4 ms·

Could you quote a specific sentence that supports any of your claims here? > I grew up thinking that being smart was the thing most to be desired. Perhaps you

Could you quote a specific sentence that supports any of your claims here? > I grew up thinking that being smart was the thing most to be desired. Perhaps you did too. But I bet it's not what you really want. Imagine you had a choice between being really smart but discovering nothing new, and being less smart but discovering lots of new ideas. Surely you'd take the latter. I would. This seems like the closest thing. But it's perfectly fine to mention one's own childhood experiences. You might want to read http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html, since it sounds like you don't actually disagree with him on anything. Which is to say, your reply is a DH2 at best. Wouldn't it be better to comment on the actual essay rather than its author? It'd probably be more interesting.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Let's take a look at pg's most recent essays: 1. This one, which is basically saying one of the most important things for society is coming up with new ideas. Not hard to see why someone who built his life around startups would think this. 2. "Weird Languages", touting the benefits of Lisp among others. Kinda feel like "nuff said" on this one. 3. "How to work hard", which I read basically as an overview of "how to work like you're running a startup". 4. "A project of one's own". How you should work toward your own goals, instead of someone else's. Again, I don't really disagree with pg's essays, I just no longer find them interesting because I think they are now utterly predictable at this point. I'll give you a concrete example: while I was definitely a tech and startup fan boy through the early 00s, I definitely have some amount of disillusionment around the whole startup ecosystem, and its effects on society. I never hear pg talk about really any of the downsides or regrets about the startup ecosystem that he helped unleash. If I already know pretty much exactly what someone is going to say (and nearly all of it is self-serving), I'm not going to be that interested in listening.
- lpa22 5y ago
  I think PG has definitely made the move at this point in his career from the previously more niche (interesting) insight years ago => mainstream (less interesting, more predictable) insight lately. It likely won't interest you and a non-negligible portion of the HN crowd at this point. But for the rest of society, he is still interesting and he is growing his following.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  > This one, which is basically saying one of the most important things for society is coming up with new ideas. Not hard to see why someone who built his life around startups would think this. > If I already know pretty much exactly what someone is going to say (and nearly all of it is self-serving), I'm not going to be that interested in listening. These seem to be your central points. Firstly, you're correct: the essay says that new ideas are one of the most important things for a society: > There are more subtle reasons too, which persist long into adulthood. Intelligence wins in conversation, and thus becomes the basis of the dominance hierarchy. Plus having new ideas is such a new thing historically, and even now done by so few people, that society hasn't yet assimilated the fact that this is the actual destination, and intelligence merely a means to an end. ... > So what are the other ingredients in having new ideas? The fact that I can even ask this question proves the point I raised earlier — that society hasn't assimilated the fact that it's this and not intelligence that matters. Otherwise we'd all know the answers to such a fundamental question. But is this mistaken? When choosing where to send your kids to school, would you rather send them to a school that believes strongly in their own ideas, or one that embraces more recent ideas? My parents sent me to a small religious school. Personally, I would've been happier somewhere else. But as you say, you don't disagree with the essay. Your central point is in your last sentence: > If I already know pretty much exactly what someone is going to say (and nearly all of it is self-serving)... You're saying that pg essays are no longer surprising to you. But I don't think you knew what it was going to say before you read it; you read it, and then said, "This isn't surprising." Personally, I found it surprising that society could place so much emphasis on intelligence, if it's true that new ideas matter more. You could try to argue that new ideas don't matter as much as intelligence, or that something else matters even more. It would be interesting if you were correct, since that would refute the essay's central point. But you haven't done any of that; your comment can be summed up as "I think pg sucks," because you're not making any concrete claims.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    Your comment reads as defensive, and as though you are intentionally missing the point. The point is: PG appears to be a dishonest writer. He is not writing with the evenhanded pursuit of truth in mind, but with a very particular, convenient (self-serving) truth to support. He seems to consistently ignore any strain of thought (of which there are many, see: the entire humanities) which would generate a more nuanced view. GP is saying PG is probably wrong, and probably misleading many people. This is useful, even if its not the same as saying "here is proof he is wrong". Nevertheless, to indulge you, I will say: PG is wrong. There is more to life and contributing to society than just coming up with new important ideas. Yes new important ideas can lead to more food, more materials, or even in some cases (though certainly not in PGs case) deeper relationships. But there are many meanings to life, and not all of them start with increasing productivity. PG's new ideas aren't going to raise a kid. They're not going to save any souls, or save a relationship on its last legs. They're also not going to plant any crops, or build any houses. They are useful, but they are not everything, or even the most important thing. In fact, they're a luxury. They're one of the least important things in my life.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Let's take a look at pg's most recent essays: 1. This one, which is basically saying one of the most important things for society is coming up with new ideas. Not hard to see why someone who built his life around startups would think this. 2. "Weird Languages", touting the benefits of Lisp among others. Kinda feel like "nuff said" on this one. 3. "How to work hard", which I read basically as an overview of "how to work like you're running a startup". 4. "A project of one's own". How you should work toward your own goals, instead of someone else's. Again, I don't really disagree with pg's essays, I just no longer find them interesting because I think they are now utterly predictable at this point. I'll give you a concrete example: while I was definitely a tech and startup fan boy through the early 00s, I definitely have some amount of disillusionment around the whole startup ecosystem, and its effects on society. I never hear pg talk about really any of the downsides or regrets about the startup ecosystem that he helped unleash. If I already know pretty much exactly what someone is going to say (and nearly all of it is self-serving), I'm not going to be that interested in listening.

