6 ms·

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird ven

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

xupybd 4y ago
Maybe I'm too simple to notice but I don't detect any pseudo intellectualism. He makes a point and talks about it. There doesn't appear to be an attempt to come off smarter than he is.
voidhorse 4y ago
The psuedo-intellectualism is more than just a veneer, I'm afraid, it's the real tooth of many of these pieces. pg has some decent takes on programming and one day decided that he might also have takes on things he knows far less about. These latter takes don't tend to be very good, which is unfortunate because he does actually manage to influence people.
- inimino 4y ago
  That's a good story, but you didn't provide any evidence for it, so an anecdote like "I read his essay about [X] on which I'm an expert and it was wrong" would have more value.
  - voidhorse 4y ago
    Eh, it's an opinion that I'm not inclined to spend time or effort backing up. I do agree that if I did actually back it up, of course the post would be more valuable. Instead, I'll be lazy and say read the essays and judge for yourself, you might disagree! I'm also of the opinion that if you have even a passing familiarity with any "soft" science (communications, sociology, philosophy, literature) you'll likely find at least one essay that makes you agree with me.
    - inimino 4y ago
      Well, I don't suppose I can disprove that without reading all the essays... but I do think that pg's writings have a style that's less amenable to more humanities-oriented readers.
sph 4y ago
Not every thought one decides to collect on their personal website has to be peer-reviewed and well-researched, you know? It is hilariously dismissive to label someone's own ideas as pseudo intellectual because you don't agree with them, and they aren't coming with a bibliography.
dang 4y ago
If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way. People have had this kind of reaction to his writing for 20 years now and I've been puzzling about why for a long time, because even though I often don't agree with him (sometimes I disagree, more often I have no opinion), I wish I could write like him and know of few other writers who come close. My current take: I think pg's unusual quality is that he thinks for himself. It used to be a truism that one should "think for oneself" (and even "question authority"!)—not so much anymore—but although we all tell ourselves we do that, mostly we don't. We mostly repeat things we've cobbled from other sources, usually sources tagged as authorities in our minds (and usually also in the culture at large). If you cobble from enough sources and have a bit of taste, that's the sweet spot for getting a good reception. You'll come across as clever and creative, but not weird, because you haven't left the tribe. When encountering someone who actually does think for himself, the reaction is often a WTF. How dare he do that! Where are the citations?! Thinking-for-self stands out, not in a good way—and in pg's case the ruthless editing makes it stand out starkly. It's off-putting. The reaction isn't "hey, what would it be like if I thought for myself?" It's "hey, you can't do that." The "rich and famous" aspect is a red herring because pg was this way long before he got rich and famous (except Lisp-famous), and it was by this quality that he got rich... that plus a lot of energy. But the rich-and-famous aspect intensifies the WTF reaction. It's no longer just "how dare you", it's "how dare that rich motherfucker" - which again, gets the causality the wrong way. I know this sounds harsh about the cobbler type but I know these things by tracking them in myself—I'm no different. The funny thing is that one can notice such things and still feel perfectly sure about "thinking for yourself" or whatever else it is.
- vore 4y ago
  I don't really buy this idea of "thinking for yourself". We are nothing more than the product of our experiences: there are no axioms at the root of at any of our beliefs; fundamentally everything that goes through our heads is cobbled together from other sources that's cobbled together from other sources before that. And that's good! Because if we were attempting to derive everything from axioms that would be 1) impossible and 2) a total waste of time, because you're throwing away the collective knowledge of everyone who came before you. I think what you are getting at, though, is not so much "thinking for yourself" as pg is unafraid to say unpopular things that are on his mind. And I don't mean this in a derogatory way: it's good to have people who aren't just posting sycophantic opinions following the zeitgeist. But I don't think that's what causes my reaction to pg's writings. I think he gives advice that is overly universalizing from his position as a wealthy VC: for example, his "The Two Kinds of Moderate" post strikes me as very much the kind of thing that is really only taking his own experiences into account.
xyzelement 4y ago
Pg's writing often resonates with my experience, but I wouldn't have expressed the ideas nearly as clearly. He's a keen observer and a good writer.
vishnugupta 4y ago
His writings from back in the days when he was operating are insightful. But now that he's semi-retired his posts' signal to noise ratio has plummeted.
Slighted 4y ago
Its not only limited to pg, either. There are lots of big-name programmers that look at their programming skills and think it means they're good to speak on other, totally unrelated topics as if they're super geniuses.
- whoopdeepoo 4y ago
  It's his personal website, not a philosophy journal. Can we scrutinize all your comments for subject matter expertise? What is your expertise anyway?
  - Slighted 4y ago
    Regardless of whether or not its his personal website, my point still stands, although reading my previous post I think I should be more specific. There are quite a lot of big-name programmers that gain large amounts of ego from their work to the point that they feel confident to speak on matters they're not terribly educated to the point that they're fantastically incorrect, and confidently so. >Can we scrutinize all your comments for subject matter expertise? Absolutely.
    - dang 4y ago
      I don't know any "big name programmers" but this is definitely a thing socially. Think actors and musicians commenting on social causes and whatnot.
      - Slighted 4y ago
        When I was writing my post Jamie Zawinski (The "Mozilla guy") was what I had in mind. A great programmer but very outspoken in his social views to the point that he's entirely disconnected from reality. Lacking perspective. This is a blog post of his that I find to be one of the better examples of what I'm referring to: https://web.archive.org/web/20221211061513/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2022/10/why-do-rich-people-love-quiet/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221211061513/https://www.jwz.o...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jasmer 4y ago
It's only off-putting if you elevate it beyond what it's meant to be. It's just a blog.
- IAmNotAFix 4y ago
  If you follow PG on Twitter, he elevates it beyond just a blog.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
If PG's writing is "pseudo intellectual philosophy" I wonder what true intellectual philosophy looks like. Looking at other comments in this thread, I get the impression that people have this ideal of an essay that looks like an academic paper, that starts with a literature review. But that is not how writing and thought naturally flows. People write like this to suck up to the right people who might help them get a job as an assistant professor somewhere, or tenure or maybe just cite their own papers in return. I find it repulsive.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy I haven't recognised this in his writing. Can you quote some of the pseudo intellectual philosophy-veneered sections?
niyikiza 4y ago
You may benefit from his other essay on how to disagree: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

