6 ms·

> How come I know exactly where this essay is going? This is the question I've been thinking as I've checked back in on comments here a few times this morning.

> How come I know exactly where this essay is going? This is the question I've been thinking as I've checked back in on comments here a few times this morning. Why do so many people "know" that this essay is all about aggrandizing pg's own intellect or that of startup founders, when it's almost entirely composed of two parts: (1) discussion on when independent thinking is and isn't valuable, and (2) advice on cultivating independent thinking? Where does this impression come from? There's always some negativity toward any widely-read essay, but there seems to be a higher quantity with this one, making me think there's something actually wrong with it. My hypothesis is that its presentation is too neatly wrapped. This essay espouses curiosity, but does not model it. It comes across as having all the answers. This is especially true of the brief part that confidently explains the lack of negative reaction to another essay, with no details of how such confidence was arrived at. This is too bad. I'd like for this essay to have engendered more discussion on cultivating independent thinking, and less discussion about pg's mindset.

wpietri 6y ago
Part of why I'm sure is that I was prone to thinking like this as a teen. I was a smart kid from a family that valued smartness trying to get by in a world that generally didn't, and certainly didn't value the kid of weirdness that in retrospect made me well suited for what turned out to be hot career. I made it to an environment better suited to me (SF, tech industry) and eventually got the fuck over myself. I used my newfound material and emotional safety to do the necessary work of self-examination that let me get a better handle on my self-justifying bullshit. To spot and manage my desire to be right, to be smart, to be without intellectual flaw. To write bombastic essay like this. So yes, I think you have part of it. It is hypocritical. It doesn't model what it's talking about. But for me it's worse than that. One, it presenting an at-best-incomplete approach as the final word from on high, it's going to create a sad sort of blinded conformism of its own. Doing a tech startup has long become a cargo cult of its own, and this won't help. Second, in his amateur psychologizing, I think he makes some elementary mistakes. E.g., valorizing the performative anti-caring about what people think. To me that's a sign of insecurity and/or a trauma reaction to some past person who was overbearing. For me, true independent thinking comes from listening to others without judgment and choosing for myself. Positive attachment and negative attachment are both attachment. Third, this reads to me like it's a part of the political kick he's been on in recent years, where he's shitting on the US left. E.g., the footnote about how politics is boring because it's subject to intellectual fashion. He complains here about people who "think themselves nonconformists, but actually they're niche conformists". When honestly his opinions, which I once found fresh and interesting, seem to be the tiresome conventional wisdom in his niche, and easily predicted by his financial interests and social position. I get that he's gone through a hard change. He used to be an underdog and would still like to see himself that way. But in reality, he's rich and powerful, a kingmaker in what has been the hottest segment of American industry for a generation. One that in my opinion has been vastly overfunded for the last decade or so. That is a challenge to anybody's self image. You can't be a genius underdog and at the top of the status quo. But given his money and his smarts, he's not doing a good job at all of meeting that challenge.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  > E.g., valorizing the performative anti-caring about what people think. To me that's a sign of insecurity and/or a trauma reaction to some past person who was overbearing. I can't recall ever meeting even one person who didn't get somewhat scarred over the fact that he/she disagreed with the majority of the people around them [at least once in their lives]. That insecurity, as you call it, is IMO present in most people these days. Whether it's a trauma or not though, I can't argue in an informed manner. But I do believe it's a very normal trait of all social animals. There always comes one point where the collective shows you, usually through the medium of violence (physical or emotional), that they don't appreciate you thinking or acting differently. > For me, true independent thinking comes from listening to others without judgment and choosing for myself. Positive attachment and negative attachment are both attachment. I only knew two such people who were able to be genuinely completely detached and they indeed didn't care who thought what. But they were almost dead inside, to me watching on the side at least. They also had almost no desires of their own. I didn't envy them at all, I actually thought they were sick. Your statement reminds me of a Buddhist teaching but if memory serves, one of their proverbial wise men said that this is an ideal to strive towards knowing that you will never truly reach it. And that's a good thing. Complete lack of attachment would make me think something is seriously wrong with you. So I interpreted that advice -- "don't get attached" -- more along the lines of "don't burden yourself with things you can't change or which would take too much energy or time to change; just let go and give yourself in to the things you genuinely care about" -- something along those lines. All of this is obviously my opinion based on life experience and observations, of course. I wouldn't dream of presenting myself as a psychologist or a psychiatrist. --- Outside of this small paragraph of yours I found myself nodding my head at the entirety of your comment and I agree completely with it.