7 ms·
See Randomness
- palsecam 17y ago> No one knows who said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"... It is said to be Napoléon Bonaparte. > ...but it is a powerful idea. Yes anyway, this is what matters and this is "true".
- skmurphy 17y ago"They have a saying in Chicago Mr. Bond "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." Auric Goldfinger to James Bond in Ian Fleming's "Goldfinger" See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- amichail 17y agoI think people who pursue startups see the world as revolving around them. In any case, I would like to know about tech examples of this: So if you want to discover things that have been overlooked till now, one really good place to look is in our blind spot: in our natural, naive belief that it's all about us. And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do.
- mwerty 17y agoRead the chapter on sense making from The Black Swan for a possible reason for why we normally don't see randomness.
- kirubakaran 17y agoMore recommendations of books that can change our thinking, please...
- netsp 17y agoFor me, Dawkins had a similar effect but on a different topic. I'm younger than pg, so maybe I grew up with the idea that we are just another species on its way. What I did get snapped into was understanding 2 things about evolution by natural selection: 1) It is an abstract principle. It exists very comfortably outside of genetics or even biology in a very similar way to numbers existing outside of apples and oranges. 2) It is creation. That is, it has abilities so similar to what we call creativity that it can very plausibly be called creativity. Just defining and demonstrating memes along with his description of some classroom experiment drawing boats brought those two things home. After that, I got why biologists are so in love with evolution. Biology happens to utilise this powerful principle. Happens to. There may be many such powerful principles out there without a flagship product. Undiscovered.
- miked 17y agoMore recommendations of books that can change our thinking, please... In the tradition of Darwin and Dawkins, I heartily recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker's always worth reading, and for me this is his best. Broader and deeper than his more linguistic work.
- igorhvr 17y agoWhen I was 17 years old I read "Beyond Good and Evil", by Nietzsche. ( http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4363 http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4363 ) That book truly changed the way I lived and the way I thought.
- Perceval 17y agoI thought his Genealogy of Morality was better executed in deconstructing our ideas of right and wrong.
- fburnaby 17y agoFollowing along the Dawkins theme from the essay: Dennett (Freedom Evolves, or others) takes the implications very far. I suppose there's nothing that will cause a little mental revolution, but it's definitely "consciousness raising".
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- nreece 17y ago"You see this goblet?" asks Achaan Chaa, the Thai meditation master. "For me this glass is already broken. I enjoy it; I drink out of it. It holds my water admirably, sometimes even reflecting the sun in beautiful patterns. If I should tap it, it has a lovely ring to it. But when I put this glass on the shelf and the wind knocks it over or my elbow brushes it off the table and it falls to the ground and shatters, I say, ‘Of course.’ When I understand that the glass is already broken, every moment with it is precious."
- unalone 17y agoI just talked with a friend for three hours about existence and being and comprehending our mortality, and this guy summarizes it in seven sentences. Thank you very much for posting.
- nopassrecover 17y agoI'd find it hard to make abstractions if I assumed everything was random coincidence.
- shiro 17y agoHe doesn't say "see only randomness". It's a counter proposition against our tendency to assume too much.
- nopassrecover 17y agoGood point and I agree with his general sentiment. In fact, to throw in a political molotov, I wish the "see outside your self" was viewed by those who oppose the whole health care thing in the U.S. I'm in Australia but we tend to loosely follow a "veil of ignorance (wiki it if unfamiliar)" approach to this kind of stuff.
- cschep 17y agoSo it has been proved we weren't created by (a) (g)God? Truly? I'm not convinced.
- netsp 17y agoI think your question actually demonstrates a principle behind this essay. Paradigm shifts come from discarding assumptions. Often, this is embodied as correcting the question instead of the answer. To me, the most convincing atheist argument has always been some variation of Russell's teapot. Accepting Russell's argument (which I think is very hard not to without challenging knowledge generally) you cease to ask that question. Just because religion happens to usually come before atheism doesn't mean that atheism needs to prove itself. The burden of proof is on the theist because of the nature of the claim. There is no need to prove that gods do not exist to be an atheist.
- mooted 17y agoI think he is merely referring to the assertive nature of this part of essay: No, it turns out, humans are not created by God in his own image; they're just one species among many, descended not merely from apes, but from microorganisms.
- netsp 17y agoMy comment still applies. I'm not really trying to convince anyone, just showing how for many people the process of changing their mind about God involved the principle outlined in the essay and demonstrated in these comments. According to Russell (with whom I agree) The fallacy lies in the question, a common place for blind spots to hide.
