7 ms·

Is it just me, or is almost every text written by Stephen Wolfram plagued by excessive, almost neurotic self-praise? > Perhaps the first faint glimmering of an

by lqet 8y ago

Is it just me, or is almost every text written by Stephen Wolfram plagued by excessive, almost neurotic self-praise? > Perhaps the first faint glimmering of an orientation toward something like Mathematica came when I was about 6 years old > Looking back at its documentation, SMP was quite an impressive system, especially given that I was only 20 years old when I started designing it. > My physics papers started containing all sorts of amazing formulas. > I was 20 years old, and I’d just gotten my PhD in physics. > I wrote lots of code for SMP myself (about 1000 lines/day). I did the design. And I wrote most of the documentation. I’d never managed a large project before. But somehow that part never seemed very difficult. > [...] I get that he is almost certainly a highly intelligent and gifted individual who has achieved a lot in his life, but humbleness seems to be a quality he is seriously lacking. Even if he tries to be humble, it just comes over as coquettish.

wavefunction 8y ago
That's his deal, unflagging hyperbolic self-promotion.
Phemist 8y ago
This has already gone meta-meta, in that there is a thread in every comment section on a post by Stephen Wolfram that complains about his self-obsession, and also one that complains about the complaints. Basically, there is an HN gentlemen's agreement to collectively ignore Wolfram's self-praise, so that discussions about the worthwhile nuggets of insight in his blog posts are not drowned out.
- lqet 8y ago
  I was not aware of that, but am now. Thanks!
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  That strikes me as a bad idea. Silence = implicit approval. Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't.
  - rongenre 8y ago
    I'm reasonably sure that the self-aggrandizement that he does is probably why Mathematica is pretty much a niche product, even compared to Matlab, and certainly numpy/pandas.
  - viscanti 8y ago
    > Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't. That's fair, but I'm not sure that a comment thread on HN is going to change him. He might be stuck in his ways at this point and may not even care about what some of the posts here say about his narcissism. I'm also not sure that we need to convince anyone here that he is a narcissist, as that part doesn't seem contentious. So maybe focusing on the other areas is better.
  - comboy 8y ago
    Well if you don't like him just ignore him, that's the biggest weapon in today's world. There are so many more interesting things to discuss than the author's personal traits. As Eric Weinstein put it, we are standing on shoulders of jerks[1] (I wouldn't put Stephen in this particular category). We do need people like Wolfram and we need them to be themselves. 1. https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553 https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553
    - jjoonathan 8y ago
      If Wolfram didn't drag a self-aggrandizing anecdote into every third sentence it might be easier to focus on his ideas.
  - theli0nheart 8y ago
    What’s your goal with that? Character smearing is tiring, repetitive, and doesn’t belong here. Let’s move on and focus on the ideas he’s sharing.
    - jjoonathan 8y ago
      Wolfram's narcissism is tiring, repetitive, and doesn't belong anywhere. Let's keep that message clear and not go for "it's OK to be a jerk if you're smart."
chongli 8y ago
It's likely that he is a narcissist. If you find his writing intolerable, then don't read it. I don't.
yardie 8y ago
You must be new to Stephen Wolfram.I figured this out from other people's experience around him and reading "A New Kind of Science." He's brilliant, he lets everyone know he's brilliant. All you can do is go along with it.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  I sometimes have the feeling that each person reads ANKOS in a different manner; that is, it is almost like the work is a different book for each reader. For instance, there has been a lot of criticism of the work that nothing in it was particularly new or original, that he was just regurgitating a bunch of stuff that came before on the topic of CAs and similar. Yet, when I read it, I was exhausted by the fact (by my reading) that it seemed like on every page I read there was some reference made to this older work, that he was constantly re-iterating the idea that he was "standing on the shoulders" of other people's work... So how is it that I read it this way, while others read it as seemingly not having this detail? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I find the idea very fascinating (it reminds me about the whole gold/blue dress thing that went around a couple of years back, but I doubt the same thing is at work here).
  - yardie 8y ago
    Its' been over a decade since I've read ANKOS and on your comment I feel I should revisit it. How you see the world in your 20s can be different in your 30s, 40s and so on.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
petters 8y ago
I think you are right. I could not get past the introduction to A New Kind of Science.
api 8y ago
Oh yeah, it's a well known personality tic of Wolfram to the point that it's a joke. He'd be full blown "iamverysmart" if he were not actually smart. If he had a sense of humor about it and started knowingly self-parodying that would be awesome.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > He'd be full blown "iamverysmart" if he were not actually smart. I'm not sure that is necessarily a disqualifier for that particular subreddit; I feel that you can end up as a posting on that for the lack of self-awareness, no matter your actual level of intelligence. Just my opinion though, one that could be wrong.
safgasCVS 8y ago
I can see how it comes across like that but that wasn’t my reading. It seemed matter-of-factly. I think I would much prefer dealing with someone who’s openly arrogant versus someone virtue signaling their false modesty Not saying I’d like to have him around for dinner though
ken 8y ago
I think you're reading too much into this. For every one that refers to an age, I just see facts. There are many child prodigies, especially in math and physics, and I don't see it as a point of pride (or shame). He's not at all the same person he was 50 years ago, and he probably doesn't even remember who he's looking back at. The alternative, that he hasn't changed a bit in 50 years, would be even more damning of himself. As for the other, I don't see how observing that your physics papers contained "amazing formulas" would be praise. Everyone's physics papers do. The field is full of amazing formulas! Perhaps I'm missing something, but he didn't even claim he'd done anything, here, except write them down, and observe that they could be modeled by a computer. Reading any accomplished person write about their accomplishments will sound similarly hyperbolic, when you step back and look at the facts. It's funny to me how some people write about the crazy things they've done, and HN loves it (e.g., Feynman), and others do essentially the same, and HN always finds it necessary to comment about the apparent narcissism. It's enough to discourage me from ever blogging. That's not a coin I'd ever want to flip.
- blablabla123 8y ago
  I see it similarly. Also to put it in perspective, most softwares - especially in commercial settings - are just presented from this money generating point of view or even in a way that pursues the user to take action on something, i.e. almost deceiving. Combining it with Wolfram's bio makes the software a bit more human. ;) That said, I'm rarely interested in reading anyone's bio in book form, not sure if one exists for/from him.