xupybd 4y ago

Maybe I'm too simple to notice but I don't detect any pseudo intellectualism. He makes a point and talks about it. There doesn't appear to be an attempt to come off smarter than he is.

voidhorse 4y ago

The psuedo-intellectualism is more than just a veneer, I'm afraid, it's the real tooth of many of these pieces. pg has some decent takes on programming and one day decided that he might also have takes on things he knows far less about. These latter takes don't tend to be very good, which is unfortunate because he does actually manage to influence people.

inimino 4y ago
That's a good story, but you didn't provide any evidence for it, so an anecdote like "I read his essay about [X] on which I'm an expert and it was wrong" would have more value.
- voidhorse 4y ago
  Eh, it's an opinion that I'm not inclined to spend time or effort backing up. I do agree that if I did actually back it up, of course the post would be more valuable. Instead, I'll be lazy and say read the essays and judge for yourself, you might disagree! I'm also of the opinion that if you have even a passing familiarity with any "soft" science (communications, sociology, philosophy, literature) you'll likely find at least one essay that makes you agree with me.
  - inimino 4y ago
    Well, I don't suppose I can disprove that without reading all the essays... but I do think that pg's writings have a style that's less amenable to more humanities-oriented readers.

sph 4y ago

Not every thought one decides to collect on their personal website has to be peer-reviewed and well-researched, you know? It is hilariously dismissive to label someone's own ideas as pseudo intellectual because you don't agree with them, and they aren't coming with a bibliography.