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Good questions. Sure, everybody has a history. Nobody agrees with everybody all the time. Same for me. My issue with this essay is that it doesn't examine that history and how it affects people. As to the latter, I think you're confusing nonattachment with detachment. I've written more about that here: https://www.quora.com/I-have-learned-that-attachment-leads-to-unhappiness-How-can-someone-in-their-20s-stay-in-society-and-remain-detached/answer/William-Pietri https://www.quora.com/I-have-learned-that-attachment-leads-t... Another way to look at it is in terms of having a choice in response to some stimulus. If somebody expressing a desire compels me to do a, "Yes sir yes sir three bags full" routine, I'm not free. But I'm equally unfree if my response is to shout, "Fuck you, you're not my dad." To me, really thinking for myself comes after my reactions pass and I'm at peace again.
stingraycharles 6y ago
I think the root cause is some “conflicting” mechanism where people associate pg’a writings with a following, which has been carefully cultivated. This article being about “how to not be a follower” in itself is at odds with that, and as such it entices heavy scrutinizing from the audience. In a way, it’s incredibly difficult to establish whether or not this article is conforming to existing ideas or not, when there’s such a large group of people that typically agree with pg’s thinking. This in itself may trigger a southpark-esque response, “I’m such a non-conformist I’m not conforming to you non-conformists!”
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  You either die an intellectual martyr, or you live long enough to see yourself become a thought leader.
- mcguire 6y ago
  You cannot be a rebel if you don't wear the right uniform.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
mcguire 6y ago
You missed (3) where independent thinking isn't valuable you find the unhappy and the conventional; the latter group having a fairly large stack of poor qualities.[1] Oh, and (4) how do you know you're really independent minded? It's "more a matter of nature than nurture" after all. Someone could be lying to themselves. "Conventional-minded people don't like to think of themselves as conventional-minded. And in any case, it genuinely feels to them as if they make up their own minds about everything." Dunning-Kruger and all. In fact, you can't even trust the ne plus ultra: the conventional minded have to be curious in order to find out what the conventions are, no? But then, I'm being critical here, and feeding "a firestorm of rage from the aggressively conventional-minded"; I clearly show all of those poor qualities. (I'm trying hard to figure out how "One of the most effective techniques is one practiced unintentionally by most nerds: simply to be less aware what conventional beliefs are. It's hard to be a conformist if you don't know what you're supposed to conform to" doesn't imply that ignorance is a virtue.) I am a bit disappointed Paul doesn't mention some of the downsides to independent thinking; he seems to regard it as an unalloyed good. "Founders can delay the problem by making a conscious effort only to hire independent-minded people. Which of course also has the ancillary benefit that they have better ideas." The problem here is that those independent-minded people are going to want to see their ideas in action---even if those ideas disagree with those of the founder. (Hence unhappiness and the promotion of conventional thinking.) (I notice that Paul picks out "administrators" and "middle management" as specifically conventional. I wonder if extending that to "management" would strain the cognitive dissonance of those readers he personally knows?) I do like the fine distinction of "Fastidiousness about truth doesn't imply that an independent-minded person won't be dishonest, but that he won't be deluded. It's sort of like the definition of a gentleman as someone who is never unintentionally rude." I certainly have always found it advantageous to prefer the presence of those who know they are lying. [1] Unskeptical, indifferent to truth, herd-minded, humorless, and incurious, with poor thinking and poor ideas.
Geminidog 6y ago
It's rare such a negative comment gets voted up. Very rare. On this page graham is idolized.... and positivity and agreement is rampant for articles like this. Your reply is much more common and generic then the poster. So who's the independent thinker? You or the poster who reacted negatively to the essay? I would say that the majority of independent thoughts and ideas are distasteful to the majority. That's why the majority often avoid independent thinking.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ip26 6y ago
The more of them I read, the more it seems like they are chiefly a form of marketing for his accelerator, and all marketing should be approached with suspicion.