by lqet 8y ago

wavefunction 8y ago

That's his deal, unflagging hyperbolic self-promotion.

Phemist 8y ago

This has already gone meta-meta, in that there is a thread in every comment section on a post by Stephen Wolfram that complains about his self-obsession, and also one that complains about the complaints. Basically, there is an HN gentlemen's agreement to collectively ignore Wolfram's self-praise, so that discussions about the worthwhile nuggets of insight in his blog posts are not drowned out.

lqet 8y ago
I was not aware of that, but am now. Thanks!
jjoonathan 8y ago
That strikes me as a bad idea. Silence = implicit approval. Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't.
- rongenre 8y ago
  I'm reasonably sure that the self-aggrandizement that he does is probably why Mathematica is pretty much a niche product, even compared to Matlab, and certainly numpy/pandas.
- viscanti 8y ago
  > Don't implicitly approve Wolfram's narcissism. Just don't. That's fair, but I'm not sure that a comment thread on HN is going to change him. He might be stuck in his ways at this point and may not even care about what some of the posts here say about his narcissism. I'm also not sure that we need to convince anyone here that he is a narcissist, as that part doesn't seem contentious. So maybe focusing on the other areas is better.
- comboy 8y ago
  Well if you don't like him just ignore him, that's the biggest weapon in today's world. There are so many more interesting things to discuss than the author's personal traits. As Eric Weinstein put it, we are standing on shoulders of jerks[1] (I wouldn't put Stephen in this particular category). We do need people like Wolfram and we need them to be themselves. 1. https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553 https://youtu.be/TKeMIWVOnbo?t=553
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    If Wolfram didn't drag a self-aggrandizing anecdote into every third sentence it might be easier to focus on his ideas.
- theli0nheart 8y ago
  What’s your goal with that? Character smearing is tiring, repetitive, and doesn’t belong here. Let’s move on and focus on the ideas he’s sharing.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Wolfram's narcissism is tiring, repetitive, and doesn't belong anywhere. Let's keep that message clear and not go for "it's OK to be a jerk if you're smart."

