4 ms·

> 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 a

> 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.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  > 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". It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. > 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. I'd be surprised if YC's investment portfolio didn't include both farming and construction startups. But I haven't looked. (Although this isn't raising a kid, Legacy helps people have them: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy which happens to be quite relevant for my life.) Of course there's more to life. But that's true about any idea you could talk about. Why talk about anything at all, if there might be more to life? (I recently tried to face this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 ... Some of the replies were very good.) You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    >You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty. This is wrong. Here is my evidence: His articles are exclusively self serving. He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. This is dishonest behavior, even if it isnt an outright lie, in the same way that saying "vaccines caused my cousins balls to inflate" would be dishonest even if it weren't a lie. It's dishonest in the same way the church shouting down Copernicus was dishonest. The dishonesty is omission + ignorance, not a direct lie. I and GP made this point to you many times, and you have continuously chosen to lower the wool over your eyes. >It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no need to agree to this.
    - sillysaurusx 5y ago
      > He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. Could you find a quote from any pg essay that supports this point? This seems mistaken. As for the self-serving part, I don't think it's a bad thing to write about one's own experiences.

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.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
> 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". It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. > 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. I'd be surprised if YC's investment portfolio didn't include both farming and construction startups. But I haven't looked. (Although this isn't raising a kid, Legacy helps people have them: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/legacy which happens to be quite relevant for my life.) Of course there's more to life. But that's true about any idea you could talk about. Why talk about anything at all, if there might be more to life? (I recently tried to face this question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866558 ... Some of the replies were very good.) You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  >You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty. This is wrong. Here is my evidence: His articles are exclusively self serving. He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. This is dishonest behavior, even if it isnt an outright lie, in the same way that saying "vaccines caused my cousins balls to inflate" would be dishonest even if it weren't a lie. It's dishonest in the same way the church shouting down Copernicus was dishonest. The dishonesty is omission + ignorance, not a direct lie. I and GP made this point to you many times, and you have continuously chosen to lower the wool over your eyes. >It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no need to agree to this.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    > He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. Could you find a quote from any pg essay that supports this point? This seems mistaken. As for the self-serving part, I don't think it's a bad thing to write about one's own experiences.