2 ms·

I'm not sure how you can discern cloudy thinking from malice. Here's how I do it: I look for someone who seems to be trying to score rhetorical points, and the

by pg 17y ago

I'm not sure how you can discern cloudy thinking from malice. Here's how I do it: I look for someone who seems to be trying to score rhetorical points, and then I ask what the chances are that happened by accident. When people are earnestly but confusedly trying to work something out for themselves, they don't sound like this: DARPA birthed the Internet. YC birthed reddit. I guess the jury is still out.

aaronblohowiak 17y ago
If the person errantly assumes that the best metric to evaluate the programs is by an unadjusted comparison of their most recognizable achievement (which is simple, obvious, and wrong) then I can see how they would make a point similar to the one above. I do not believe that malice is required for shallow exploration of the problem set in this way. The sarcasm is petty, but it may follow from the earlier error. So the issue in this case is wether the sarcasm follows from the errant logical conclusion or wether a malicious intent inspired the faulty logic and bad attitude. As the righteous are often petty, I cannot discern if the error is deliberately dishonest or negligently shallow and intentionally righteous. Either way, I agree that it is a terrible argument and a worse comment.
- rjurney 17y ago
  Frankly, I'm having trouble taking either of you seriously. The comment was a silly one, but clearly the ego of Paul Graham cannot handle jest that compares YC unfavorably with the invention of the wheel.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    The original comment seemed more belittling than frivolous. As for ego, I don't have a window into anyone else's psyche (do you?), but can think of an easy explanation that has nothing to do with ego: YC is a business. It would be irresponsible not to defend one's business against false or disparaging statements. Beyond that, it's important to hold the discourse to a certain standard; we have many examples of the pestilence that befalls online communities where this isn't actively done. (Your comment wouldn't raise an eyebrow in many of these places, but it was locally acidic.) IMO PG does a pretty good job of pushing back on this kind of thing while at the same time letting reasonable criticism have free rein. That's a hard balance to strike and not likely how a runaway ego would go about things.

by pg 17y ago

aaronblohowiak 17y ago

If the person errantly assumes that the best metric to evaluate the programs is by an unadjusted comparison of their most recognizable achievement (which is simple, obvious, and wrong) then I can see how they would make a point similar to the one above. I do not believe that malice is required for shallow exploration of the problem set in this way. The sarcasm is petty, but it may follow from the earlier error. So the issue in this case is wether the sarcasm follows from the errant logical conclusion or wether a malicious intent inspired the faulty logic and bad attitude. As the righteous are often petty, I cannot discern if the error is deliberately dishonest or negligently shallow and intentionally righteous. Either way, I agree that it is a terrible argument and a worse comment.

rjurney 17y ago
Frankly, I'm having trouble taking either of you seriously. The comment was a silly one, but clearly the ego of Paul Graham cannot handle jest that compares YC unfavorably with the invention of the wheel.
- gruseom 17y ago
  The original comment seemed more belittling than frivolous. As for ego, I don't have a window into anyone else's psyche (do you?), but can think of an easy explanation that has nothing to do with ego: YC is a business. It would be irresponsible not to defend one's business against false or disparaging statements. Beyond that, it's important to hold the discourse to a certain standard; we have many examples of the pestilence that befalls online communities where this isn't actively done. (Your comment wouldn't raise an eyebrow in many of these places, but it was locally acidic.) IMO PG does a pretty good job of pushing back on this kind of thing while at the same time letting reasonable criticism have free rein. That's a hard balance to strike and not likely how a runaway ego would go about things.