4 ms·

> He's just a guy. A guy who entered into business transactions with a number of people Unfortunately, that's not true. He is also a well-read and influential

by lisper 2y ago

> He's just a guy. A guy who entered into business transactions with a number of people Unfortunately, that's not true. He is also a well-read and influential essayist. He wields power and influence through his words as well as his money.

11101010001100 2y ago
Not mutually exclusive.
- lisper 2y ago
  The word "just" in the GP implies that the author did intend for them to be mutually exclusive.
  - mort96 2y ago
    No, the word "just" in "He's not a hero. He's just a guy" indicates that he's not a hero. "Just" applies to the "just a guy" part, not to the "entered business transactions" part.
    - lisper 2y ago
      In conversational English, the phrase "He's just a guy" carries an idiomatic meaning along the lines of, "This person is no different from anyone else. He has no special power or influence or insight." And that might be true with respect to insight, but it is clearly not true with respect to power and influence. And that is why, when PG says something tone-deaf, it can hurt more than when some rando does it.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        I agree in general, but not in this specific case. "He's not a hero. He's just a guy" makes it such that "he's just a guy" is applying specifically to the "he's not a hero" bit. I didn't take it as anything more than that, and I don't think the author intended it to mean they believe Graham is just an average person with an average amount of money, power, or influence.
atoav 2y ago
Even if your essays win you a Nobel price (Paul Grahams certainly didn't) the writer isn't protected from becoming a bullshit-dispenser. This is why I respect authors that publish a consistent level of quality more than those who hit and miss as if they were throwing darts at a map. And the stuff I have read from Paul Graham is definitly not in the former category. I don't feel he is intellectually honest, either with himself (bad) or with his readers (worse). But if the past decade of the Internet has shown anything, it is that honesty and consistency isn't required to get insecure people to follow you blindly.
- ryanjamurphy 2y ago
  Would love to hear a few of the consistently-high-quality writers you're thinking about. I have a pet theory that volume is required for quality, but would love to be wrong so that I can feel less bad about how much I publish!
  - atoav 2y ago
    You are not wrong that volume is required for quality. But it does not necessarily mean all of that volume has to be published. E.g. in music there are bands where every single recording on every single release they did is good and not just a slight variation of another thing that worked. Mow on the other side you have musicians who have two releases a year and every other of them has a track on it that is really cool. I am not saying the latter is wrong, I just say the former has more of my respect, because you know that even the rejected stuff of the first band is probably stellar. Keeping a thought to oneself that isn't fully fleshed out is a virtue.
    - theGnuMe 2y ago
      The Eagles and the Beatles basically took that approach.
- gedpeck 2y ago
  it is that honesty and consistency isn't required to get insecure people to follow you blindly. I’m going to use this. Well stated.
Nevermark 2y ago
He also frames himself, accurately I believe, with his essays and the enabling-of-others nature of his successive accomplishments, as someone who genuinely values winning by helping others win. But frustration can over simplify issues for all of us, at some point. And power dulls sensitivity to those with less of it.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  Money dulls your senses.
nradov 2y ago
I have enjoyed most of Paul Graham's essays, and even been slightly influenced by a few of them, but let's not overstate his influence. We're in a real echo chamber here. Outside of a tiny tech industry bubble no one in positions of power reads those essays and they have virtually zero influence.
- lisper 2y ago
  Sure, but at this point, YC is a pretty big echo chamber. And for an individual inside the echo chamber, Paul's words can hurt more than most.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  Sama onstage with Trump and $500 billion says otherwise.
ryantgtg 2y ago
Is he well-read? His essay on the origins of wokeness was pure vibes, with hardly any historical accuracy or understanding of sociology. Many here on HN explained it as him not being well-read.
- sho_hn 2y ago
  I assume OP meant that pg is read by many people.
  - lisper 2y ago
    Yes, exactly. (Maybe I should have said "widely read".)
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  Does this matter if the "vibe" is correct? Let's all just take a moment to remember that today is inauguration day.
beefc4ke 2y ago
[dead]
theGnuMe 2y ago
The "business of tech" is and has always been politically expedient. A counter here would be well written essays offering the humanist perspective. I don't think PG is particularly well read in the area of "wokeness" anyway since he has fallen for the traditional conservative trap of redefinition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

by lisper 2y ago

11101010001100 2y ago

Not mutually exclusive.

