Hacker News Reader

Comment by amadeuspagel | Hacker News Reader

Like many of pg's essays there's an unqualified glorification of being independent. For example the suggestion that hiring conformist people is something that just happens. It seems more likely that companies more or less consciously hire such people, because a company where everyone thinks independently would be one where everyone wants to do something different, and nothing would get done, no one could agree on anything.

Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.

(His theory is the college signals three things: Intelligence, discipline and conformism. It would be easy to signal first two things in some other way, but the very fact that you think you know better how to signal them proves that you're some kind of smartass who's inevitably going to cause trouble.)

View on HN

I also often notice a self-serving conclusion that you should quit your comfy corporate job (and perhaps create a startup?). In this particular essay, it's close to the bottom:

"Is there a way to cultivate curiosity? To start with, you want to avoid situations that suppress it. How much does the work you're currently doing engage your curiosity? If the answer is "not much," maybe you should change something."

> you should quit your comfy corporate job (and perhaps create a startup

That's not what he's saying. That's just one possible interpretation of it. You could also keep the job and pick up an interesting hobby, or just change jobs. It's not like it's bad advice only given out to serve his own interests. It's actually obvious sounding advice.

If you notice this often, maybe it's because in an essay that long, there will likely be some passage that can be interpreted as "quit your job and start a startup", especially considering PGs usual topics.

> That's not what he's saying. That's just one possible interpretation of it.

That why I put "perhaps" in my characterisation of what he's saying - even if 0.1% of people decide that the solution to them "not thinking for themselves" is to create a startup, pg comes out ahead.

But it is a weak characterisation because you can construe basically anything anyone has ever done to be a selfish action, and in this case the evidence isn't particularly strong. It's not like the whole essay is telling you to act in PGs interest. Basically you're assuming selfishness because in one possible interpretation of one sentence, it's possible for PG to derive any benefit at all. I don't think it's even possible to write an essay where that's not the case.

No, he is not hinting that. In fact society would most benefit of certain percentage of conventional thinkers and certain percentage of independent thinkers. And society should have different kind of people and personalities to fulfill different roles. No role is necessarily morally superior or whatever.

But he is focusing on how to live better as an independent thinker and how to get maximum out of independent thinkers. He is not stating that being independent is superior or that everyone should be this way.

Yes, conveniently aligns with self-interest. Pointing out middle managers are necessarily conformist is also convenient.

Re Curiosity:

Darwin spent decades studying barnacles.

> When I meet someone who knows a lot about something unusual (which includes practically everyone, if you dig deep enough), I try to learn what they know that other people don't.

"self-serving conclusion"

To me, this comes off as a quite paranoid. Confirmation bias is a real thing: if you seek how any particular essay is self-serving, you will find it in every single essay. If everything is self-serving, then it's not a meaningful signal.

Being independent is mostly negative. Prison is full of independent thinkers. However the small share of independent thinkers who actually got many things right are way more valuable than any conventional thinker as it is them who push society forward. Glorifying them is absolutely warranted.

The value that an independent thinker is able to create is usually predicated on a large amount of more conventional thinkers. No need to pit the two against eachother, or glorify the one any more than the other.

Are gang members also independent thinkers?

I think you completely missed the point. Really not sure what independent thinkers have to do with prisons. Some of those may be thinkers who got into prison, but that’s a really small fractions. Prisons are filled with mostly non-thinkers who got there after their impulses led them on a wrong path.

No matter the size of the company, having an unconformist accountant is not going to go well for anyone.

Aside: Michael Munger has a good Econtalk screed on the 5 buildings that a University considers most important here: https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-the-future-of-hig...

It depends who they are not conforming to. Enron.

> Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.

Some of the best recruiting advice I ever heard is that college degrees signal you can complete things. Most worthwhile objectives involve a fair amount of drudgery.

You can prove that you can complete things in other ways though.

A degree shows you can complete things that you are told to. I.e. conforming.

A lot of people seem to come out of university and be somewhat useless in a workplace.

I think that's because university is 4yrs of doing what you're told, so by the time you come out your default mode is, "wait for someone to tell me what to do".

I think that is a far stronger signal from it than signalling conformism.

It suggest a degree of commitment and ability to navigate bureaucratic nonsense, having some social capital and family resources, etc. which are skills and attributes people value.

I can think of some other reasons why employers value degrees:

1- conventional mindedness, funnily enough. Everyone else has been doing it that way so I should.

2- protecting career risk in case the new hire sucks. You can point to their qualifications and say that anyone would've made that decision

3- "I have a degree, I'm good, and I subconsciously want to hire people that ticked the same boxes as me"

I think a mix of conformity and independent thinking is important. Conformity is hardwired into us, and I assume that came from evolution as a means to help our survival, though I can't say I understand to what extent. I remember an off hand remark a friend made, but it says a lot: "If people see someone riding a Segway, they will go and beat him up." First, I think that is hilarious. Partly because it is true. This says a lot about our nature. Maybe this urge helps us work together? Of course, a certain amount of new thinking is needed too, or else we wouldn't get anywhere.

And certainly, Graham's YC became mostly a finishing school for elite-college grads. The nonconformism talk is easier than the walk.

Really? A majority of YC founders are Ivy League or equivalent graduates? Where do you get your data on that?

> Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.

That is such an interesting book that I'm surprised there is any HN discussion about it.

> Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.

Perhaps, but in high-skill fields most qualified people will be graduates regardless. Whatever you think of college degrees as an employer, most of your employees will have them.

It's not entirely obvious demand for formal education is driven by the industry.

It's tautologically true that college signals conformism since most (in a given field) go. And companies may indeed use it as a signal for conformism (or lack of the opposite). But it doesn't necessarily follow that the industry actively thinks college is uniquely good at creating this signal.

>Bryan Caplan in his book The Case Against Education suggests that employers value college degrees partly as a signal of conformism, and that that's the reason college is so hard to replace.

I dunno how true this is. I think it is more because it signals above average IQ although I think conformity may play a role too.

It's mostly a mix of this and financial means in terms of explanatory power. HN seems to routinely forget that about 64% of Americans 25+ don't have anything beyond a high school degree. Since financial means also probably correlates with employee potential, the signal works in the same direction regardless of the explanation.

The people who were smart enough to go to college but didn't broadly fall into two buckets: (1) insufficient financial means, (2) nonconformists. I strongly suspect the latter group are statistical outliers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com