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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
You're right, though I think I would say "extremely difficult, tending toward impossible". People do not change their minds easily, especially on subjects they feel a strong emotional attachment to.
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.
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.
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".
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).
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.
Right, I see. But I think there are actually a lot of universal truths.
For example, lifestyles that are open to criticism are more successful because they correct more of their errors. Lifestyles with appropriate attention to detail are more successful too (that doesn't mean more attention to detail, it means being good at judging the right amount for the situation and using that. And there exist non-obvious truths about how to judge the appropriate amount of detail for a situation).
And there's all that stuff we call "scientific rigor" or the scientific method. While it's normally associated with only science, large parts of it are valuable to thinking in general. And better ways of thinking definitely make for a better life.
I think we got common ground :) I consider features like "being open to criticism" and "appropriate level of attention to detail" basic things, so it does not contradict my POV (general conclusions limited to basic stuff), and since it is you who wrote it I assume, that it complies with yours too.
Not sure about how scientific method applies here (I DO agree with scientific method though), but I can live with that.
Now we just have to use it to somehow extinguish original flame of "you were not meant to ..." :)
Just kidding. I'm happy with discussion getting to the point of common ground +- epsilon.
I'll drink to that!
EDIT: how one downvotes posts here (no, not this thread)? I see only up arrows :|
You need more karma to be able to vote down. 20 or 25 or so.
The reason I'd say those aren't basic things is they (and many others) are, apparently, too hard for most people. The world could be greatly improved by people doing them better. (Not to say I do all of them perfectly, either.)
<friendly troll>
That voting thing does not sound fair. Or the other way - seems aimed at putting some bias. "Only those that agree with majority can vote against" stuff.
Like in communist countries (hey, I live in a former one): only ones that agree with the Party can vote against it.
</friendly troll>
25 karma is really not very much, even for someone who's consistently in the minority, I think the point is not to let totally new accounts use downvote.
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.