

Persuade xor Discover - fallentimes
http://paulgraham.com/discover.html

======
tsally
I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to
me. I also don't own a startup, so there's no conflict there. My personal beef
is that TechCrunch is a 'serious journalistic entity' when they get documents
leaked to them, but the second people start trying to hold them to the
standard of real journalism suddenly it a blog. It's difficult to pinpoint,
but there's something two-faced about TechCrunch that I don't like. It's some
combination of the sensationalism, exaggeration, and in some cases outright
fabrication that really get to me. Since Arrington is the founder and
figurehead of TechCrunch, my feelings about the blog naturally extend to him.

The fact that page views and advertising revenue are the ultimate goals is
fine. I applaud TechCrunch and Arrington for being successful. That doesn't
mean I have to like their methods. Google was successful through technical
merit. They never did anything flashy and eventually won because they were
better. I'd like to see a startup blog succeed because of journalistic merit,
instead of link-bait headlines and baseless speculation. TechCrunch has its
gems to be sure, but there's too much garbage there for me.

An example for your consideration:

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-
strategies-b...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-
behind-many-viral-videos)

For those too lazy to read, it's an article about making viral videos. Some
choice advice: _"Content is NOT King, Make it short, Make it shocking, Use
fake headlines, Appeal to sex"_. It also goes on to tell you how to spam
yourself to the Most Viewed page on Youtube. Arrington is the founder and an
editor, so either himself or someone he appointed approved this article for
publication. That's why I don't like Arrington.

Perhaps the reason why people don't hate Paul like they hate Arrington is
because Paul has produced things of value? Hell, having the PDF of _On Lisp_
online available for free is more valuable than the aggregate of TechCrunch's
entire publication history.

EDIT: Hate is a strong word. If you hate anyone over the internet for any
reason, that's pretty stupid. Dislike is what I was getting at.

~~~
pg
"I've never met Arrington, so whether he's nice or not doesn't really apply to
me."

Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who
complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason
they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his
articles.

When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual
boilerplate disclaimers that it's just a rumor, or pro forma protestations
about how he hopes it's not true, or most dishonest of all, waiting for
someone else to cover it, and then covering that coverage. This sort of
sanctimoniousness is so universal in established media that it seems shocking
when someone just skips it.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems hypocritical to me that you're
willing to accuse TechCrunch of "outright fabrication" and "baseless
speculation" and the best evidence you can produce is a 2 year old guest post
by a Stanford student.

If you have any examples of "outright fabrication," let's see them.

~~~
tsally
_Sure it does, if you've read his articles. Obviously most of the people who
complain about him in comment threads have not met him in person. The reason
they dislike him is that he uses the same un-ingratiating style in his
articles._

I don't care if he appears to be a nice or a mean guy. I don't judge people by
that criteria. My experience working in the academic research community has
taught me that intelligent and busy people sometimes come across as mean, but
it's nothing personal. I'm totally used to un-ingratiating people and I work
with them every day; it doesn't affect me at all.

 _When he reports something he's heard, he just reports it, without the usual
boilerplate disclaimers that it's just a rumor, or pro forma protestations
about how he hopes it's not true, or most dishonest of all, waiting for
someone else to cover it, and then covering that coverage. This sort of
sanctimoniousness is so universal in established media that it seems shocking
when someone just skips it._

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. How about you being reprimanded for
asking "mean" questions at TechCrunch 50? Apparently Arrington wanted the
boilerplate. I suppose it probably has something to do with the fact that it
was TechCrunch's reputation on the line, not a company he was writing about.

 _Speaking of intellectual honesty, it seems hypocritical to me that you're
willing to accuse TechCrunch of "outright fabrication" and "baseless
speculation" and the best evidence you can produce is a 2 year old guest post
by a Stanford student._

That's a fair point, but I don't really feel like wasting an hour of my
evening digging through TechCrunch archives. I'll pull a TechCrunch and say
that an anonymous source close to the TechCrunch editorial board told me. My
original comment is about as well sourced as their average article. ;) Also,
it's not hypocritical since I'm not earning advertising dollars from my words.
I don't claim that journalism is my profession. If I was making money off of
the words I posted to HN, I would keep track of my sources. As it stands right
now, I'm simply offering an opinion.

EDIT: dfranke has some examples though:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838197>

EDIT2:

 _If you have any examples of "outright fabrication," let's see them._

Those words were chosen in haste and I wont defend them. You're right to call
me out on them. I don't actually believe that TechCrunch is in the business of
outright fabrication. If I wrote a popular and influential tech blog I would
have deleted those words during the editing phase. :)

~~~
pg
You don't have to make money from what you say to be a hypocrite.

What Michael told me at TCC50 wasn't dishonest. If it had been, I'd have been
upset. At an event like that, you're not going to ask exactly the same things
you'd ask if a startup were actually pitching you. It's inevitably going to be
somewhere between that and mere encouragement. _Where_ between the two is
simply a matter of convention. I had no idea what the convention was; I didn't
mind being told.

~~~
tsally
_You don't have to make money from what you say to be a hypocrite._

Why? I'm criticizing him because he's a public figure and his words affect the
daily lives and well-being of many people. My arguments in my original comment
do not apply to the words of individuals in casual conversation, like the one
we are having here. In fact, if we held ourselves to the same standards I'm
demanding of Arrington, we'd hardly be able to have a conversation. I like to
assume good faith for interactions among individuals. I'm not demanding proof
about your interactions with Arrington am I?

