5 ms·

How to Pretend That You Are Smart

46 points by rideontime 6y ago

keenmaster 6y ago
Good lord, the author comes out swinging at Paul Graham. I encourage upvoting the article to prove to ourselves that this is a truly open forum (regardless of my or your opinion on it). We cannot believe that without being confident that even a sharp invective towards one of its cofounders can feature on the front page. Otherwise, HN would be more like Al Jazeera, which is one of the best news outlets in the Arab world, but unfortunately is tainted, on the margins, by its inability to criticize its patron Qatari regime. I know other articles disagreeing with Paul Graham have been upvoted, but this is on another level. A free forum is one that is worth your time. Yes, I know there are rules, and that's part of what makes HN so good.
- jmeister 6y ago
  PG probably takes an attack from Robinson as a compliment.
masonium 6y ago
The initial discussion of the article on YC almost touched on what the article hits, noting that Paul Graham is actually quite vague in specifically what behaviors he finds troubling, or what debates he thinks can no longer be had. But, I think the article does a really good job of demonstrating how empty his argument really is.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  The author of this piece engages in a lot more of the vapid argumentation that he's accusing Graham of than Graham himself has ever been guilty of.
  - masonium 6y ago
    Would you mind being specific? Are you making a claim about the author in general, or this particular essay? What is an example of a claim in the essay that you think is vapid?
bsenftner 6y ago
I feel vindicated for the downposts on calling out the original posting of that PG article here on HN as excuses for treating others poorly.
- phnofive 6y ago
  It could be used that way, but do you think that’s the inevitable conclusion of his argument?
  - bsenftner 6y ago
    I doubt PG would use his own reasoning to harm others, but by placing his incomplete and non-comprehensive reasoning out in the world, he invites others to take his essay as advice. Advice that can cause misery if followed by a less accomplished, less astute individuals. His essay lacks acknowledgement of compromise, as any essay tends to do, but with content detailing how to judge others pushes the essay into dangerous ethical territory.
phnofive 6y ago
It seems like the thesis of this diatribe is that people recognized generally or in their own niche as intelligent may not be, which is supported by saying they expressed ideas which allow the author to call them trash, which means they aren’t smart after all. Isn’t that a self-defeating argument? Recognition makes them noteworthy, but being wrong makes them notorious idiots?
- masonium 6y ago
  That's not anywhere close to the author's core argument. I'll let the author speak for themselves: 'They also are both good examples of a kind of fake social science, whereby you simply make unsubstantiated observations about human beings that confirm things people already believe, and the reader’s pre-existing feelings (their pre-judgments or “prejudices” if you will) are doing the work that evidence should be doing. I would argue that this kind of writing is extremely common and that we need to watch out for it because, if we share the prejudices of the author, we will end up believing things that may be totally untrue, and we will think we have read a good argument when we have in fact just been told that we were right all along.' Robinson does note that the respective authors' fame, in some ways, insulates them from realizing the vacuousness of their prose: 'Incredibly, Graham says that he had nine people review and give comments on his essay before he published it, including Yale sociologist Nicholas Christakis. Apparently not one of those people asked Graham “What the hell are you talking about? What is this referring to? Could you please buttress this with some examples?”' But the vast majority of the articles is dedicated to explaining why the essays are poorly-argued and poorly-sourced, without appeals to the authors' notoriety.
  - phnofive 6y ago
    Disproving their points is secondary to the argument made by the author, which is rhetorical - don’t listen to pseudointelligence just because it comes from the ‘Very Smart’ (using the author’s sarcastic phrasing here). It’s not as though the subjects didn’t put forward thoughtful arguments, but the author doesn’t agree and so goes on to say that their arguments are vacuous and the subjects are vacuous, which is an extraordinary leap.

46 points by rideontime 6y ago

Good lord, the author comes out swinging at Paul Graham. I encourage upvoting the article to prove to ourselves that this is a truly open forum (regardless of my or your opinion on it). We cannot believe that without being confident that even a sharp invective towards one of its cofounders can feature on the front page. Otherwise, HN would be more like Al Jazeera, which is one of the best news outlets in the Arab world, but unfortunately is tainted, on the margins, by its inability to criticize its patron Qatari regime. I know other articles disagreeing with Paul Graham have been upvoted, but this is on another level. A free forum is one that is worth your time. Yes, I know there are rules, and that's part of what makes HN so good.

jmeister 6y ago
PG probably takes an attack from Robinson as a compliment.

masonium 6y ago

The initial discussion of the article on YC almost touched on what the article hits, noting that Paul Graham is actually quite vague in specifically what behaviors he finds troubling, or what debates he thinks can no longer be had. But, I think the article does a really good job of demonstrating how empty his argument really is.

commandlinefan 6y ago
The author of this piece engages in a lot more of the vapid argumentation that he's accusing Graham of than Graham himself has ever been guilty of.
- masonium 6y ago
  Would you mind being specific? Are you making a claim about the author in general, or this particular essay? What is an example of a claim in the essay that you think is vapid?

bsenftner 6y ago

I feel vindicated for the downposts on calling out the original posting of that PG article here on HN as excuses for treating others poorly.

phnofive 6y ago
It could be used that way, but do you think that’s the inevitable conclusion of his argument?
- bsenftner 6y ago
  I doubt PG would use his own reasoning to harm others, but by placing his incomplete and non-comprehensive reasoning out in the world, he invites others to take his essay as advice. Advice that can cause misery if followed by a less accomplished, less astute individuals. His essay lacks acknowledgement of compromise, as any essay tends to do, but with content detailing how to judge others pushes the essay into dangerous ethical territory.

phnofive 6y ago

It seems like the thesis of this diatribe is that people recognized generally or in their own niche as intelligent may not be, which is supported by saying they expressed ideas which allow the author to call them trash, which means they aren’t smart after all. Isn’t that a self-defeating argument? Recognition makes them noteworthy, but being wrong makes them notorious idiots?

masonium 6y ago
That's not anywhere close to the author's core argument. I'll let the author speak for themselves: 'They also are both good examples of a kind of fake social science, whereby you simply make unsubstantiated observations about human beings that confirm things people already believe, and the reader’s pre-existing feelings (their pre-judgments or “prejudices” if you will) are doing the work that evidence should be doing. I would argue that this kind of writing is extremely common and that we need to watch out for it because, if we share the prejudices of the author, we will end up believing things that may be totally untrue, and we will think we have read a good argument when we have in fact just been told that we were right all along.' Robinson does note that the respective authors' fame, in some ways, insulates them from realizing the vacuousness of their prose: 'Incredibly, Graham says that he had nine people review and give comments on his essay before he published it, including Yale sociologist Nicholas Christakis. Apparently not one of those people asked Graham “What the hell are you talking about? What is this referring to? Could you please buttress this with some examples?”' But the vast majority of the articles is dedicated to explaining why the essays are poorly-argued and poorly-sourced, without appeals to the authors' notoriety.
- phnofive 6y ago
  Disproving their points is secondary to the argument made by the author, which is rhetorical - don’t listen to pseudointelligence just because it comes from the ‘Very Smart’ (using the author’s sarcastic phrasing here). It’s not as though the subjects didn’t put forward thoughtful arguments, but the author doesn’t agree and so goes on to say that their arguments are vacuous and the subjects are vacuous, which is an extraordinary leap.