lisper 2y ago
The word "just" in the GP implies that the author did intend for them to be mutually exclusive.
- mort96 2y ago
  No, the word "just" in "He's not a hero. He's just a guy" indicates that he's not a hero. "Just" applies to the "just a guy" part, not to the "entered business transactions" part.
  - lisper 2y ago
    In conversational English, the phrase "He's just a guy" carries an idiomatic meaning along the lines of, "This person is no different from anyone else. He has no special power or influence or insight." And that might be true with respect to insight, but it is clearly not true with respect to power and influence. And that is why, when PG says something tone-deaf, it can hurt more than when some rando does it.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I agree in general, but not in this specific case. "He's not a hero. He's just a guy" makes it such that "he's just a guy" is applying specifically to the "he's not a hero" bit. I didn't take it as anything more than that, and I don't think the author intended it to mean they believe Graham is just an average person with an average amount of money, power, or influence.

atoav 2y ago

Even if your essays win you a Nobel price (Paul Grahams certainly didn't) the writer isn't protected from becoming a bullshit-dispenser. This is why I respect authors that publish a consistent level of quality more than those who hit and miss as if they were throwing darts at a map. And the stuff I have read from Paul Graham is definitly not in the former category. I don't feel he is intellectually honest, either with himself (bad) or with his readers (worse). But if the past decade of the Internet has shown anything, it is that honesty and consistency isn't required to get insecure people to follow you blindly.

ryanjamurphy 2y ago
Would love to hear a few of the consistently-high-quality writers you're thinking about. I have a pet theory that volume is required for quality, but would love to be wrong so that I can feel less bad about how much I publish!
- atoav 2y ago
  You are not wrong that volume is required for quality. But it does not necessarily mean all of that volume has to be published. E.g. in music there are bands where every single recording on every single release they did is good and not just a slight variation of another thing that worked. Mow on the other side you have musicians who have two releases a year and every other of them has a track on it that is really cool. I am not saying the latter is wrong, I just say the former has more of my respect, because you know that even the rejected stuff of the first band is probably stellar. Keeping a thought to oneself that isn't fully fleshed out is a virtue.
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    The Eagles and the Beatles basically took that approach.
gedpeck 2y ago
it is that honesty and consistency isn't required to get insecure people to follow you blindly. I’m going to use this. Well stated.

Nevermark 2y ago

He also frames himself, accurately I believe, with his essays and the enabling-of-others nature of his successive accomplishments, as someone who genuinely values winning by helping others win. But frustration can over simplify issues for all of us, at some point. And power dulls sensitivity to those with less of it.

theGnuMe 2y ago
Money dulls your senses.

nradov 2y ago

I have enjoyed most of Paul Graham's essays, and even been slightly influenced by a few of them, but let's not overstate his influence. We're in a real echo chamber here. Outside of a tiny tech industry bubble no one in positions of power reads those essays and they have virtually zero influence.

lisper 2y ago
Sure, but at this point, YC is a pretty big echo chamber. And for an individual inside the echo chamber, Paul's words can hurt more than most.
theGnuMe 2y ago
Sama onstage with Trump and $500 billion says otherwise.

ryantgtg 2y ago

Is he well-read? His essay on the origins of wokeness was pure vibes, with hardly any historical accuracy or understanding of sociology. Many here on HN explained it as him not being well-read.

sho_hn 2y ago
I assume OP meant that pg is read by many people.
- lisper 2y ago
  Yes, exactly. (Maybe I should have said "widely read".)
2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
Does this matter if the "vibe" is correct? Let's all just take a moment to remember that today is inauguration day.

beefc4ke 2y ago

[dead]

theGnuMe 2y ago

The "business of tech" is and has always been politically expedient. A counter here would be well written essays offering the humanist perspective. I don't think PG is particularly well read in the area of "wokeness" anyway since he has fallen for the traditional conservative trap of redefinition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke