Everything's Blub All Over Again
60 comments
I'm just sick of hearing about it. This is like the OJ Simpson trial of hacker news.
Or I should say Reddit. The responses here were fairly normal until someone pointed out that reddit-ers were freaking out about it. I really hate to beat the old 'reddit is teh dumb' dead horse, but it kind of seems like it sometimes.
I think someone read into that essay what he wanted in a search for controversy, and then a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon in order to grind an axe with PG or YC, or to appear politically correct, or any number of other reasons.
It's just like when the whole world had a cow over the (lack of) unicode support in Arc0.
I am currently a caged lion, and I feel like one. I dream of nothing else but the open savanna and a tasty gazelle. How is that for taking a metaphor too far? I understood the whole thing as "startups are liberating to hackers" ... not "hackers that aren't doing startups suck" as others have suggested. I think his points about giant organizations not being natural make sense, and I really don't see why everyone took it personally.
Sure, people can enjoy their big company jobs. But you have to wonder... I have yet to meet an (ex)entrepreneur that hated running his own business. Just because you happen to like your company job doesn't mean you wouldn't get more done and feel more free in a startup. And just because you would get more done and feel more free in a startup doesn't mean you should quit a company job you are happy at either. It's up to the individual. It's not like we are arguing over religion here.
Or are we? It sure sounds like it lately.
Or I should say Reddit. The responses here were fairly normal until someone pointed out that reddit-ers were freaking out about it. I really hate to beat the old 'reddit is teh dumb' dead horse, but it kind of seems like it sometimes.
I think someone read into that essay what he wanted in a search for controversy, and then a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon in order to grind an axe with PG or YC, or to appear politically correct, or any number of other reasons.
It's just like when the whole world had a cow over the (lack of) unicode support in Arc0.
I am currently a caged lion, and I feel like one. I dream of nothing else but the open savanna and a tasty gazelle. How is that for taking a metaphor too far? I understood the whole thing as "startups are liberating to hackers" ... not "hackers that aren't doing startups suck" as others have suggested. I think his points about giant organizations not being natural make sense, and I really don't see why everyone took it personally.
Sure, people can enjoy their big company jobs. But you have to wonder... I have yet to meet an (ex)entrepreneur that hated running his own business. Just because you happen to like your company job doesn't mean you wouldn't get more done and feel more free in a startup. And just because you would get more done and feel more free in a startup doesn't mean you should quit a company job you are happy at either. It's up to the individual. It's not like we are arguing over religion here.
Or are we? It sure sounds like it lately.
The situation with reddit is a unique one. I think I'm
the only person who both writes a lot and started a news site. Not
surprisingly, people who like what I write tended to switch to that
news site. The switch was particularly extreme in the case of
reddit, because News.YC is in a sense an offshoot of reddit: most
people who switched from another site to this one came from there.
The result is that practically anyone left on reddit who has an opinion about me has a bad one. At this point, I could write an essay saying 1 + 1 = 2, and the reddit comment thread would be pretty unanimous that I was mistaken, and moreover, an asshole for saying so.
Usually this doesn't effect anything much, but I think you're right that it did in this case. I exchanged email with Atwood and it seemed clear he'd been influenced by the tone of the reddit thread.
I don't think there's anything one could actually do about this problem. I only mention this because it is so far as I know a novel one.
The result is that practically anyone left on reddit who has an opinion about me has a bad one. At this point, I could write an essay saying 1 + 1 = 2, and the reddit comment thread would be pretty unanimous that I was mistaken, and moreover, an asshole for saying so.
Usually this doesn't effect anything much, but I think you're right that it did in this case. I exchanged email with Atwood and it seemed clear he'd been influenced by the tone of the reddit thread.
I don't think there's anything one could actually do about this problem. I only mention this because it is so far as I know a novel one.
The conversational style where you take bits of personal experience and elevate them to Universal Truths (or at least leave people with the perception that that's what you're doing) is one that attracts a lot of attention and I assume you know this and think that is a good thing. The miraculous effect here is _not_ the amount of negative attention you get, but the fact that this is attention is so polarized across sites. I suspect reddit is not actually the odd one out here, but rather that the crowd you gathered here at ycombinator are already well into your 'cult of personality' and more accepting of your contraversial approach.
What's important is that you keep the conversation going. If you're going to say stuff that rubs people the wrong way (like your "anyone who didn't found a startup is a caged animal" did), you should either anticipate people's knee-jerk reactions within the piece, or engage them as they come up. If you don't, you risk that people start writing you off as a blow-hard.
