3 ms·

The more I think about this and reread it, the more smug and self-serving it sounds, and the more difficult it becomes to believe that this manages to pass for

The more I think about this and reread it, the more smug and self-serving it sounds, and the more difficult it becomes to believe that this manages to pass for a gem of wisdom and sage advice. It is nothing but a negative stereotype of people with high IQs as being essentially lazy and entitled. What motive is there to stereotype people with high intelligence? It sounds like sour grapes. Couldn't it be true, though? The history of similar stereotypes isn't good; lazy and entitled is one of the all-time most popular stereotypes of any despised out-group, and I suspect it hasn't been the go-to slander because it has a superior likelihood of turning out to be true and defensible. Here's a one-word rebuttal: doctors. We adopt stereotyped beliefs simply because of how they make us feel. Ordinarily, intelligent people would seem to make a poor target, because it's a group that, by definition, is distinguished by superiority, having as its sole determinant a very high IQ. It's not so easy to identify who around you might be in this group, and to attack it, you would seem to have to admit being less intelligent. The built-in requirement to demean your own intelligence along the way could almost just poison any possible benefit of stereotyping. But -- I'm not familiar with the name Max Klein, and it's such a combination of common names that it's almost ideal for being impervious to Google. From context and clues, though, I gather that this person must have achieved some amount of fame due to some startup-related achievement. I speculated in another comment that if anything could confer a license to feel superior to practically anyone, it would be having a successful startup. Who wouldn't want one, and by virtue of having it, in a way you are smarter than PhDs and Nobel Prize winners. The source largely makes no difference, though. You can judge a piece of writing completely on its own merits. This particular piece of writing falls apart under closer examination.

dwaltrip 12y ago
You are over analyzing this. The author isn't deriding those with intelligence, he simply said it can sometimes provide a false sense of assurance. He also implied that in a start up, hard work matters more than raw intelligence, but intelligence can provide some advantage.
- mtdewcmu 12y ago
  I'm not sure if I'm reading too much in, or if most people miss what it actually said and mentally insert platitudes. Even if it hedges all of its statements at some point and ends on a perfectly nonoffensive note, it still seems like a mediocre essay, because then it has absolutely nothing to say and uses a lot of words to say nothing. "Your IQ will kill your Startup" sounds like bold language to me. At the very least, there are overtones of anti-intellectualism. I don't see why HN is receptive to that.
  - dwaltrip 12y ago
    I definitely agree with you that the title is over the top (a little click-baity). I think the tone of the actual essay is more reasonable. While it may a somewhat mediocre piece, I didn't see anything to indicate anti-intellectualism. However un-original, the main idea is important and worth being reminded of (at least, I enjoyed the reminder). I think the last two paragraphs sum it up well.
    - mtdewcmu 12y ago
      I guess you have to read between the lines just a tad to see it the way I do. In fact, you have to do it rather literally, because some of the irritating message that I read into it I'm basing on the fact that certain things were left out that I think virtually any other author would have included. There are at least two ways to read something like this: 1. You could look exclusively at the words that are written and attempt to take them entirely at face value. I say attempt, because I'm not sure there necessarily always is a face value: sometimes the writer just can't figure out what he actually wants to say, and when you read the piece, it's nothing but a disconnected jumble of sentences. Some sentences seem to be going somewhere, but different sentences are in conflict with each other about where to go, and the piece ends up going nowhere. So what's the face value? I think most people are charitable and will insert their own message when there isn't really one there, and they actually seem to do it unconsciously without being aware that they made up their own message. I think that's what most people do with something like this. 2. You could, instead, read it as if you were standing directly behind the person as they were writing the essay, looking over their shoulder, trying to figure out what's going on in their head. For better or for worse, I'm inclined to go to #2. At least, I will go there at times when what I'm reading seems incoherent, and I find myself more interested in the person writing than with the message they want me to hear. I could go on and dissect the whole essay, paragraph by paragraph, reporting what the motivation seems to be there, and I wouldn't necessarily mind. But HN comment threads have a way of trailing off, and sometimes you end up talking to yourself... so I try to cut my comments off ahead of that.

dwaltrip 12y ago

You are over analyzing this. The author isn't deriding those with intelligence, he simply said it can sometimes provide a false sense of assurance. He also implied that in a start up, hard work matters more than raw intelligence, but intelligence can provide some advantage.

mtdewcmu 12y ago
I'm not sure if I'm reading too much in, or if most people miss what it actually said and mentally insert platitudes. Even if it hedges all of its statements at some point and ends on a perfectly nonoffensive note, it still seems like a mediocre essay, because then it has absolutely nothing to say and uses a lot of words to say nothing. "Your IQ will kill your Startup" sounds like bold language to me. At the very least, there are overtones of anti-intellectualism. I don't see why HN is receptive to that.
- dwaltrip 12y ago
  I definitely agree with you that the title is over the top (a little click-baity). I think the tone of the actual essay is more reasonable. While it may a somewhat mediocre piece, I didn't see anything to indicate anti-intellectualism. However un-original, the main idea is important and worth being reminded of (at least, I enjoyed the reminder). I think the last two paragraphs sum it up well.
  - mtdewcmu 12y ago
    I guess you have to read between the lines just a tad to see it the way I do. In fact, you have to do it rather literally, because some of the irritating message that I read into it I'm basing on the fact that certain things were left out that I think virtually any other author would have included. There are at least two ways to read something like this: 1. You could look exclusively at the words that are written and attempt to take them entirely at face value. I say attempt, because I'm not sure there necessarily always is a face value: sometimes the writer just can't figure out what he actually wants to say, and when you read the piece, it's nothing but a disconnected jumble of sentences. Some sentences seem to be going somewhere, but different sentences are in conflict with each other about where to go, and the piece ends up going nowhere. So what's the face value? I think most people are charitable and will insert their own message when there isn't really one there, and they actually seem to do it unconsciously without being aware that they made up their own message. I think that's what most people do with something like this. 2. You could, instead, read it as if you were standing directly behind the person as they were writing the essay, looking over their shoulder, trying to figure out what's going on in their head. For better or for worse, I'm inclined to go to #2. At least, I will go there at times when what I'm reading seems incoherent, and I find myself more interested in the person writing than with the message they want me to hear. I could go on and dissect the whole essay, paragraph by paragraph, reporting what the motivation seems to be there, and I wouldn't necessarily mind. But HN comment threads have a way of trailing off, and sometimes you end up talking to yourself... so I try to cut my comments off ahead of that.