y ago
Evolution is not quite as easy as everyone assumes it is. I don't know much about it myself, but I do know enough to know that I can't appeal to it to make arguments about human nature. Evolution, at its core, strives for only one thing: propagation of the species. Taken to this level, it's a wonder that everyone isn't spending their time either at drunken orgies, or fighting each other to get into the drunken orgies. Somehow, "civilization", "culture", and "society" have guided human development away from that model - and I don't presume to know how it happened. Taken to the extreme, why have we even developed arms, legs, eyes, ears, and minds? Simple bacterial reproduction does just fine. In fact, there is so much bacteria in our gut and sinuses that 90% of the DNA molecules in our bodies are foreign. One begins to wonder, then, whose purpose our human bodies really serve.
- asdflkj 19y ago
  Evolution, at its core, strives for only one thing: propagation of the species. No, actually. The one thing it strives for is propagation of the genes, not the species. Read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. It will make things clearer.
  - hobbs 19y ago
    Sorry. I over-simplified. (or under-simplified?) I have read it and its basic idea was, in fact, the basis of my statement.
    - logjam 19y ago
      > Somehow, "civilization", "culture", and "society" have guided human development away from that model. Nonsense. If that's your "statement", it's wrong. The entire field of sociobiology (read Wilson) speaks to phenomenon like "civilization", "culture", and "society" being driven solely by nucleotide replication.
      - hobbs 19y ago
        > ... - and I don't presume to know how it happened. Like I said, I only know enough to know that I can't comfortably refer to evolution to explain human nature. My point is that I doubt that most people who do reference evolution are familiar with the likes of sociobiology either.
sofal 19y ago
>There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably representative? >There's never a case where ad hominem is valid. Are you saying that biases and potential biases of people have absolutely no relevance in any "valid" discussion, even in response to subjective observations about why people act the way they do? >Occam's Razor suggests that PG works with startups because he thinks they're better, not that he thinks they're better because he works with them. He is rich enough to work on whatever he wants. Are you suggesting that this makes PG completely free from bias? >It's how evolution tells the organism, "keep doing what you're doing". So happiness is just a reward we get from pursuing those things that will result in the propagation of our genes? >Not everything that mentions nature is an appeal to nature. Sure, but that's irrelevant. Gabe says PG's essay is an appeal to nature and backs it up. If you disagree, then please do the same.
- logjam 19y ago
  > Are you saying that biases and potential biases of people have absolutely no relevance in any "valid" discussion, even in response to subjective observations about why people act the way they do? They have absolutely NO relevance to the argument. Ad hominem is an error in logic. Bias has nothing to do with the argument. It is the argument we refute, not the person. Unfortunately, you It is utterly amazing to me people still argue about these errors in logic. One can only assume it is defensiveness. You might want to look up "straw man" as well. It's another logical fallacy, and you're using it.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  ">There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably representative?" there's no reason to doubt != it is unquestionable that
- asdflkj 19y ago
  The answer to all of your questions is "No, but that's irrelevant". If you had made your points in the form of statements and not questions, you'd see that they don't actually contradict what I said. As one poster has pointed out, there's no reason to doubt != it is unquestionable that. Likewise, ad hominem can never be valid != biases are never relevant; these accusations of bias are unfounded != PG is completely free from bias; happiness serves an evolutionary purpose != happiness is just a reward (whatever that means). As for the last one, I did back it up. I refuted a central premise of the author, that happiness is evolutionarily useless.

by asdflkj 19y ago

smopburrito 19y ago

>Then why does happiness exist? Why hasn't it been eradicated millions of years ago? Answer: because it serves a purpose. It's how evolution tells the organism, "keep doing what you're doing". like the purpose of leadership/management/social groups it can be taken to a detrimental level. example: addiction. "keep doing what you're doing at all costs, care about nothing else, even if it kills you or otherwise destroys your life." >A creature that's perpetually dissatisfied, always striving for advantage, wins out over a creature that's happy. I, too, thought this statement was conspicuously unsupported by any evidence (which is part of what i thought the author disagreed with). moreover, it is in direct contradiction to the parenthetical that it preceeds (are we to take it that monks "override... unhappiness" in order to lose out?)

