4 ms·

> The biggest division in work may be between jobs that involve making new stuff (science, engineering) and those that don't (administration, sales), and you'll

> The biggest division in work may be between jobs that involve making new stuff (science, engineering) and those that don't (administration, sales), and you'll be a lot happier if you end up on the side you're suited for. This is rather binary (and naive) distinction. There is a lot of room for creative work in any field.

anonytrary 6y ago
Furthermore, there is also a lot of non-creative work in science and engineering. Ask any grad student or entry/mid level engineer.
- hellofunk 6y ago
  Exactly. I find so many of PG's musings to be pretentious in their short sightedness. As if these are great revelations that underscore a deep observation, when in reality they are often shallow or contrived points.
  - anonytrary 6y ago
    I like most of PG's musings, but I agree that they often pertain to a very thin slice of reality. If we conducted a taste test comparing randomly selected ideas/excerpts from PG and senior engineers who comment on HN, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference. Most people in science and engineering can think of equally (if not more) clever and thought-provoking sentences, but PG's carry more weight because of who he is. We still live in a world where thought-leading is dominated by who has the most attention.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Ask any engineer. In software, to invent and make something work, you spend maybe 10% of the time actually inventing/creating things, and for the remaining 90% of the time, you try to "instantiate" your creation, which involves lots of drudgework, code bureaucracy (and sometimes real bureaucracy), dealing with irrelevant crap (e.g. tooling issues) and debugging.
sideshowb 6y ago
And where do you place making stuff that's been done before, or more hands on things eg farmer, electrician, medical doctor?
goto11 6y ago
It is interesting that science is considered as "making new stuff". In the classic distinction it's the opposite: Art (and artisanship and crafts) is creating new stuff, while science (natural philosophy) is about studying and understanding the existing natural world.
CPLX 6y ago
The interesting follow up question to that quote would be finding out which one he thinks he is himself. I suspect he thinks it’s the former, when, of course, it’s the latter.
- jl2718 6y ago
  This is a very interesting comment, applying equally well to Marc Andreesen’s recent “Time to Build”, which I thought was excellent, but his choice of daily work effectively describes the problem. There’s way too much risk and way too little reward in actual creative work versus social value extraction. Almost everybody who is successful at the former moves quickly to the latter.
renewiltord 6y ago
That’s actually what makes it useful. Anyone can exhaustively describe a thing. Only good communicators can select down to their audience, assume things, and then generalize at a level that provides broad meaning. The strength is in being able to select the first eigenvalues. After all, the only real thing is the thing itself. A textual description of the thing is not the thing, Cecil’s lost his pipe. So then it falls to you to describe the thing well. To a man standing in front of ten cars, if you say, “the black one” he knows which one. If you say, “it is a motor vehicle made by Mercedes, noted for their three point logo, that is currently painted black” you have more data but not more information. All the capable people generalize. That is where predictive strength comes from.
quietbritishjim 6y ago
It's not just binary, it's a binary choice between "those jobs that are a bit like mine" and "all the other ones". Imagine what some hypothetical parents with other careers might say: > ... between jobs that involve being outside (gardener, railroad worker) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...) > ... between jobs that involve creative expression of your emotions (artist, musician) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...) > ... between jobs that involve saving people's lives (firefighter, doctor) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...) In the above, "office worker" includes desk jobs like programmer, startup CEO, and secretary. To people in some careers, those all sound pretty much the same. A less extreme version of that third example would be jobs that are more people-based (in a meaningful way e.g. perhaps including travel agent but not barista) and those that aren't, which would be a very significant split for some people. ---- As a separate point, and probably a bit more pendantic: I think that even "making new stuff" can mean two different things. If you look at manufacturing e.g. building cars, you typically have a split between interesting design jobs and the factory floor where stuff actually gets built but the job is pretty boring and maybe sometimes even low skilled. Computer programming, even low-level implementation, is more analagous to design in manufacturing (then the "creating" is the trivial file copy of the executable). But again, to some people that distinction is important and they would rather be building something physical with their hands (plasterer, carpenter, etc.), even if it's to someone else's design, rather than doing something that doesn't involve fine motor skill even if it's "creating" software or car designs.
speleding 6y ago
He probably means the distinction between jobs that are innovative or not, but he's explaining this to a 7-year old, so making stuff is a reasonable approximation of that word. (I just checked with my kid if he knew what innovative is and he answered it mostly right, but he's 13)
ycombonator 6y ago
Where do the MBAs fall ?
amelius 6y ago
Science is about making new stuff? I'd say it is more about discovering what's already there :) Anyway, the thread related to this dichotomy is great: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1250840771751809024 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1250840771751809024

anonytrary 6y ago

Furthermore, there is also a lot of non-creative work in science and engineering. Ask any grad student or entry/mid level engineer.