What's important is that you keep the conversation going. If you're going to say stuff that rubs people the wrong way (like your "anyone who didn't found a startup is a caged animal" did), you should either anticipate people's knee-jerk reactions within the piece, or engage them as they come up. If you don't, you risk that people start writing you off as a blow-hard.
let's check numbers: "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss" got 652 up, 248 down, 72% up.
Atwood's "Paul Graham's Participatory Narcissism": 438 up, 322 down, 57% up.
"The Cliffs Notes": 255 up, 201 down. 56% up.
i do not see any signigicant bias here. opinion definitely not "pretty unanimous".
you were mistaken.
Atwood's "Paul Graham's Participatory Narcissism": 438 up, 322 down, 57% up.
"The Cliffs Notes": 255 up, 201 down. 56% up.
i do not see any signigicant bias here. opinion definitely not "pretty unanimous".
you were mistaken.
The numbers you quote are about votes. I didn't say stuff I wrote wouldn't get upvoted on reddit.
Sigh. I feel like I'm posting on reddit right now. That distinctive "no, what I actually said was" spectral signature of arguing with a troll.
Sigh. I feel like I'm posting on reddit right now. That distinctive "no, what I actually said was" spectral signature of arguing with a troll.
i'm pretty sure that people who vote on reddit can have opinion, and they intersect in some way with people who comment.
there might be more negative comments, but that's actually a natural phenomenon -- comments of agreement looking like "+1" are generally avoided, but comments of disagreement are typically more meaningful becauae comment author can describe _how_ he disagrees. also, you see, comments like "author is great!" are generally considered asslicking, and hence are inpopular.
so, you cannot realiably judge opinion of mass from comments.
but you can do this from vote number.
there might be more negative comments, but that's actually a natural phenomenon -- comments of agreement looking like "+1" are generally avoided, but comments of disagreement are typically more meaningful becauae comment author can describe _how_ he disagrees. also, you see, comments like "author is great!" are generally considered asslicking, and hence are inpopular.
so, you cannot realiably judge opinion of mass from comments.
but you can do this from vote number.
Paul, this is really paranoid. I use reddit because of familiarity and the number of people on it.
BTW, if your intent was to switch everyone to News.YC I think it's sort of mean, considering your relationship with its founders. Did they leave a shitbag on your lawn or something?
News.YC has about 2% of Reddit's traffic, so I don't think the Reddits worry much about it. And I don't want the rest, so they don't have much to worry about in the future either.
Paul, any chance to accept a possibility, that they write "we do not agree with this particular Paul's essay" because they do not agree with what you wrote in this particular article, not because they don't like you as a person? Maybe some of them acutally don't like you, but I am quite sure this is not true for everybody.
If you publish something (in any media) you will get different opinions. Some people will agree, some will not. Some will express support, some will express critique. You can respond to that, they can respond to your response etc. This is called discussion. As a result of discussion some people will change their mind, and some will simply agree that they don't agree. Especially when the subject is life style, where there is no "one size fits all". I like spinach, others don't. You feel free in startup, I don't (taking care of non-technical stuf, bleeeeh).
The other thing is that written word (like your essays) is taken more seriously than if it was said by mouth, so the lions metaphor would be absolutely not a problem if said over a beer, but when written it left impression, that you call "corporate" folks' lives a piece of crap, while some of them CHOSE corporate as giving THEM more freedom (by some definition of freedom) than startup.
As simple as that - no size fits all, people care about different things, leaving impression, that their life is worse because of that will do no good.
Cheers!
If you publish something (in any media) you will get different opinions. Some people will agree, some will not. Some will express support, some will express critique. You can respond to that, they can respond to your response etc. This is called discussion. As a result of discussion some people will change their mind, and some will simply agree that they don't agree. Especially when the subject is life style, where there is no "one size fits all". I like spinach, others don't. You feel free in startup, I don't (taking care of non-technical stuf, bleeeeh).
The other thing is that written word (like your essays) is taken more seriously than if it was said by mouth, so the lions metaphor would be absolutely not a problem if said over a beer, but when written it left impression, that you call "corporate" folks' lives a piece of crap, while some of them CHOSE corporate as giving THEM more freedom (by some definition of freedom) than startup.