chongli 8y ago

It's likely that he is a narcissist. If you find his writing intolerable, then don't read it. I don't.

yardie 8y ago

You must be new to Stephen Wolfram.I figured this out from other people's experience around him and reading "A New Kind of Science." He's brilliant, he lets everyone know he's brilliant. All you can do is go along with it.

cr0sh 8y ago
I sometimes have the feeling that each person reads ANKOS in a different manner; that is, it is almost like the work is a different book for each reader. For instance, there has been a lot of criticism of the work that nothing in it was particularly new or original, that he was just regurgitating a bunch of stuff that came before on the topic of CAs and similar. Yet, when I read it, I was exhausted by the fact (by my reading) that it seemed like on every page I read there was some reference made to this older work, that he was constantly re-iterating the idea that he was "standing on the shoulders" of other people's work... So how is it that I read it this way, while others read it as seemingly not having this detail? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I find the idea very fascinating (it reminds me about the whole gold/blue dress thing that went around a couple of years back, but I doubt the same thing is at work here).
- yardie 8y ago
  Its' been over a decade since I've read ANKOS and on your comment I feel I should revisit it. How you see the world in your 20s can be different in your 30s, 40s and so on.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

petters 8y ago

I think you are right. I could not get past the introduction to A New Kind of Science.

api 8y ago

Oh yeah, it's a well known personality tic of Wolfram to the point that it's a joke. He'd be full blown "iamverysmart" if he were not actually smart. If he had a sense of humor about it and started knowingly self-parodying that would be awesome.

cr0sh 8y ago
> He'd be full blown "iamverysmart" if he were not actually smart. I'm not sure that is necessarily a disqualifier for that particular subreddit; I feel that you can end up as a posting on that for the lack of self-awareness, no matter your actual level of intelligence. Just my opinion though, one that could be wrong.

safgasCVS 8y ago

I can see how it comes across like that but that wasn’t my reading. It seemed matter-of-factly. I think I would much prefer dealing with someone who’s openly arrogant versus someone virtue signaling their false modesty Not saying I’d like to have him around for dinner though

ken 8y ago

I think you're reading too much into this. For every one that refers to an age, I just see facts. There are many child prodigies, especially in math and physics, and I don't see it as a point of pride (or shame). He's not at all the same person he was 50 years ago, and he probably doesn't even remember who he's looking back at. The alternative, that he hasn't changed a bit in 50 years, would be even more damning of himself. As for the other, I don't see how observing that your physics papers contained "amazing formulas" would be praise. Everyone's physics papers do. The field is full of amazing formulas! Perhaps I'm missing something, but he didn't even claim he'd done anything, here, except write them down, and observe that they could be modeled by a computer. Reading any accomplished person write about their accomplishments will sound similarly hyperbolic, when you step back and look at the facts. It's funny to me how some people write about the crazy things they've done, and HN loves it (e.g., Feynman), and others do essentially the same, and HN always finds it necessary to comment about the apparent narcissism. It's enough to discourage me from ever blogging. That's not a coin I'd ever want to flip.

blablabla123 8y ago
I see it similarly. Also to put it in perspective, most softwares - especially in commercial settings - are just presented from this money generating point of view or even in a way that pursues the user to take action on something, i.e. almost deceiving. Combining it with Wolfram's bio makes the software a bit more human. ;) That said, I'm rarely interested in reading anyone's bio in book form, not sure if one exists for/from him.