5 ms·

Yes. It’s because of who he is. If I wrote this post, it would not have the same meaning as if he wrote it. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the reas

by zepto 6y ago

Yes. It’s because of who he is. If I wrote this post, it would not have the same meaning as if he wrote it. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the reason is that we know that PG has huge experience of and access to startup founders and seen their outcomes and has had a great deal of opportunity to formulate thoughts like like this on the basis of what he has seen. I have experience of startups too. I could have written something like this, but it genuinely wouldn’t have been as meaningful coming from me, because I don’t have the same perspective as he does.

alecbz 6y ago
I think if your perspective has enabled you to know things you wouldn't have otherwise, _most_ of that should just come through from the writing. It should be possible for you to write in a way that's convincing independently of who you are. A different person might not have been able to produce the same essay, but if the essay is the same, who the author is shouldn't matter too much (for a good essay).
- zepto 6y ago
  I simply can’t see how this can be right. What we know about PG’s experience is a huge prior that shapes how we interpret what he writes. I think this probably explains some of the polarization we see in the comments - people who don’t know who he is see this as just a dumb blog post that seems to be getting too much karma. People who do, see it as insight from someone who is in a position to actually know something.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Many of his critics mention his connection to HN, discuss his earlier essays, and so on.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Fair point.
  - alecbz 6y ago
    I'm not saying PG asserting some insight is the same as some random person asserting it: certainly PG has some prior we should take into account. But I think good essays are ones where you don't need to really rely on that prior. A good essay is one that convinces you that what it's saying is true, instead of just asserting it and relying on the reputation of the author. If an essay doesn't convince you directly, then: a) the author just didn't take the time to provide an explanation b) the explanation is too complex, or too difficult to materialize, it's something you just develop an intuition about c) it can't convince you directly because it's not actually true If you trust the author on the subject matter enough such that you're in a/b territory, then while I think an essay that explained more would be a better one, an essay that doesn't is still valuable. But I think at least one concern is that we're actually in c territory. Especially with stuff like "picking winning companies", I'm hesitant to take things at face-value. It's such a complicated thing to predict, it's easy to succumb to survivorship bias. I'm not convinced that PG is just so good at it that things should be taken at face-value.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I think this is a very obvious no-true Scotsman fallacy around the notion of a ‘good’ essay, plus a straw man of what PG wrote: “just asserting something and relying on the reputation of the author”, and one of what I wrote: “that things should be take at face-value.” It is fairly obvious that persuasive writing often convinces people of things which we are either not true, or meaningless. It’s also fairly obvious that all authors perspectives are formed by experience, and that knowing about that experience is informative of how we interpret what they say. This is simply true of all human communications. I can’t really see what you are trying to accomplish by insisting there is something called a ‘good’ essay, whose hallmark is it’s persuasiveness in the absence of knowledge about the author. Certainly there are some sincere essays that do fulfill this criteria, but it’s what also exactly what a cult leader or marketing agency would be aiming to achieve with their writing. I would make the case that being persuaded by an essay is an epistemically salient signal which can be thought of as a red flag that we may be being manipulated by someone we wouldn’t choose to be manipulated by. When we experience it, the responsible thing to do is to inform ourselves more about the author and their experience rather than to lionize the piece of writing.
- psyc 6y ago
  Nope, I came to the same conclusion as your parent, when I wondered why every one of these threads for the last several years has been full of dismissal and criticism, and why the phrase "out of touch" gets flogged like a dead horse. I've been reading pg for 17 years, so I know who he is, what he's done, where he's coming from, his writing style... I can take his essays for what they are with all that context. Of course his opinions and perspective are what they are, because it's literally his life's work to identify potentially successful founders before they're successful. Also, I don't suffer from that HN thing where nobody can simply consider an article, or do follow-up research themselves, without measurability, studies and citations, as if they're petrified they might become epistemically infected and be wrong about something that probably doesn't even impact their life in the slightest.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    I have read PG essays for the last 4-5 something years. YC was never under my radar before that. The first time I saw ‘PG essays’, I was excited because I thought they meant PG Wodehouse who is my favourite author ever and I was excited that YC reads Wodehouse together. Alas..that wasn’t the case. But I don’t regret the PG essays and have come to appreciate them over the years. I think it’s because I didn’t have any expectation about this person’s writing or prior knowledge about PG. But not knowing who Paul Graham was and reading them for the first time, I couldn’t figure out the enthusiasm around it. Maybe it was my disappointment that they weren’t by my PG. But over time, I have come to appreciate it. These are what I call ‘through my lens’ writings. The words derive weight from the cult of personality. And the lens they see the world through..
ckastner 6y ago
But what you are describing is just an appeal to authority. It's quite possible that putting the assertions of the text in the context of this particular authority does give it more credibility, but I've also heard that same authority make some very poor assertions. Just look at the objective criticism that some of the posts gather. Sometimes, there are really major, easily contradicted flaws in these texts.
- zepto 6y ago
  You’re going to need to explain how you conclude that I am making an appeal to authority. I didn’t say anything about the validity of his argument. Only that it means something different and more interesting given his experience, than it would coming from someone else. Even when he is wrong, it is more interesting to us than when a random blogger is wrong.
  - ckastner 6y ago
    > You’re going to need to explain how you conclude that I am making an appeal to authority. Because of your phrasing: "Yes. It’s because of who he is." > Even when he is wrong, it is more interesting to us than when a random blogger is wrong. Relative to each other, perhaps. However, is something wrong by PG more interesting than literally every other topic being discussed on HN, so that it "rockets to the top", to quote the comment you initially replied to.
    - zepto 6y ago
      In that phrase, “Yes. It’s because of who he is.”, I am not referring to the validity of his argument. I am explaining the fact that his posts receive a lot of attention. There is simply no appeal to authority being made. The rest of your comment isn’t clear, are you saying there is something wrong with people finding PG’s pieces interesting?
throwaway284534 6y ago
I beg someone out there, please run an experiment that reposts PG’s articles on Medium.com with a different author’s name. All things equal, I wouldn’t doubt that HN would start giving these posts a proper vote count. But then again, some people are more equal than others. shrug
- zepto 6y ago
  Some people have more experience than others.