- mcav 17y ago> No, it turns out, humans are not created by God in his own image Counterpoint: God could be described as the "master programmer". A supreme being would be capable of designing an evolutionary system which would evolve beings who are capable of contemplating the existence of God himself. That deity probably has a handle on chaos theory.
- rgrieselhuber 17y ago"See randomness" has been a favorite proverb of mine ever since I read it. I also tend to use it when evaluating systems / situations from a risk management perspective (eg. raising kids).
- earle 17y agoIf you can observe randomness, does that affect its randomness?
- khafra 17y agoNo. If you can predict, that does affect its randomness.
- sovande 17y agoThat article seemed full of purpose the first time I read it, the second time, not so much. More like a random selection of slogans and triviality.
- idlewords 17y agoThere's a pleasant irony here, too, since the hallmark of Paul Graham's essays is overgeneralizing from personal experience.
- thunk 17y agoThere's a pleasant irony here, too, since that's an overgeneralization.
- khafra 17y agoEveryone overgeneralizes from extremely limited data. At least, I do.
- thunk 17y agoNice. You were joking, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
- bkovitz 17y agoI don't think it's a joke. You have no choice but to overgeneralize from experience. If you limited yourself to only what you can support by direct observation, you would be catatonic or dead.
- thunk 17y agoPerhaps you have no choice but to generalize from experience. But some people are better than others at avoiding overgeneralization. Anyway, the juxtaposition of "Everyone ... At least I do" seems to peg it as a joke, given the subject.
- projectileboy 17y agoIt's probably not a coincidence that Mr. Graham revisited this essay after having his first child; there's nothing quite like parenthood for ejecting you from the center of your own universe.
- enthalpyx 17y agoThis article is random, I don't see any purpose
- thunk 17y agoEven the concept of "me" turns out to be fuzzy around the edges if you examine it too closely. Try not to examine it too closely without proper guidance, though: it's a little more than just fuzzy.
- anc2020 17y agoPlease could someone elaborate on how "me" is a fuzzy concept or provide a link?
- nollidge 17y ago"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." - Alan W. Watts How do I know who I am? When I try a new food, what are my criteria for deciding whether or not I like it? If I wish to be a better person, why am I not already that better person?
- sp332 17y agoReally simplistic answer, but should get you started: there is no single definable thing that is identifiably "you". If you lost a foot, would you still be you? At what point does the food you eat become a part of you? If you lost your memories, or changed your mind about something you believe deeply, or if you go to sleep, do you stop being you?
- sophacles 17y agoAnother angle: How many of the tags you use to idendify yourself are actually group membership tags... e.g. pythonista, founder, etc.? How many of the activities you do only make sense in the context of people (productive member of society stuff)? Even more, how many of the things you do are because of the consequences for or from others (feed your family, help your friends, do something recognized as really cool)? Where "me" stops and society begins is always a bit fuzzy.
- rms 17y ago:) Enjoy! http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_identity/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/r9/quantum_mechanics_and_personal_id...
- bluishgreen 17y agoWhen something bad happens most of the times its the situation/randomness that is the cause, when something good happens most of the time it is caused by a person. Humans are the vehicles of anti-randomness, we make patterns.
- col16 17y agoThe reality is quite the opposite. The history of ides is not a history of gradually discarding the assumption that it's all about us - rather, it's a history of building up and defending the assumption that it's all about us. Why? Because if there is no God, there is no ultimate being which we are accountable to. Although evolution doesn't have to lead to the conclusion that there is no God, we happily assume it does---because then we can all be our own gods, making up our own rules. Sure, we might not think the sun revolves around our world any more, but we are selfish in many many other (more subtle) ways.
- roundsquare 17y agoThats not really accurate. There is a difference between believing its "all about us" and believing "we can do whatever we want." They are in many ways counter to each other. If what we do doesn't have any meaning (i.e. if no one is watching) then we might as well do anything we want. By discarding the idea of god, its true that we do tend to place ourselves as the highest beings in existence, but that doesn't mean we put ourselves at the center, we just discard the idea that there is a center.
- col16 17y agoOk, agreed - discarding the centre doesn't necessitate that we put ourselves in that spot. What I would argue though is that by our human nature have a strong tenancy to put ourselves in the centre. We're not always blatantly selfish (or proud), but if we really look at ourselves, we're pretty good at it in lots of small ways.