As simple as that - no size fits all, people care about different things, leaving impression, that their life is worse because of that will do no good.
Cheers!
I think your analysis here is suffering from confirmation bias regarding the negative feedback you've recently received.
Looking at the history of your essays on reddit, it seems clear that a) some people like them and some don't, and b) the average redditor likes some of them and dislikes others.
In my case, I've certainly agreed strongly with some of your essays but thought others missed the mark.
Although many commentators seemed quite riled about it, one of your best essays was "Beating the Averages". I read it and immediately recognized myself as a classic Blub programmer. In fact, I decided to cut the cord with VB and start learning Python as a result - and am I ever glad I did that. (Eventually, I may even try my hand at Lisp. Thanks to Python, I already find myself looking at data and seeing lists everywhere.)
Of course it's possible to nitpick whether expressive power exists along a continuum, but in a broad sense, the essay has the clunk of truth. It also necessarily discredits most languages - and by extension, most programmers - so a certain amount of outrage is to be expected.
Even so, it's clear that I'm not the only Blub programmer who read it and decided to try and learn from it instead of barricading myself further inside my suite of Blub idioms.
On the other hand, your essay "Mind the Gap" begs the question by asserting that market value = value and then justifying vast pay differences based on market value. The very issue at hand is whether the unregulated market is good at assigning value to labour; the huge compensation packages offered late last year to the executives of Bear Stearns would seem to cast this assertion in some doubt. Frankly, the entire essay smells a bit self-serving.
These are just two examples. My point is that I don't hate you reflexively, and I always enjoy the push and pull of ideas, which you undertake with gusto.
I do think a lot of people were seriously disappointed with Arc when it came out, especially after all the hype about a 'hundred-year language' had built it up to mythical proportions. To the extent that you spent years dropping such teasers, you have to accept some responsibility for the backlash.
You also have to recognize that if a group of people who like you followed you to News.YC, the bias may actually inhere in this space, not on reddit. That is, by surrounding yourself with people who agree with you, you may be distorting your reaction to a community not composed of what we may pejoratively call PG fanbois.
The most important thing, of course, is that the push and pull of ideas and arguments continues. Don't pick up your toys and go home just because some people disagree with you. In fact, honing your arguments on skeptics can only ultimately improve them.
Looking at the history of your essays on reddit, it seems clear that a) some people like them and some don't, and b) the average redditor likes some of them and dislikes others.
In my case, I've certainly agreed strongly with some of your essays but thought others missed the mark.
Although many commentators seemed quite riled about it, one of your best essays was "Beating the Averages". I read it and immediately recognized myself as a classic Blub programmer. In fact, I decided to cut the cord with VB and start learning Python as a result - and am I ever glad I did that. (Eventually, I may even try my hand at Lisp. Thanks to Python, I already find myself looking at data and seeing lists everywhere.)
Of course it's possible to nitpick whether expressive power exists along a continuum, but in a broad sense, the essay has the clunk of truth. It also necessarily discredits most languages - and by extension, most programmers - so a certain amount of outrage is to be expected.
Even so, it's clear that I'm not the only Blub programmer who read it and decided to try and learn from it instead of barricading myself further inside my suite of Blub idioms.
On the other hand, your essay "Mind the Gap" begs the question by asserting that market value = value and then justifying vast pay differences based on market value. The very issue at hand is whether the unregulated market is good at assigning value to labour; the huge compensation packages offered late last year to the executives of Bear Stearns would seem to cast this assertion in some doubt. Frankly, the entire essay smells a bit self-serving.
These are just two examples. My point is that I don't hate you reflexively, and I always enjoy the push and pull of ideas, which you undertake with gusto.
I do think a lot of people were seriously disappointed with Arc when it came out, especially after all the hype about a 'hundred-year language' had built it up to mythical proportions. To the extent that you spent years dropping such teasers, you have to accept some responsibility for the backlash.
You also have to recognize that if a group of people who like you followed you to News.YC, the bias may actually inhere in this space, not on reddit. That is, by surrounding yourself with people who agree with you, you may be distorting your reaction to a community not composed of what we may pejoratively call PG fanbois.
The most important thing, of course, is that the push and pull of ideas and arguments continues. Don't pick up your toys and go home just because some people disagree with you. In fact, honing your arguments on skeptics can only ultimately improve them.
Two possibilities here:
People (speaking in generalities here) follow the patterns that they know and with which they are comfortable. In particular, the mass media which seems to feel that: If it ain't controversial/sensational, make it so (by ignoring major details and/or context). If we can't make it so, we'll not speak of it.