dang 4y ago

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way. People have had this kind of reaction to his writing for 20 years now and I've been puzzling about why for a long time, because even though I often don't agree with him (sometimes I disagree, more often I have no opinion), I wish I could write like him and know of few other writers who come close. My current take: I think pg's unusual quality is that he thinks for himself. It used to be a truism that one should "think for oneself" (and even "question authority"!)—not so much anymore—but although we all tell ourselves we do that, mostly we don't. We mostly repeat things we've cobbled from other sources, usually sources tagged as authorities in our minds (and usually also in the culture at large). If you cobble from enough sources and have a bit of taste, that's the sweet spot for getting a good reception. You'll come across as clever and creative, but not weird, because you haven't left the tribe. When encountering someone who actually does think for himself, the reaction is often a WTF. How dare he do that! Where are the citations?! Thinking-for-self stands out, not in a good way—and in pg's case the ruthless editing makes it stand out starkly. It's off-putting. The reaction isn't "hey, what would it be like if I thought for myself?" It's "hey, you can't do that." The "rich and famous" aspect is a red herring because pg was this way long before he got rich and famous (except Lisp-famous), and it was by this quality that he got rich... that plus a lot of energy. But the rich-and-famous aspect intensifies the WTF reaction. It's no longer just "how dare you", it's "how dare that rich motherfucker" - which again, gets the causality the wrong way. I know this sounds harsh about the cobbler type but I know these things by tracking them in myself—I'm no different. The funny thing is that one can notice such things and still feel perfectly sure about "thinking for yourself" or whatever else it is.

vore 4y ago
I don't really buy this idea of "thinking for yourself". We are nothing more than the product of our experiences: there are no axioms at the root of at any of our beliefs; fundamentally everything that goes through our heads is cobbled together from other sources that's cobbled together from other sources before that. And that's good! Because if we were attempting to derive everything from axioms that would be 1) impossible and 2) a total waste of time, because you're throwing away the collective knowledge of everyone who came before you. I think what you are getting at, though, is not so much "thinking for yourself" as pg is unafraid to say unpopular things that are on his mind. And I don't mean this in a derogatory way: it's good to have people who aren't just posting sycophantic opinions following the zeitgeist. But I don't think that's what causes my reaction to pg's writings. I think he gives advice that is overly universalizing from his position as a wealthy VC: for example, his "The Two Kinds of Moderate" post strikes me as very much the kind of thing that is really only taking his own experiences into account.

xyzelement 4y ago

Pg's writing often resonates with my experience, but I wouldn't have expressed the ideas nearly as clearly. He's a keen observer and a good writer.

vishnugupta 4y ago

His writings from back in the days when he was operating are insightful. But now that he's semi-retired his posts' signal to noise ratio has plummeted.

Slighted 4y ago

Its not only limited to pg, either. There are lots of big-name programmers that look at their programming skills and think it means they're good to speak on other, totally unrelated topics as if they're super geniuses.

whoopdeepoo 4y ago
It's his personal website, not a philosophy journal. Can we scrutinize all your comments for subject matter expertise? What is your expertise anyway?
- Slighted 4y ago
  Regardless of whether or not its his personal website, my point still stands, although reading my previous post I think I should be more specific. There are quite a lot of big-name programmers that gain large amounts of ego from their work to the point that they feel confident to speak on matters they're not terribly educated to the point that they're fantastically incorrect, and confidently so. >Can we scrutinize all your comments for subject matter expertise? Absolutely.
  - dang 4y ago
    I don't know any "big name programmers" but this is definitely a thing socially. Think actors and musicians commenting on social causes and whatnot.
    - Slighted 4y ago
      When I was writing my post Jamie Zawinski (The "Mozilla guy") was what I had in mind. A great programmer but very outspoken in his social views to the point that he's entirely disconnected from reality. Lacking perspective. This is a blog post of his that I find to be one of the better examples of what I'm referring to: https://web.archive.org/web/20221211061513/https://www.jwz.org/blog/2022/10/why-do-rich-people-love-quiet/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221211061513/https://www.jwz.o...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jasmer 4y ago

It's only off-putting if you elevate it beyond what it's meant to be. It's just a blog.

IAmNotAFix 4y ago
If you follow PG on Twitter, he elevates it beyond just a blog.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

If PG's writing is "pseudo intellectual philosophy" I wonder what true intellectual philosophy looks like. Looking at other comments in this thread, I get the impression that people have this ideal of an essay that looks like an academic paper, that starts with a literature review. But that is not how writing and thought naturally flows. People write like this to suck up to the right people who might help them get a job as an assistant professor somewhere, or tenure or maybe just cite their own papers in return. I find it repulsive.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy I haven't recognised this in his writing. Can you quote some of the pseudo intellectual philosophy-veneered sections?

niyikiza 4y ago

You may benefit from his other essay on how to disagree: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html