- sketerpot 17y ago> Although evolution doesn't have to lead to the conclusion that there is no God, we happily assume it does---because then we can all be our own gods, making up our own rules. That's insulting, and (more importantly) it doesn't seem to have any factual backing. Got evidence? Because I don't know a single formerly-religious-person for whom that sort of thing was even a consideration. And come on, everybody makes up their moral rules or inherits them from their community, or usually some combination of both. Some of them attribute the results to God, but the difference is minimal.
- look_lookatme 17y agoNo offense to PG, but I really feel this is a better piece on, maybe not the same idea, but a similar sentiment: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html
- pg 17y agoYeah, that's pretty good. One of the reasons I gave up blogging is that it caused me to use up topics that deserved more work on little, quickly written blog posts. That's why I wasn't in a hurry to republish this.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agothat was a really great speech, thank you for linking that.
- caffeine 17y agoLovely explanation of Zen. Thanks.
- radu_floricica 17y ago> or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he's trying to rush to the hospital, Yes, you can choose what your mind does, but this is simply playing make-believe. No self-respecting mind is going to eat this for more then 10 minutes. Changing your thinking works, but it has to be a bit more subtle (and complicated) then this. I really liked this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html
- unalone 17y agoReally? Because I've "eaten" it for quite a while, and it's been pretty effective. I tell myself that people being rude or jerks have a reason for what they're doing, and while I show a backbone when things get too harsh, for the most part I give them room to breathe. Result: Far fewer pointless fights, far less negativity.
- davidmathers 17y agoGreat little essay until the last line. Yay: Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you. This is exactly my primary article of faith in life. (By faith I mean the stuff I fill the missing gaps in my knowledge with in order to make actionable decisions.) Nay: See randomness. 1. I'm not sure what this even means. How does one learn to see randomness and just what are they seeing when they see it? 2. It's not the positive version of "stop inserting yourself in the chain of causality". (Is there even a positive way to say "stop doing that thing you're doing"?) I say pick b. b is not random. It's just not about you.
- pg 17y agoI'm not sure what this even means. I meant you should actively seek out ways in which you're seeing patterns where there aren't any.
- davidmathers 17y agoOk, I see what you're getting at. "Bias: your pattern recognition is overzealous" would be a great companion essay, which I would love to read. Especially ideas for countering it. A line from that essay showing up at the end of the "Bias: you think it's about you/your species, but it isn't" essay seems quite.. random. Sorry.
- khafra 17y ago"Miss pareidolia" isn't quite as catchy as "see randomness."
- miked 17y agoGraham's Razor: If you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.. (With apologies to Mr. Occam.) BTW, I think the last line might be better phrased as "See indifference." The ubiquity of causation requires that much/most of the word isn't random. It just doesn't give a damn about us. "Seeing indifference", and how to get past it, is probably also a good starting point for new businesses pondering their marketing plan.
- cwp 17y agoThere's also "See mediocrity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle and "See yourself" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle I love the tension between these two ideas. The universe must be organized in a way that supports your existence, because, well, you exist. But your existence is just a fluke, made possible by the fact that the universe is what it is. The universe wasn't created for your convenience.
- paulodeon 17y agoWhile this makes perfect sense from an intellectual standpoint, pragmatically speaking it won't help you much in day to day life. Self-centrism, while no doubt obstructive in the search for a cure to cancer can be quite useful when say, asking for a raise or deciding whether to ask that girl out. I find it quite useful, when unsure about something, to assume the option that is most beneficial to you. This positive self-centrism could also come in quite handy when starting a startup.
- prakash 17y agoNo, it turns out, we're not even the protagonists: we're just the latest model vehicle our genes have constructed to travel around in. PG: Did you write this on etherpad? Can you share that link? I wanted to get a look at how this essay was shaped, specifically the above mentioned sentence. Thanks!
- Create 17y agoQuite to the contrary, life/living is about fighting entropy (or second law of thermodynamics), "randomness". This leads to the most famous and one of the most controversial elements of the [a] play. Adam cannot understand what the purpose of his existence is if mankind's future is so bleak. The last line is spoken by God: "Mondottam, ember, küzdj és bízva bízzál!" ("I have told you, Man: fight on, and trust!") Depending on the interpretation, this can either be seen cynically as the words of a capricious deity, or else pointing to a "hope beyond all hope," that God has a purpose for all things which man may not necessarily comprehend. This is markedly different from Paradise Lost, where the Christian hope is explicitly spelled out. listen to the talk: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2641555.htm http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2641555....
- ibsulon 17y agoSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- arijo 17y agoSo - if evolution does not have a purpose - let's make it our mission, as human beings, to seek for truth in life and for life in a world more resilient to the randomness of the universe.