[1]
I read something about being popular where in high school, the path to popularity is a status game. This is what Graham is describing. The other side of the coin is that being popular in the adult world is a matter of being likable. I agree with this, and think it brings some light to the popularity game.
I found the chapter a bit self-congratulatory. Nerds are like adults! Popular kids play useless games! While I agree with him that being a nerd is a wonderful thing and that trying to be popular is a relatively pointless exercise, I don’t think he addresses the positives of playing the popularity game. Learning social skills and politics are valuable to understand. While Graham might construe it as Machiavellian, someone who smoothly interacts with others (I’m thinking of companies where opposing interests of internal groups create tension) will get their way more often.
Some of his points felt lacking in defense, like when he argued that most would drop intelligence points in exchange for being loved and admired. I’m going to explain this style choice as Graham being expositional instead of trying to defend a thesis.
The idea that the terrible teenager experience is unique to our place and time is a new idea to me, and fascinating. I agree with his argument that the meaninglessness of some schooling creates opportunities for suffering. The quote advising a younger Graham to “stick his head up and look around” advises that the proper response while inside the meaningless game is to refocus efforts on a meaningful game.
[2]
I see a lot more of myself in this version of a hacker than the previous book. Truth be told, I’ve never been that motivated to learn the exact specifics of algorithms or hardware that make computers so effective. I’ve been much more compelled by writing programs that I find interesting or useful, for which code becomes a paintbrush that can lay down initial structure and massage details into place.
I think I got pretty lucky by having early influences in my life that pushed me toward caring about beauty to the detriment of more corporate traits. Weirdly enough, I think xkcd played a huge role in this and intellectual interests.
The idea that good code is good design and artistry is so refreshing. Clean methods and APIs are deeply satisfying, and make the process of understanding the code less painful. Seriously, I’ve experienced immense pain trying to understand research code that wasn’t properly abstracted. ML code seems to particularly suffer from this. One of my favorite pieces of code of all time is an example pytorch dataset from an article that tries to help people make their dataset objects cleaner. Beautiful code reprograms (ha!) how you think about objects and interactions in a clearer way, and this article was no different.
best quotes:
- “What and how should not be kept too separate”
- “the test of beauty is time” (paraphrased)
- “the place to fight design wars is in new markets”
- “a great painting has to be better than it has to be”
- “in the aggregate, unseen details become visible”
- “it’s a good idea to save some easy tasks for moments when you would otherwise stall”
[3]
Not a huge fan of this chapter. I agree that seeking out controversial ideas and freely discussing them is massively important, and I try to cultivate this in my own mind. However, the tools Graham uses feel a bit clunky.
My issue with the conformist test is that social groups have different acceptable thresholds of what is considered controversial. This can mean the group is a repressive force where group members’ ideas regress to the mean, or that the group is open to discussing new ideas that they don’t potentially agree with from the outset. Obviously there are gradations, but building social circles with high intellectual openness is possible.
Graham is correct that labels can be used inaccurately and be used to dismiss an otherwise valid point. He misses that labels, when used accurately, can also be a valuable summarization of what is wrong with an argument.
intellectual conflict strategies Graham mentions:
- abstraction
- metaphor
- humor
best quotes:
- “fashion is mistaken for good design”
- “turn off self-censorship” → psychadelics as an exploratory tool?
- “a confident group doesn’t need taboos to protect it”
- “scientists go looking for trouble”
- “draw a sharp line between your thoughts and your speech” → quote from Hamilton: “talk less, smile more” → politics is always somewhat necessary
[Final Q]
I do think Graham’s and Levy’s descriptions of a hacker are compatible, but not necessarily the same thing. Using an ecosystem metaphor, the two descriptions seem to be different creatures that both contribute meaningfully to collective life of the ecosystem. Levy’s hackers are technical and performance-minded, which is absolutely critical to long-term competitiveness and efficiency. Graham’s hackers are creative and empathetic, allowing for experimentation and growth.
I might even go further with the metaphor and say the two types are in a symbiotic relationship. While the types might not actively choose to interact, each type indirectly benefits from the other. The ecosystem, as a whole, is stronger when the types support and learn from each other.
Personally, I find Graham’s type of hacker much more compelling. I’m drawn to the artistry and design, the obsession of perfection for its own sake that leads to works that stand the test of time. These absolutely take longer and are inefficient in the short term, but a masterpiece is valuable in its own right.