aggieben 19y ago

Occam's Razor suggests that PG works with startups because he thinks they're better, not that he thinks they're better because he works with them. He is rich enough to work on whatever he wants. Huh? I think you'd have to know pg pretty darn well before being able to apply Occam's Razor to the logic of his preferences. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think that pg works with startups because he thinks they'd be better because he works with them. It also seems to me that might be a distinction between work and play: you work on the things you work on to make them better, you play with the things you play with because they are better. Lastly, if you think startups are better, and that you can make them better by working with them, then it seems like the perfect combination of work and play (read: passion), and Occam's Razor isn't needed.

asdflkj 19y ago
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think that pg works with startups because he thinks they'd be better because he works with them. You know what else would be better if PG worked with it? Potholes in the street. So why doesn't PG work with potholes, or any of the infinity of other things he could be working with, and making better? The obvious answer: because he thinks startups are neat, as opposed to potholes, or big companies.
- aggieben 19y ago
  My disagreement was directed at your use of Occam's Razor (which didn't even make sense), not on whether pg thinks startups are neat. Clearly, he does.

hobbs 19y ago

Evolution is not quite as easy as everyone assumes it is. I don't know much about it myself, but I do know enough to know that I can't appeal to it to make arguments about human nature. Evolution, at its core, strives for only one thing: propagation of the species. Taken to this level, it's a wonder that everyone isn't spending their time either at drunken orgies, or fighting each other to get into the drunken orgies. Somehow, "civilization", "culture", and "society" have guided human development away from that model - and I don't presume to know how it happened. Taken to the extreme, why have we even developed arms, legs, eyes, ears, and minds? Simple bacterial reproduction does just fine. In fact, there is so much bacteria in our gut and sinuses that 90% of the DNA molecules in our bodies are foreign. One begins to wonder, then, whose purpose our human bodies really serve.

asdflkj 19y ago
Evolution, at its core, strives for only one thing: propagation of the species. No, actually. The one thing it strives for is propagation of the genes, not the species. Read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. It will make things clearer.
- hobbs 19y ago
  Sorry. I over-simplified. (or under-simplified?) I have read it and its basic idea was, in fact, the basis of my statement.
  - logjam 19y ago
    > Somehow, "civilization", "culture", and "society" have guided human development away from that model. Nonsense. If that's your "statement", it's wrong. The entire field of sociobiology (read Wilson) speaks to phenomenon like "civilization", "culture", and "society" being driven solely by nucleotide replication.
    - hobbs 19y ago
      > ... - and I don't presume to know how it happened. Like I said, I only know enough to know that I can't comfortably refer to evolution to explain human nature. My point is that I doubt that most people who do reference evolution are familiar with the likes of sociobiology either.

sofal 19y ago

>There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably representative? >There's never a case where ad hominem is valid. Are you saying that biases and potential biases of people have absolutely no relevance in any "valid" discussion, even in response to subjective observations about why people act the way they do? >Occam's Razor suggests that PG works with startups because he thinks they're better, not that he thinks they're better because he works with them. He is rich enough to work on whatever he wants. Are you suggesting that this makes PG completely free from bias? >It's how evolution tells the organism, "keep doing what you're doing". So happiness is just a reward we get from pursuing those things that will result in the propagation of our genes? >Not everything that mentions nature is an appeal to nature. Sure, but that's irrelevant. Gabe says PG's essay is an appeal to nature and backs it up. If you disagree, then please do the same.

logjam 19y ago
> Are you saying that biases and potential biases of people have absolutely no relevance in any "valid" discussion, even in response to subjective observations about why people act the way they do? They have absolutely NO relevance to the argument. Ad hominem is an error in logic. Bias has nothing to do with the argument. It is the argument we refute, not the person. Unfortunately, you It is utterly amazing to me people still argue about these errors in logic. One can only assume it is defensiveness. You might want to look up "straw man" as well. It's another logical fallacy, and you're using it.
Hexstream 19y ago
">There's no reason to doubt representativeness of his sample. So the sample of programmers that he has known and observed over his life is unquestionably representative?" there's no reason to doubt != it is unquestionable that
asdflkj 19y ago
The answer to all of your questions is "No, but that's irrelevant". If you had made your points in the form of statements and not questions, you'd see that they don't actually contradict what I said. As one poster has pointed out, there's no reason to doubt != it is unquestionable that. Likewise, ad hominem can never be valid != biases are never relevant; these accusations of bias are unfounded != PG is completely free from bias; happiness serves an evolutionary purpose != happiness is just a reward (whatever that means). As for the last one, I did back it up. I refuted a central premise of the author, that happiness is evolutionarily useless.