wpietri 6y ago

Part of why I'm sure is that I was prone to thinking like this as a teen. I was a smart kid from a family that valued smartness trying to get by in a world that generally didn't, and certainly didn't value the kid of weirdness that in retrospect made me well suited for what turned out to be hot career. I made it to an environment better suited to me (SF, tech industry) and eventually got the fuck over myself. I used my newfound material and emotional safety to do the necessary work of self-examination that let me get a better handle on my self-justifying bullshit. To spot and manage my desire to be right, to be smart, to be without intellectual flaw. To write bombastic essay like this. So yes, I think you have part of it. It is hypocritical. It doesn't model what it's talking about. But for me it's worse than that. One, it presenting an at-best-incomplete approach as the final word from on high, it's going to create a sad sort of blinded conformism of its own. Doing a tech startup has long become a cargo cult of its own, and this won't help. Second, in his amateur psychologizing, I think he makes some elementary mistakes. E.g., valorizing the performative anti-caring about what people think. To me that's a sign of insecurity and/or a trauma reaction to some past person who was overbearing. For me, true independent thinking comes from listening to others without judgment and choosing for myself. Positive attachment and negative attachment are both attachment. Third, this reads to me like it's a part of the political kick he's been on in recent years, where he's shitting on the US left. E.g., the footnote about how politics is boring because it's subject to intellectual fashion. He complains here about people who "think themselves nonconformists, but actually they're niche conformists". When honestly his opinions, which I once found fresh and interesting, seem to be the tiresome conventional wisdom in his niche, and easily predicted by his financial interests and social position. I get that he's gone through a hard change. He used to be an underdog and would still like to see himself that way. But in reality, he's rich and powerful, a kingmaker in what has been the hottest segment of American industry for a generation. One that in my opinion has been vastly overfunded for the last decade or so. That is a challenge to anybody's self image. You can't be a genius underdog and at the top of the status quo. But given his money and his smarts, he's not doing a good job at all of meeting that challenge.

pdimitar 6y ago
> E.g., valorizing the performative anti-caring about what people think. To me that's a sign of insecurity and/or a trauma reaction to some past person who was overbearing. I can't recall ever meeting even one person who didn't get somewhat scarred over the fact that he/she disagreed with the majority of the people around them [at least once in their lives]. That insecurity, as you call it, is IMO present in most people these days. Whether it's a trauma or not though, I can't argue in an informed manner. But I do believe it's a very normal trait of all social animals. There always comes one point where the collective shows you, usually through the medium of violence (physical or emotional), that they don't appreciate you thinking or acting differently. > For me, true independent thinking comes from listening to others without judgment and choosing for myself. Positive attachment and negative attachment are both attachment. I only knew two such people who were able to be genuinely completely detached and they indeed didn't care who thought what. But they were almost dead inside, to me watching on the side at least. They also had almost no desires of their own. I didn't envy them at all, I actually thought they were sick. Your statement reminds me of a Buddhist teaching but if memory serves, one of their proverbial wise men said that this is an ideal to strive towards knowing that you will never truly reach it. And that's a good thing. Complete lack of attachment would make me think something is seriously wrong with you. So I interpreted that advice -- "don't get attached" -- more along the lines of "don't burden yourself with things you can't change or which would take too much energy or time to change; just let go and give yourself in to the things you genuinely care about" -- something along those lines. All of this is obviously my opinion based on life experience and observations, of course. I wouldn't dream of presenting myself as a psychologist or a psychiatrist. --- Outside of this small paragraph of yours I found myself nodding my head at the entirety of your comment and I agree completely with it.
- wpietri 6y ago
  Good questions. Sure, everybody has a history. Nobody agrees with everybody all the time. Same for me. My issue with this essay is that it doesn't examine that history and how it affects people. As to the latter, I think you're confusing nonattachment with detachment. I've written more about that here: https://www.quora.com/I-have-learned-that-attachment-leads-to-unhappiness-How-can-someone-in-their-20s-stay-in-society-and-remain-detached/answer/William-Pietri https://www.quora.com/I-have-learned-that-attachment-leads-t... Another way to look at it is in terms of having a choice in response to some stimulus. If somebody expressing a desire compels me to do a, "Yes sir yes sir three bags full" routine, I'm not free. But I'm equally unfree if my response is to shout, "Fuck you, you're not my dad." To me, really thinking for myself comes after my reactions pass and I'm at peace again.

