4 ms·

I think this essay would be more effective if the author defined what they mean by “earnest”. I think based on the essay, they mean seriousness + sincerity. But

I think this essay would be more effective if the author defined what they mean by “earnest”. I think based on the essay, they mean seriousness + sincerity. But there is also a sense that the author considers “correct” as part of the definition: >“when you call someone earnest, you’re making a statement about their motives. It means both that they’re doing something for the right reasons [my emphasis] and they’re trying as hard as I can” So why assume that “interest in the problem” is intrinsically good? Do we really believe it’s not possible for a politician to be addressing the problem of “improving people’s lives” via the intermediate aim of “gaining political power”? So why wouldn’t that also be classified as “earnest”? If a gang leader is addressing the problem of “keeping our guys safe”, and therefore murders members of a rival gang who pose a threat to them, wouldn’t that also be “earnest”? Is it just because the author holds people working individually on a certain class of problems to be admirable, while having a much more negative view or politicians and criminals? [Edit: I forgot to mention that I think there are some good points in this essay, and I agree with many of them, but I think it leaves some important areas unexplored]

hodgesrm 6y ago
> Do we really believe it’s not possible for a politician to be addressing the problem of “improving people’s lives” via the intermediate aim of “gaining political power”? In my limited understanding the writers of the US Constitution held exactly this belief: that the government would be run by imperfect and self-interested actors. They introduced mechanisms like separation of powers to play them off against each other to the benefit of the governed. It seems as we've moved from that focus on outcomes to judging people based on the purity of their motives.
selestify 6y ago
Does PG not already define earnest as > interest in the problem for its own sake. That is the root of earnestness
pdonis 6y ago
> why assume that “interest in the problem” is intrinsically good? I agree. I also think there's another aspect that the article leaves out: what is the definition of "solving the problem"? For example, another recent pg article that was on the HN front page was the one about the founders of AirBnB. Although pg didn't use them as a specific example of "earnestness", I suspect he would describe them that way. But AirBnB, at scale, has created a lot of negative externalities (and much of the HN discussion of the article was focused on that). It doesn't seem to me like dealing with those negative externalities was part of the problem the AirBnB founders were earnest about solving. And that, to me, is what we computer nerds call a security hole. If it's better to have earnest people trying to solve hard problems, then startup founders are not the only people that need to be selected for earnestness; the people that are going to run the company at scale and deal with the negative externalities it creates at scale also need to be. But those people are not being selected for earnestness at all; in fact earnestness in those positions, I would argue, is selected strongly against.

hodgesrm 6y ago

> Do we really believe it’s not possible for a politician to be addressing the problem of “improving people’s lives” via the intermediate aim of “gaining political power”? In my limited understanding the writers of the US Constitution held exactly this belief: that the government would be run by imperfect and self-interested actors. They introduced mechanisms like separation of powers to play them off against each other to the benefit of the governed. It seems as we've moved from that focus on outcomes to judging people based on the purity of their motives.

selestify 6y ago

Does PG not already define earnest as > interest in the problem for its own sake. That is the root of earnestness

pdonis 6y ago

> why assume that “interest in the problem” is intrinsically good? I agree. I also think there's another aspect that the article leaves out: what is the definition of "solving the problem"? For example, another recent pg article that was on the HN front page was the one about the founders of AirBnB. Although pg didn't use them as a specific example of "earnestness", I suspect he would describe them that way. But AirBnB, at scale, has created a lot of negative externalities (and much of the HN discussion of the article was focused on that). It doesn't seem to me like dealing with those negative externalities was part of the problem the AirBnB founders were earnest about solving. And that, to me, is what we computer nerds call a security hole. If it's better to have earnest people trying to solve hard problems, then startup founders are not the only people that need to be selected for earnestness; the people that are going to run the company at scale and deal with the negative externalities it creates at scale also need to be. But those people are not being selected for earnestness at all; in fact earnestness in those positions, I would argue, is selected strongly against.