Original thinking does not come easily to most people. One of the easiest way for some people to prove their self worth is to criticize another's work (or attempt to, even if it is about the color of the shed ;) ). The bigger that someone else is, the better. Right now, your one of the big guys.
The price of fame and fortune...
People (speaking in generalities here) follow the patterns that they know and with which they are comfortable. In particular, the mass media which seems to feel that: If it ain't controversial/sensational, make it so (by ignoring major details and/or context). If we can't make it so, we'll not speak of it.
Original thinking does not come easily to most people. One of the easiest way for some people to prove their self worth is to criticize another's work (or attempt to, even if it is about the color of the shed ;) ). The bigger that someone else is, the better. Right now, your one of the big guys.
The price of fame and fortune...
I recently forwarded your essay ("You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss") to a friend and his reply was:
"I can't be reading that right now!"
I figure the reason for this is because you compel people to take more risks. Most people know what they have to do to get what they want but most people don't do it because it is a risk. Your upsetting people's sense of security and feeling alright in the world.
Keep it up.
I heard somewhere once that a group of people in their prime were asked if they could have changed anything in their life what would of it been. The majority of people responded that they would have taken more risks.
"I can't be reading that right now!"
I figure the reason for this is because you compel people to take more risks. Most people know what they have to do to get what they want but most people don't do it because it is a risk. Your upsetting people's sense of security and feeling alright in the world.
Keep it up.
I heard somewhere once that a group of people in their prime were asked if they could have changed anything in their life what would of it been. The majority of people responded that they would have taken more risks.
Your last sentence sounds like a great example of survivorship bias. The ones who took more risks are all dead ;-)
Of course there is something you could do. People aren't static. So what if the people who like you came here, and the ones who didn't stayed there? If you say good enough things everyone will like you and it will be a mute point.
Sure it's harder because there is some initial negative reaction to overcome from the reddit group. And it may not be the best use of your time. But it could be done with sufficient skill.
Sure it's harder because there is some initial negative reaction to overcome from the reddit group. And it may not be the best use of your time. But it could be done with sufficient skill.
If you say good enough things everyone will like you
Oh my goodness. You're not serious, are you? This is a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt... and deserving it!
Oh my goodness. You're not serious, are you? This is a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt... and deserving it!
I am serious. What do you think could possibly prevent this from working (other than insufficient skill to say good enough things)?
You say it's a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt. But it's not a strategy. It's just a fact. The strategy of attempting to get everyone to like you in this way is something different. That's hard and I didn't recommend it, I only said it is possible.
You say it's a strategy for obtaining misery and contempt. But it's not a strategy. It's just a fact. The strategy of attempting to get everyone to like you in this way is something different. That's hard and I didn't recommend it, I only said it is possible.
> What do you think could possibly prevent this from working?
One possibility springs to mind. What if someone was to comment on an article by PG, but without reading the article itself? Someone could say bad things about you without listening to what you have to say, you'd have no chance to change their mind.
One possibility springs to mind. What if someone was to comment on an article by PG, but without reading the article itself? Someone could say bad things about you without listening to what you have to say, you'd have no chance to change their mind.
Heh. Well if it's good enough then word will get around. One day all his friends will have read it, loved it, and told him to read it. Plus it would be all over TV and radio and culture in general, so it'd be hard to have a normal conversation while missing all the references to it.
What do you think could possibly prevent this from working
The people you're trying to please have contradictory opinions and desires. What you say to please Group A will strike Group B as an outrage! And if you try to remove everything potentially offensive to anybody, well, that will turn you into such a pandering namby-pamb that the whole world will find you annoying and want to poke you with a stick.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying one should go around offending people. I'm saying that trying to get everyone to like you is hopeless and that effort put into doing so will both warp and weaken you.
Other edit: just noticed that pchristensen already made the same point.
The people you're trying to please have contradictory opinions and desires. What you say to please Group A will strike Group B as an outrage! And if you try to remove everything potentially offensive to anybody, well, that will turn you into such a pandering namby-pamb that the whole world will find you annoying and want to poke you with a stick.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying one should go around offending people. I'm saying that trying to get everyone to like you is hopeless and that effort put into doing so will both warp and weaken you.
Other edit: just noticed that pchristensen already made the same point.