by zepto 6y ago

alecbz 6y ago

I think if your perspective has enabled you to know things you wouldn't have otherwise, _most_ of that should just come through from the writing. It should be possible for you to write in a way that's convincing independently of who you are. A different person might not have been able to produce the same essay, but if the essay is the same, who the author is shouldn't matter too much (for a good essay).

zepto 6y ago
I simply can’t see how this can be right. What we know about PG’s experience is a huge prior that shapes how we interpret what he writes. I think this probably explains some of the polarization we see in the comments - people who don’t know who he is see this as just a dumb blog post that seems to be getting too much karma. People who do, see it as insight from someone who is in a position to actually know something.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Many of his critics mention his connection to HN, discuss his earlier essays, and so on.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Fair point.
- alecbz 6y ago
  I'm not saying PG asserting some insight is the same as some random person asserting it: certainly PG has some prior we should take into account. But I think good essays are ones where you don't need to really rely on that prior. A good essay is one that convinces you that what it's saying is true, instead of just asserting it and relying on the reputation of the author. If an essay doesn't convince you directly, then: a) the author just didn't take the time to provide an explanation b) the explanation is too complex, or too difficult to materialize, it's something you just develop an intuition about c) it can't convince you directly because it's not actually true If you trust the author on the subject matter enough such that you're in a/b territory, then while I think an essay that explained more would be a better one, an essay that doesn't is still valuable. But I think at least one concern is that we're actually in c territory. Especially with stuff like "picking winning companies", I'm hesitant to take things at face-value. It's such a complicated thing to predict, it's easy to succumb to survivorship bias. I'm not convinced that PG is just so good at it that things should be taken at face-value.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I think this is a very obvious no-true Scotsman fallacy around the notion of a ‘good’ essay, plus a straw man of what PG wrote: “just asserting something and relying on the reputation of the author”, and one of what I wrote: “that things should be take at face-value.” It is fairly obvious that persuasive writing often convinces people of things which we are either not true, or meaningless. It’s also fairly obvious that all authors perspectives are formed by experience, and that knowing about that experience is informative of how we interpret what they say. This is simply true of all human communications. I can’t really see what you are trying to accomplish by insisting there is something called a ‘good’ essay, whose hallmark is it’s persuasiveness in the absence of knowledge about the author. Certainly there are some sincere essays that do fulfill this criteria, but it’s what also exactly what a cult leader or marketing agency would be aiming to achieve with their writing. I would make the case that being persuaded by an essay is an epistemically salient signal which can be thought of as a red flag that we may be being manipulated by someone we wouldn’t choose to be manipulated by. When we experience it, the responsible thing to do is to inform ourselves more about the author and their experience rather than to lionize the piece of writing.
psyc 6y ago
Nope, I came to the same conclusion as your parent, when I wondered why every one of these threads for the last several years has been full of dismissal and criticism, and why the phrase "out of touch" gets flogged like a dead horse. I've been reading pg for 17 years, so I know who he is, what he's done, where he's coming from, his writing style... I can take his essays for what they are with all that context. Of course his opinions and perspective are what they are, because it's literally his life's work to identify potentially successful founders before they're successful. Also, I don't suffer from that HN thing where nobody can simply consider an article, or do follow-up research themselves, without measurability, studies and citations, as if they're petrified they might become epistemically infected and be wrong about something that probably doesn't even impact their life in the slightest.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  I have read PG essays for the last 4-5 something years. YC was never under my radar before that. The first time I saw ‘PG essays’, I was excited because I thought they meant PG Wodehouse who is my favourite author ever and I was excited that YC reads Wodehouse together. Alas..that wasn’t the case. But I don’t regret the PG essays and have come to appreciate them over the years. I think it’s because I didn’t have any expectation about this person’s writing or prior knowledge about PG. But not knowing who Paul Graham was and reading them for the first time, I couldn’t figure out the enthusiasm around it. Maybe it was my disappointment that they weren’t by my PG. But over time, I have come to appreciate it. These are what I call ‘through my lens’ writings. The words derive weight from the cult of personality. And the lens they see the world through..

ckastner 6y ago

But what you are describing is just an appeal to authority. It's quite possible that putting the assertions of the text in the context of this particular authority does give it more credibility, but I've also heard that same authority make some very poor assertions. Just look at the objective criticism that some of the posts gather. Sometimes, there are really major, easily contradicted flaws in these texts.

zepto 6y ago
You’re going to need to explain how you conclude that I am making an appeal to authority. I didn’t say anything about the validity of his argument. Only that it means something different and more interesting given his experience, than it would coming from someone else. Even when he is wrong, it is more interesting to us than when a random blogger is wrong.
- ckastner 6y ago
  > You’re going to need to explain how you conclude that I am making an appeal to authority. Because of your phrasing: "Yes. It’s because of who he is." > Even when he is wrong, it is more interesting to us than when a random blogger is wrong. Relative to each other, perhaps. However, is something wrong by PG more interesting than literally every other topic being discussed on HN, so that it "rockets to the top", to quote the comment you initially replied to.
  - zepto 6y ago
    In that phrase, “Yes. It’s because of who he is.”, I am not referring to the validity of his argument. I am explaining the fact that his posts receive a lot of attention. There is simply no appeal to authority being made. The rest of your comment isn’t clear, are you saying there is something wrong with people finding PG’s pieces interesting?

throwaway284534 6y ago

I beg someone out there, please run an experiment that reposts PG’s articles on Medium.com with a different author’s name. All things equal, I wouldn’t doubt that HN would start giving these posts a proper vote count. But then again, some people are more equal than others. shrug

zepto 6y ago
Some people have more experience than others.