stingraycharles 6y ago

I think the root cause is some “conflicting” mechanism where people associate pg’a writings with a following, which has been carefully cultivated. This article being about “how to not be a follower” in itself is at odds with that, and as such it entices heavy scrutinizing from the audience. In a way, it’s incredibly difficult to establish whether or not this article is conforming to existing ideas or not, when there’s such a large group of people that typically agree with pg’s thinking. This in itself may trigger a southpark-esque response, “I’m such a non-conformist I’m not conforming to you non-conformists!”

Apocryphon 6y ago
You either die an intellectual martyr, or you live long enough to see yourself become a thought leader.
mcguire 6y ago
You cannot be a rebel if you don't wear the right uniform.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mcguire 6y ago

You missed (3) where independent thinking isn't valuable you find the unhappy and the conventional; the latter group having a fairly large stack of poor qualities.[1] Oh, and (4) how do you know you're really independent minded? It's "more a matter of nature than nurture" after all. Someone could be lying to themselves. "Conventional-minded people don't like to think of themselves as conventional-minded. And in any case, it genuinely feels to them as if they make up their own minds about everything." Dunning-Kruger and all. In fact, you can't even trust the ne plus ultra: the conventional minded have to be curious in order to find out what the conventions are, no? But then, I'm being critical here, and feeding "a firestorm of rage from the aggressively conventional-minded"; I clearly show all of those poor qualities. (I'm trying hard to figure out how "One of the most effective techniques is one practiced unintentionally by most nerds: simply to be less aware what conventional beliefs are. It's hard to be a conformist if you don't know what you're supposed to conform to" doesn't imply that ignorance is a virtue.) I am a bit disappointed Paul doesn't mention some of the downsides to independent thinking; he seems to regard it as an unalloyed good. "Founders can delay the problem by making a conscious effort only to hire independent-minded people. Which of course also has the ancillary benefit that they have better ideas." The problem here is that those independent-minded people are going to want to see their ideas in action---even if those ideas disagree with those of the founder. (Hence unhappiness and the promotion of conventional thinking.) (I notice that Paul picks out "administrators" and "middle management" as specifically conventional. I wonder if extending that to "management" would strain the cognitive dissonance of those readers he personally knows?) I do like the fine distinction of "Fastidiousness about truth doesn't imply that an independent-minded person won't be dishonest, but that he won't be deluded. It's sort of like the definition of a gentleman as someone who is never unintentionally rude." I certainly have always found it advantageous to prefer the presence of those who know they are lying. [1] Unskeptical, indifferent to truth, herd-minded, humorless, and incurious, with poor thinking and poor ideas.

Geminidog 6y ago

It's rare such a negative comment gets voted up. Very rare. On this page graham is idolized.... and positivity and agreement is rampant for articles like this. Your reply is much more common and generic then the poster. So who's the independent thinker? You or the poster who reacted negatively to the essay? I would say that the majority of independent thoughts and ideas are distasteful to the majority. That's why the majority often avoid independent thinking.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ip26 6y ago

The more of them I read, the more it seems like they are chiefly a form of marketing for his accelerator, and all marketing should be approached with suspicion.