Pleasing two groups that start with contradictory opinions requires persuading at least one group to change it's mind. That's definitely possible because if they contradict then at least one of them is mistaken and would benefit from changing its mind.
Let's assume there exist two groups of people. The members of group A think that some improved product is better because it tastes great. The members of group B, on the other hand, believe that the same product is better because it's now less filling. Keeping in mind that the product is better because it both tastes great, and is less filling. Which group is mistaken? Which group would benefit from changing their minds?
Their ideas don't really contradict. But they think they do because, apparently, both sides have the mistaken view that a product has to be better for exactly one reason.
My example was obviously a gross simplification, but not all disagreement stems from contradiction. Worse, sometimes when people agree on many points they are in inreconcilable disagreement with each other on others. If we were to consider that both groups have held their position for many years, it should be immediately apparent that it would be impossible for either to change their mind. Time calcifies opinion.
This assumes that there are no two people in a community with opposite viewpoints. If someone has the opposite viewpoint of you and you start writing stuff to please them, then they'll just hate you for pandering. Plus, the people that agreed with you will call you a traitor and a sellout. Fun times!
My premise is more that there is a truth of the matter. Even if people start with opposite view points, that won't last when sufficiently good/true things are said (plus enough help seeing why this new view is better, and how to change, and how that will improve their life, etc).
You're assuming that people want to hear the truth. That is not at all what most people want. And if you insist on offering it to them against their desires they will eat you like (dare I say) a caged lion. :)
They might not want the truth now, but they could be shown why it's good to want it, and shown how much nicer that lifestyle is, and helped to change. Hard but certainly possible.
This lifestyle is nicer FOR YOU. Not necessarily FOR THEM.
If I like spinach and you don't, how will you show me, that not eating spinach is nicer? Or the other way around?
If I like spinach and you don't, how will you show me, that not eating spinach is nicer? Or the other way around?
There are exist some truths about what lifestyles are nice for everyone. If they violate some of those, then changing would benefit them.
As far as we know, the truth about eating is a lot more like "eat foods you like" than "eat foods X, Y, and Z but not A, B, or C". So we can all agree that I will eat spinach because I like it, and you won't because you don't. That doesn't contradict, and is no reason for disagreement.
As far as we know, the truth about eating is a lot more like "eat foods you like" than "eat foods X, Y, and Z but not A, B, or C". So we can all agree that I will eat spinach because I like it, and you won't because you don't. That doesn't contradict, and is no reason for disagreement.
The only truths about lifestyles true for everyone I can come up with is "don't hit yourself with a hammer" and "don't eat poison". Definitely not "work for yourself" or "work for corp". A lot of people is unhappy working for corp, but a lot likes it better than being on their own (me included).
It's exactly the same way as with food - "work where you like".
It's exactly the same way as with food - "work where you like".
Hold on there, I didn't say anything about people should work for themselves. We can do better than "don't hit yourself with a hammer", but nothing like "everyone should work for themselves" (that'd be a bit hard with no possibility of hiring employees, lol).
Oops, sorry. I did stretch it a bit :)
The flame with Paul started with him drawing conclusion (or leaving such impression) that natural state for human is to be own boss and that ones that work for somebody are missing something in life (hence their life is somehow inferior). That's why I jumped to "work" topic. You did not mention work, but I connected Paul's essay with your post.
My point was that IMO there are very few universal truths about life and they are limited to very basic things. Differences between particular human beings and environments they live in are too big to draw general conclusions.
The flame with Paul started with him drawing conclusion (or leaving such impression) that natural state for human is to be own boss and that ones that work for somebody are missing something in life (hence their life is somehow inferior). That's why I jumped to "work" topic. You did not mention work, but I connected Paul's essay with your post.
My point was that IMO there are very few universal truths about life and they are limited to very basic things. Differences between particular human beings and environments they live in are too big to draw general conclusions.
moo?
That's how the idiots sound to me, ignore them, you are right, they are wrong.
That's how the idiots sound to me, ignore them, you are right, they are wrong.
I agree. I'm embarrassed for the people who are projecting their insecurities on the article.
[deleted]
Enough already. I don't see why we should waste our time on arguing with a large group of people who don't get it. No matter what you say, if it is not obvious and carries any insight at all, people are going to be insulted. This is their problem, not ours. It only takes 10% of the readers to turn a good story into a flamefest. Personally, I found this essay as insightful and interesting as any of PG's essays, and I'm sure that most of the other people who read it feel the same.
