5 ms·

In a manner speaking it is annoying to see (his not so profound) essay upvoted. Like people said he is the founder of he founded YC, so he has a fan following o

In a manner speaking it is annoying to see (his not so profound) essay upvoted. Like people said he is the founder of he founded YC, so he has a fan following of the commoner naive programmer crowd. He certainly is an intelligent chap ( and very ordinary by some some measures) but by no means profound. In fact this subject of heresy is quite banal to me or anyone who has spent sufficient time observing society ( including the scientific community). I have always wondered what his objective was when writing these essays. (I always have an objective, when I write, which is not narcissism, or seeking approval/support/vindication).

blfr 7y ago
I'm pretty sure PG entertains quite a few interesting heresies that he's simply not willing to share publicly because of the backlash. Instead, he nudges people to find them on their own.
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  >Instead, he nudges people to find them on their own. A.k.a driving sense into the (intellectual) peasants :). I hope he succeeds. My observation though is that crows are never whiter by washing.
- pnathan 7y ago
  That's been my take for a while. Idly curious what they are, but I'd rather not be extra-horrified at whatever they are.
- febeling 7y ago
  There is a whole essay by him about this class of ideas, "Things you can't say." http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
overgard 7y ago
Whether something is "profound" is extremely subjective, and rooted in someone's personal experiences. Banal to you is not the same as banal to everyone. But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-)
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  > But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-) It is a very important question. ( and I would have answered it even if you had asked it in any other manner without being 'playful') ). You can see what I have put on my HN profile and also here: https://realminority.wordpress.com/about/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/about/ You see, approval/verbal support/vindication etc. are normal human emotions that most of have, but I personally make a conscious effort to minimize. Independent thinkers don't look for social approvals. I'd like to think of myself as a (relatively ofcourse) independent thinker. I have an nearly inactive account at Facebook and similar site, and spend almost never spend anytime on these sites. If you look at my recent post history, I have started posting some presumably contentious posts, generally seeking similar minded people for long term alliances. The alliances will have to result in tangible material/health/survival benefits. I know for a fact that I'm not a wordsmith, so in isolation those post may convey an inaccurate image of me among those with whom there could be potential alliances. With these similar minded people, it indeed does matter to me what they think of me, from a long term perspective. I do want to convey a larger personality than what can be inferred from my contentious posts. So this reasoning is at the logical level not at the emotional level. (ofcourse if you get into thinking along likes of evolutionary biology you will realize that all need to seek social approval was indeed ultimately intended for tangible benefits like survival, but often these emotions can be far removed from ground reality, as it happens with social media). To summarize - there is an intended audience for my reply to you too. ( though I'm not sure if you may be one of them)
  - overgard 7y ago
    That's a fair reason to post things, I guess, although fairly meta. My point is just that, just because this post may be common knowledge to you does not mean that it's common knowledge to most people (especially considering the number of upvotes). I see this thought pattern all the time on forums: "I know this, so clearly everyone must". If it was obvious then it wouldn't be getting upvotes.

blfr 7y ago

I'm pretty sure PG entertains quite a few interesting heresies that he's simply not willing to share publicly because of the backlash. Instead, he nudges people to find them on their own.

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
>Instead, he nudges people to find them on their own. A.k.a driving sense into the (intellectual) peasants :). I hope he succeeds. My observation though is that crows are never whiter by washing.
pnathan 7y ago
That's been my take for a while. Idly curious what they are, but I'd rather not be extra-horrified at whatever they are.
febeling 7y ago
There is a whole essay by him about this class of ideas, "Things you can't say." http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

overgard 7y ago

Whether something is "profound" is extremely subjective, and rooted in someone's personal experiences. Banal to you is not the same as banal to everyone. But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-)

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
> But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-) It is a very important question. ( and I would have answered it even if you had asked it in any other manner without being 'playful') ). You can see what I have put on my HN profile and also here: https://realminority.wordpress.com/about/ https://realminority.wordpress.com/about/ You see, approval/verbal support/vindication etc. are normal human emotions that most of have, but I personally make a conscious effort to minimize. Independent thinkers don't look for social approvals. I'd like to think of myself as a (relatively ofcourse) independent thinker. I have an nearly inactive account at Facebook and similar site, and spend almost never spend anytime on these sites. If you look at my recent post history, I have started posting some presumably contentious posts, generally seeking similar minded people for long term alliances. The alliances will have to result in tangible material/health/survival benefits. I know for a fact that I'm not a wordsmith, so in isolation those post may convey an inaccurate image of me among those with whom there could be potential alliances. With these similar minded people, it indeed does matter to me what they think of me, from a long term perspective. I do want to convey a larger personality than what can be inferred from my contentious posts. So this reasoning is at the logical level not at the emotional level. (ofcourse if you get into thinking along likes of evolutionary biology you will realize that all need to seek social approval was indeed ultimately intended for tangible benefits like survival, but often these emotions can be far removed from ground reality, as it happens with social media). To summarize - there is an intended audience for my reply to you too. ( though I'm not sure if you may be one of them)
- overgard 7y ago
  That's a fair reason to post things, I guess, although fairly meta. My point is just that, just because this post may be common knowledge to you does not mean that it's common knowledge to most people (especially considering the number of upvotes). I see this thought pattern all the time on forums: "I know this, so clearly everyone must". If it was obvious then it wouldn't be getting upvotes.