5 ms·
> My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. I think this is unfair. For example, I don't really relate to building a multi-million
by dvt 6y ago
> My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political.
I think this is unfair. For example, I don't really relate to building a multi-million-dollar startup in my 20s, so the wealth tax article is simply not relevant. The article on Conformism is just highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing. Compare these to classics like "What We Look for in Founders" or "Ramen Profitable" and we have a pretty clear shift in focus. This takes nothing away from pg being a bonafide genius, it's just that his focus is no longer actionable and insightful advice to founders.
- fossuser 6y agoThanks for the reply - I might have read motivated reasoning into your comment that wasn't there. I think it's fair to point out that there are fewer actionable startup advice essays recently, but 'highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing' is just dismissive without talking about any of the ideas, and he did have well-liked essays like What you Can't Say and Why Nerds Are Unpopular that were of a similar type - so that kind of thing was something he's always written about (though he also wrote about more actionable advice alongside it too).
- samatman 6y agoA sibling comment points to two essays from "back in the day" which are broadly about conformism: "What you can't say" and "Why nerds are unpopular". If you went back and reread them, would you say they're "highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing"? Both you and pg have changed in the intervening decade-and-change; I think you're over-weighting his changes, and under-weighting your own. Which is natural, but I'm curious what you think of those essays in that light.