All this no-restraint bashing of an interesting article ("you shouldn't have used the 'lions in cages' metaphor! Now I feel terrible! Bghwaaa-waaa-waaa") is really getting on my nerves. Sometimes someone says something that insults you. Get over it. Paul Graham isn't out to get you, and he has explained at length that he didn't actually imply that cubicle workers are losers.
With that in mind: people complaining on this scale about "mere" words is usually a sign that there is an unpleasant truth being uncovered. I think everyone who had their feelings hurt should stop and think about that for a while.
All this no-restraint bashing of an interesting article ("you shouldn't have used the 'lions in cages' metaphor! Now I feel terrible! Bghwaaa-waaa-waaa") is really getting on my nerves. Sometimes someone says something that insults you. Get over it. Paul Graham isn't out to get you, and he has explained at length that he didn't actually imply that cubicle workers are losers.
With that in mind: people complaining on this scale about "mere" words is usually a sign that there is an unpleasant truth being uncovered. I think everyone who had their feelings hurt should stop and think about that for a while.
The funny thing about Blub was (if I recall correctly), pg introduced the concept explicitly to avoid offending the users of any specific language. When someone is offended by what you're doing to avoid offending them, you've clearly touched a nerve.
Personally, I like this whole discussion because, agree or disagree, the frame of the debate is exactly what I'd like it to be: what creative people can do about the soul-destroying culture of most software jobs. Paul Graham's essays have done an amazing job of raising this question. The emotions they've provoked (or more precisely, the emotions people already feel which they believe the essays have provoked) can't and shouldn't be factored out of it.
Personally, I like this whole discussion because, agree or disagree, the frame of the debate is exactly what I'd like it to be: what creative people can do about the soul-destroying culture of most software jobs. Paul Graham's essays have done an amazing job of raising this question. The emotions they've provoked (or more precisely, the emotions people already feel which they believe the essays have provoked) can't and shouldn't be factored out of it.
I've wondered if one could arrive at a good decision using no evidence or facts, but only based on how the different sides debate the issue. The idea is you could determine which party is right based solely on how they say things, rather than how strong the evidence is. You look at how different parties debate. You then compare their styles or types of arguments with debates from the past that have since been settled.
It's Bayesian spam filtering, applied to debates. I don't know how accurate it would be, or if it would be easy to game, but it seems useful for educating guesses.
It's Bayesian spam filtering, applied to debates. I don't know how accurate it would be, or if it would be easy to game, but it seems useful for educating guesses.
This is a good hypothetical. I like it. The "easy" win in such a procedure is to decide which debater is self-consistent. Unfortunately a consistent argument based on faulty premises yields false conclusions. However, since we're allowed to look at past debates for context, I think we can sidestep that issue. We need to determine which past debate-winning arguments led to objectively advantageous actions. This is a non-trivial problem. Let's additionally sidestep it by allowing the human being to weight outcomes based on past arguments.
Aside: Are we defining a 'settled' debate as one where the resultant action came from one side of the debate over the other, or are we additionally taking into account whether we consider the outcome of said action is positive or negative?
I think that it would be simple to identify logical arguments (well, fallacies anyway) which imply that the position being asserted is actually untenable. Identifying arguments which satisfy the inverse - that is, that the style of argument correlates with an advantageous action as a result, falls back into the trap where false premises lead to false conclusions.
Aside: I wonder if there are arguments where objectively false conclusions still lead to advantageous actions? Now there's an interesting question.
I suppose that if you could semantically dissect an argument and then correlate its structure against weighted outcomes of previous arguments this system could yield intriguing results. I would very much like to see what logical constructions correlate with poor outcomes. Perhaps it would reveal self-defeating human tendencies, or arguments which push aside rational behavior?
Then again, the strength of the Bayesian filter approach is that it is dumb. It doesn't have to do a semantic analysis. So we avoid going down the path of strong-ai or special-cased rules when using it. Does the purely textual content of a debate correlate strongly enough with the semantic content to distinguish between good arguments and bogus ones? I think the only way to tell would be to try.
I suspect that many of the most vigorous debates would end up revealing that the relative advantagion or bogosity of a given argument correlate most strongly with what your individual desired outcome is. Then we've just led ourselves to the question of which outcome is superior to the other.
Thanks for an interesting few moments of introspection!
