Comment by aerosmile | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aerosmile | Hacker News Reader

The amount of negativity in the comments is astonishing (and has been with regards to all of his recent essays). Which is perverse on a couple of levels:

1. PG's essay outlines a theory that the majority of the world is conventionally-minded and doesn't like to discuss new ideas. The comments here perfectly resemble that theory. PG wins. (Edit: at the time of writing, the comments were exclusively negative. This has changed since.)

2. If you don't like his writing and his world view (the brave startup founder is the hero), then why come to HN? Why support someone's website and accelerator/fund if you think they are so wrong?

3. While recognizing the limitations of this framework (see below), let's recognize that PG became very wealthy by employing the brave founder thesis. There's got to be a lot of truth there.

If there's anything wrong with PG's writing, it's that he doesn't spell out the truth for you - which is that in 99% of the cases, you're not the target audience. This essay is the perfect example. The quadrant he's romanticizing about is the smallest one, and of course most people are not going to see themselves resembling those characteristics. Many other essays have this quality - it's easy to walk away realizing that you're either not young enough, or not hard-working enough, or not smart enough, or not in a position to take the required risks to be the target audience. And that hurts, because it's true. Just don't shoot the messenger.

For clarification, all you get from being a part of PG's target audience is having a certain set of traits which are good for one thing, but would also disqualify you from being an astronaut and pursuing many other desirable careers.

> If you don't like his writing and his world view (the brave startup founder is the hero), then why come to HN? Why support someone's website and accelerator/fund if you think they are so wrong?

Simple. I'm trying to do exactly what Paul Graham encourages (and what I believe in), and engage fruitfully with people with different ideologies and ways of thinking than me. Plus, there are sometimes interesting technical articles posted here.

> The comments here perfectly resemble that theory

Really? I don't see this, so maybe some examples would help. Mostly I see people disagreeing with Graham in unique ways. That doesn't seem like conformism. Would it be better if only people who accepted his premise commented. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Graham wants (respect for his ideas among people who disagree with him)?

Your third point begs the question.

> 3. It's futile to fight a war of words over who is right or wrong - let's instead use the economic success as a proxy for truth. With few exceptions, you're definitionally going to be less economically successful than PG. Do you think he would have pulled it off if the brave startup founder thesis was fundamentally wrong?

This is so...weird.

All this says is his model draws no conclusions which (1) he acts on and (2) make it impossible for him to generate sufficient economic returns.

What does his model have to say about becoming an expert chess player? A world-class author? An amazing athlete? A successful therapist? If there are people who are successful along those dimensions whose models contradict pg's, then what?

Your statement is almost a tautology.

I don't think the sort of ad hominem you are engaging in here is very useful, or convincing. Ad hominem is exactly what it is: you aren't arguing that the negative comments are wrong, just that the sort of people who make them are dumb conformists in (1), hypocrites in (2), and losers in (3).

"let's instead use the economic success as a proxy for truth."

This is why I think Mark Zuckerberg is always right.

"It's futile to fight a war of words over who is right or wrong - let's instead use the economic success as a proxy for truth."

Even though, that's the one of the core tenets of capitalism, I could show you that is not always the way it seems. Think about big corporations located in developing world like Brazil (where I came from), where corruption and bribes run amok. Saying that people and companies that are successful financially and economically is equal to truth and the right path to go, it's dismissing a lot of other context based on "other truth".

The world is much bigger than North America and the PG's text may not apply for different countries and culture. Imagine the same ideal applying to North Korean and Russia, what conclusions do you get from it?

The most economically successful company in the world is Saudi ARAMCO so what does that say about PG's startup founder thesis?

It proves divine right of kings in general, and House of Saud in particular. Sounds right to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com