lpa22 5y ago
I think PG has definitely made the move at this point in his career from the previously more niche (interesting) insight years ago => mainstream (less interesting, more predictable) insight lately. It likely won't interest you and a non-negligible portion of the HN crowd at this point. But for the rest of society, he is still interesting and he is growing his following.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
> This one, which is basically saying one of the most important things for society is coming up with new ideas. Not hard to see why someone who built his life around startups would think this. > If I already know pretty much exactly what someone is going to say (and nearly all of it is self-serving), I'm not going to be that interested in listening. These seem to be your central points. Firstly, you're correct: the essay says that new ideas are one of the most important things for a society: > There are more subtle reasons too, which persist long into adulthood. Intelligence wins in conversation, and thus becomes the basis of the dominance hierarchy. Plus having new ideas is such a new thing historically, and even now done by so few people, that society hasn't yet assimilated the fact that this is the actual destination, and intelligence merely a means to an end. ... > So what are the other ingredients in having new ideas? The fact that I can even ask this question proves the point I raised earlier — that society hasn't assimilated the fact that it's this and not intelligence that matters. Otherwise we'd all know the answers to such a fundamental question. But is this mistaken? When choosing where to send your kids to school, would you rather send them to a school that believes strongly in their own ideas, or one that embraces more recent ideas? My parents sent me to a small religious school. Personally, I would've been happier somewhere else. But as you say, you don't disagree with the essay. Your central point is in your last sentence: > If I already know pretty much exactly what someone is going to say (and nearly all of it is self-serving)... You're saying that pg essays are no longer surprising to you. But I don't think you knew what it was going to say before you read it; you read it, and then said, "This isn't surprising." Personally, I found it surprising that society could place so much emphasis on intelligence, if it's true that new ideas matter more. You could try to argue that new ideas don't matter as much as intelligence, or that something else matters even more. It would be interesting if you were correct, since that would refute the essay's central point. But you haven't done any of that; your comment can be summed up as "I think pg sucks," because you're not making any concrete claims.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  Your comment reads as defensive, and as though you are intentionally missing the point. The point is: PG appears to be a dishonest writer. He is not writing with the evenhanded pursuit of truth in mind, but with a very particular, convenient (self-serving) truth to support. He seems to consistently ignore any strain of thought (of which there are many, see: the entire humanities) which would generate a more nuanced view. GP is saying PG is probably wrong, and probably misleading many people. This is useful, even if its not the same as saying "here is proof he is wrong". Nevertheless, to indulge you, I will say: PG is wrong. There is more to life and contributing to society than just coming up with new important ideas. Yes new important ideas can lead to more food, more materials, or even in some cases (though certainly not in PGs case) deeper relationships. But there are many meanings to life, and not all of them start with increasing productivity. PG's new ideas aren't going to raise a kid. They're not going to save any souls, or save a relationship on its last legs. They're also not going to plant any crops, or build any houses. They are useful, but they are not everything, or even the most important thing. In fact, they're a luxury. They're one of the least important things in my life.