hellofunk 6y ago
Exactly. I find so many of PG's musings to be pretentious in their short sightedness. As if these are great revelations that underscore a deep observation, when in reality they are often shallow or contrived points.
- anonytrary 6y ago
  I like most of PG's musings, but I agree that they often pertain to a very thin slice of reality. If we conducted a taste test comparing randomly selected ideas/excerpts from PG and senior engineers who comment on HN, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference. Most people in science and engineering can think of equally (if not more) clever and thought-provoking sentences, but PG's carry more weight because of who he is. We still live in a world where thought-leading is dominated by who has the most attention.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Ask any engineer. In software, to invent and make something work, you spend maybe 10% of the time actually inventing/creating things, and for the remaining 90% of the time, you try to "instantiate" your creation, which involves lots of drudgework, code bureaucracy (and sometimes real bureaucracy), dealing with irrelevant crap (e.g. tooling issues) and debugging.

sideshowb 6y ago

And where do you place making stuff that's been done before, or more hands on things eg farmer, electrician, medical doctor?

goto11 6y ago

It is interesting that science is considered as "making new stuff". In the classic distinction it's the opposite: Art (and artisanship and crafts) is creating new stuff, while science (natural philosophy) is about studying and understanding the existing natural world.

CPLX 6y ago

The interesting follow up question to that quote would be finding out which one he thinks he is himself. I suspect he thinks it’s the former, when, of course, it’s the latter.

jl2718 6y ago
This is a very interesting comment, applying equally well to Marc Andreesen’s recent “Time to Build”, which I thought was excellent, but his choice of daily work effectively describes the problem. There’s way too much risk and way too little reward in actual creative work versus social value extraction. Almost everybody who is successful at the former moves quickly to the latter.

renewiltord 6y ago

That’s actually what makes it useful. Anyone can exhaustively describe a thing. Only good communicators can select down to their audience, assume things, and then generalize at a level that provides broad meaning. The strength is in being able to select the first eigenvalues. After all, the only real thing is the thing itself. A textual description of the thing is not the thing, Cecil’s lost his pipe. So then it falls to you to describe the thing well. To a man standing in front of ten cars, if you say, “the black one” he knows which one. If you say, “it is a motor vehicle made by Mercedes, noted for their three point logo, that is currently painted black” you have more data but not more information. All the capable people generalize. That is where predictive strength comes from.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

It's not just binary, it's a binary choice between "those jobs that are a bit like mine" and "all the other ones". Imagine what some hypothetical parents with other careers might say: > ... between jobs that involve being outside (gardener, railroad worker) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...) > ... between jobs that involve creative expression of your emotions (artist, musician) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...) > ... between jobs that involve saving people's lives (firefighter, doctor) and those that don't (office worker, bus driver, ...) In the above, "office worker" includes desk jobs like programmer, startup CEO, and secretary. To people in some careers, those all sound pretty much the same. A less extreme version of that third example would be jobs that are more people-based (in a meaningful way e.g. perhaps including travel agent but not barista) and those that aren't, which would be a very significant split for some people. ---- As a separate point, and probably a bit more pendantic: I think that even "making new stuff" can mean two different things. If you look at manufacturing e.g. building cars, you typically have a split between interesting design jobs and the factory floor where stuff actually gets built but the job is pretty boring and maybe sometimes even low skilled. Computer programming, even low-level implementation, is more analagous to design in manufacturing (then the "creating" is the trivial file copy of the executable). But again, to some people that distinction is important and they would rather be building something physical with their hands (plasterer, carpenter, etc.), even if it's to someone else's design, rather than doing something that doesn't involve fine motor skill even if it's "creating" software or car designs.

speleding 6y ago

He probably means the distinction between jobs that are innovative or not, but he's explaining this to a 7-year old, so making stuff is a reasonable approximation of that word. (I just checked with my kid if he knew what innovative is and he answered it mostly right, but he's 13)

ycombonator 6y ago

Where do the MBAs fall ?

amelius 6y ago

Science is about making new stuff? I'd say it is more about discovering what's already there :) Anyway, the thread related to this dichotomy is great: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1250840771751809024 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1250840771751809024