Aside: Are we defining a 'settled' debate as one where the resultant action came from one side of the debate over the other, or are we additionally taking into account whether we consider the outcome of said action is positive or negative?
I think that it would be simple to identify logical arguments (well, fallacies anyway) which imply that the position being asserted is actually untenable. Identifying arguments which satisfy the inverse - that is, that the style of argument correlates with an advantageous action as a result, falls back into the trap where false premises lead to false conclusions.
Aside: I wonder if there are arguments where objectively false conclusions still lead to advantageous actions? Now there's an interesting question.
I suppose that if you could semantically dissect an argument and then correlate its structure against weighted outcomes of previous arguments this system could yield intriguing results. I would very much like to see what logical constructions correlate with poor outcomes. Perhaps it would reveal self-defeating human tendencies, or arguments which push aside rational behavior?
Then again, the strength of the Bayesian filter approach is that it is dumb. It doesn't have to do a semantic analysis. So we avoid going down the path of strong-ai or special-cased rules when using it. Does the purely textual content of a debate correlate strongly enough with the semantic content to distinguish between good arguments and bogus ones? I think the only way to tell would be to try.
I suspect that many of the most vigorous debates would end up revealing that the relative advantagion or bogosity of a given argument correlate most strongly with what your individual desired outcome is. Then we've just led ourselves to the question of which outcome is superior to the other.
Thanks for an interesting few moments of introspection!
I've always held that the person that is the most angry is the one that is least sure of his position.
It's not useful as the only predictor, because people's emotional involvement in ideas can vary, but I find it to be useful meta-information.
It's not useful as the only predictor, because people's emotional involvement in ideas can vary, but I find it to be useful meta-information.
Here's a rule-of-thumb that I go by: Whoever takes the other side into account best is the winner. For example:
Side 1: Language x sucks because of y!
Side 2: While it's true that x potentially sucks because of y, y is easily mitigated by z, and y still offers benefits a, b, & c that most other languages don't.
Even if you have only a shallow understanding of the argument, it's easy to see that in most real-world arguments Side 2 should win.
It's related to who gets angriest because people usually get angry because they have run out of other options.
Side 1: Language x sucks because of y!
Side 2: While it's true that x potentially sucks because of y, y is easily mitigated by z, and y still offers benefits a, b, & c that most other languages don't.
Even if you have only a shallow understanding of the argument, it's easy to see that in most real-world arguments Side 2 should win.
It's related to who gets angriest because people usually get angry because they have run out of other options.
Compare and contrast with: "To raise your voice is to confess you have run out of arguments."
What if the other person is just being an idiot? What if you think he's not capable of understanding? What if he's a child? What if you think he's trolling? Is better argument still the way to go?
I am a parent, so I can answer your question with respect to children: raising your voice does not do anything except escalate the discussion into an emotional melt-down.
With respect to people you deem to be idiots and trolls, we have known the answer for a very long time. One of the more amusing bits of advice about the matter came from Mark twain:
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
With respect to people you deem to be idiots and trolls, we have known the answer for a very long time. One of the more amusing bits of advice about the matter came from Mark twain:
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
I agree that yelling at children doesn't help. But I'm wondering if you would debate with a child, or try to persuade him with good ideas, or would use some other sort of approach that isn't yelling or persuading?
I like the idea, but if it were applied, I bet Scientologists would win the debate against the over emotional "in your face" techniques used by their opponents.
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI
A pretty good test is to ask each side to summarize the other side's position in a way the other side would endorse.
If one side succeeds, and the other fails, that reveals who understands both positions, and who doesn't.
Of course they can still make excuses, such as saying that they don't understand the other guy's position because he didn't explain it clearly. And they can say they asked questions about it to try to understand, but he still didn't answer well. That could even be true. But it usually isn't.
If one side succeeds, and the other fails, that reveals who understands both positions, and who doesn't.
Of course they can still make excuses, such as saying that they don't understand the other guy's position because he didn't explain it clearly. And they can say they asked questions about it to try to understand, but he still didn't answer well. That could even be true. But it usually isn't.
I choose to remain emotionally neutral about this article simply because taking it to heart either positively or negatively is counterproductive. I believe others have already pointed this out, but use of the lion metaphor is not unintentional. Lion is widely recognized as being the "King of the Jungle" -- a powerful and virile animal.
This is an undue specialization, a form of flattery. If anything, this alone should leave all programmers satisfied, because naturally, not everyone fit this definition or can duly ascribe it to themselves, whether they formed a successful startup or not.
A more general "animals in the jungle/zoo" might have equally well served to enrage both camps. In that instance, the onus of deciding which animal is being spoken of would lay on each individual -- some of whom would wind up with rather silly characterizations such as: ape, rat, etc.
This is an undue specialization, a form of flattery. If anything, this alone should leave all programmers satisfied, because naturally, not everyone fit this definition or can duly ascribe it to themselves, whether they formed a successful startup or not.
A more general "animals in the jungle/zoo" might have equally well served to enrage both camps. In that instance, the onus of deciding which animal is being spoken of would lay on each individual -- some of whom would wind up with rather silly characterizations such as: ape, rat, etc.
Note also the correlation: startups get to choose their tools, so they usually go with cool "new" languages (yes, I'm aware that Ruby and Python are technically older than Java, and that C# is technically newer than any of the three, but here I use "new" to mean, "not the next COBOL" ;-).
Bigger, older companies tend to be more conservative, or simply have a large legacy codebase, so they tend to use Blub more often.
Languages can also stagnate and become Blub, compared to newer languages. Think of a 10-year-old dot-com-era company who used Perl 5 because it was the best thing around at the time, and now, 10 years later, has a bunch of legacy Perl code that seemed like the coolest thing ever, but somehow looks like Blub now...
Bigger, older companies tend to be more conservative, or simply have a large legacy codebase, so they tend to use Blub more often.
Languages can also stagnate and become Blub, compared to newer languages. Think of a 10-year-old dot-com-era company who used Perl 5 because it was the best thing around at the time, and now, 10 years later, has a bunch of legacy Perl code that seemed like the coolest thing ever, but somehow looks like Blub now...
The response to Steve Yegge's writing about software interviewing is very similar too:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/truth-about-intervie...
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/truth-about-intervie...
Sometimes it pays to be a contrarian. Sometimes it doesn't. For programming and employment, it pays to be a contrarian and that is the focus of this forum.
I say we just wait it out. It'll blow over.
> All this no-restraint bashing of an interesting article ("you shouldn't have used the 'lions in cages' metaphor! Now I feel terrible! Bghwaaa-waaa-waaa") is really getting on my nerves.
Yes, I think Jeff overreacted too :)
Anyone would love to get (really) rich, and founders have a lot better chance of that happening than employees do.
So people are upset about not having that chance (at least while they're employees).
It's natural to feel like founding a startup is just more than you can handle, and maybe that's what's bothering most people.
Knowing that them founding something is very unlikely to happen, they insist that working on cool stuff is way more important anyway.
Something like the software equivalent of a cure for cancer can only be deemed more important than founding a startup, that's for sure.
But what most people seem to be missing is that being a founder doesn't prevent you from doing something noble later on - rich or not.
Yes, I think Jeff overreacted too :)
Anyone would love to get (really) rich, and founders have a lot better chance of that happening than employees do.
So people are upset about not having that chance (at least while they're employees).
It's natural to feel like founding a startup is just more than you can handle, and maybe that's what's bothering most people.
Knowing that them founding something is very unlikely to happen, they insist that working on cool stuff is way more important anyway.
Something like the software equivalent of a cure for cancer can only be deemed more important than founding a startup, that's for sure.
But what most people seem to be missing is that being a founder doesn't prevent you from doing something noble later on - rich or not.
not everyone would love to get rich. Certain people want to get rich and some of them work in startups. But even within startups not everyone is trying to get rich. I'm pretty sure Paul didn't start FriendFeed just to make even more money, but I could be wrong.
Well, if someone asked you: "Would you like me to transfer 50 million dollars to your account?" - what would you answer?
What would the "certain people" answer?
"No thanks" ?
What would the "certain people" answer?
"No thanks" ?
Why can't we simply admit to the jealous world of corporate wanna-be lions (i.e. pussycats) that we are the creme de la creme and they are not. We are always smarter, faster, stronger, and more sexy. We have more fun and self-esteem. We are on top of the evolutionary and social ladder. We are the gold standard. And we troll them down on their hate-blogs while we compile our next cash cow.
"Blub's a great language! And there are lots of jobs programming Blub! Why would I be happier using that weird language? Not everybody wants to take risks using an unpopular language. And how dare you say I'm inferior for not using something else!"
I'm not passing value on the essay or its critics, but I just think it's interesting how much the two essays and their responses have in common.