However, I did edit my previous post with a link to proof mentioned by other
posters.

 _What Michael told me at TCC50 wasn't dishonest. If it had been, I'd have
been upset. At an event like that, you're not going to ask exactly the same
things you'd ask if a startup were actually pitching you. It's inevitably
going to be somewhere between that and mere encouragement. Where between the
two is simply a matter of convention. I had no idea what the convention was; I
didn't mind being told._

Ah, so we've established that the standards one should hold oneself to in
discourse is a matter of context. I argue that Arrington holds himself to the
standards of a blogger when the context he operates in demands that he hold
himself to the standards of a journalist. TechCrunch likes to fire shots
quickly and in large quantities and it doesn't really matter if a good number
don't hit their mark. I know it makes the most business sense, but I don't
deal out my respect based on business savvy.

~~~
messel
Just needed to point out, risking being seen as a hypocrite is of greater
value to shaking out the truth through varied perspectives than being
paralyzed.

Valid points on TCs double faceted appearance (reminds me of nature vs
demeanor). I still enjoy the heck out much of their articles. Specific authors
usually mean more to me than the "brand".

------
heuristix
This is a strawman defence. PG is defending Arrington's curtness when you meet
him in person and accepting the facts as presented (since I have no personal
knowledge), the defense sounds reasonable.

However, as many others mention below, most people dislike Arrington because
Techcrunch has no journalistic scruples. The way they attacked Last.fm without
even bothering to properly check into facts was yet another example of this.

~~~
pg
When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they
claim, or even believe themselves. Try this thought experiment: if Arrington
seemed like the nicest, most self-deprecating guy in the world-- like Father
Mulcahy, for anyone who remembers MASH-- would people be so angry about his
supposed lack of journalistic scruples?

~~~
thaumaturgy
Angry? No, because anger isn't the appropriate emotional response to such a
person.

But that doesn't mean that people would react _positively_ , either. The
response would simply be altered: people would likely try to work with him,
try to correct his behavior as they saw fit, or dismiss him altogether.

> _When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what they
> claim, or even believe themselves._

This is stunningly arrogant, and I'm speaking as someone that's constantly
accused of arrogance. If you're going to tell people that you understand their
motivations or behaviors better than they do, you should trot out some better
evidence than mere conjecture.

~~~
gruseom
_< < When people dislike something intensely, the reason is not always what
they claim, or even believe themselves. >>

This is stunningly arrogant_

No it's not. It's an obvious fact of human nature. One way to know this is by
self-observation. That may seem oxymoronic (how can I observe something I am
denying?) but with a bit of honesty it works well.

One tell-tale sign is when the emotional charge around something is
incommensurate with the reason someone is giving. I think this may be going on
here. The most common stated criticism of Arrington is that his journalistic
standards are poor. But is everyone who says that really so passionate about
journalistic standards in general? I kind of doubt it.

~~~
billswift
Yeah, "journalistic standards" is rather like "legal ethics" and politicians'
honesty, good for bashing the opposition, but not much in view otherwise. Does
anyone actually trust anything they see in the NYT or WaPo? Really?

------
netsp
It rubs me the wrong way when people make this sort claim about why others
criticise them. Sort of a sophisticated version of a 13 year old girl's mother
telling her that the other girls are mean to her because they're jealous.
Richard Dawkins makes the same claim when he is confornted: "I realise that I
might convince more people by being more strategic or diplomatic. I accept
that criticism." (paraphrased) I don't really believe that.

I don't really believe pg when he writes: _"I'd rather offend people
needlessly than use needless words, and you have to choose one or the other"_
or _". If you want to please people who are mistaken, you can't simply tell
the truth."_ Actually, it's not that I totally disbelieve him but I think its
rationalising in a way that is not entirely intellectually honest. Maybe he
rationally agrees with the former. The latter is probably true. But the
reasons that we choose our words, our "style" is a lot less rational. In any
case, claiming that 'my style is the honest one while the anaemic version that
"everyone else" uses and want me to use would be the right one from a
persuasion or self promotion perspective,' that is bogus. PG, Arrington &
Dawkins have all been successful with their styles. It is doubtful they would
have been with the style they describe. Perhaps it is because of the
abrasiveness, perhaps not. That's up to discussion.

 _I understand pg is not defending himself, but he does seem to be defending
Arrington in solidarity.

_ edit:* Something has been bothering me about this comment. I don't disagree
with the premise of this essay. I agree with it. Arrington is disliked for
reasons unarticulated and possibly unknown to his haters. I'm not even
absolutely convinced that this conclusion is wrong. I would be very surprised
if the effect it is describing explains everything. A few other explanations
seem more likely to me. I am just suspicious of the class of argument put
forward in the same way pg is suspicious of the 'heroic generation' arguments.

------
mrshoe
I think a lot of hackers, myself included, have a hard time with persuasion.
I've found that my first instinct is often to respond to a coworker's proposal
with something like, "Here are 10 reasons why that's a horrible idea." That
ends up being counter-productive, so I'm trying to learn how to suppress that
instinct.

Unfortunately, people's egos get hurt easily. You can't tell them what you
think. You can't disagree with them blatantly. You have to slowly and
carefully guide them from a place where they're 100% correct to a new place
where they're still 100% correct even though they now think completely
differently about the problem. It's not easy, and the hacker in me always
considers it a huge waste of time and effort. Why can't people just accept
that their first idea was wrong and move on?

One method I've found effective is to just link to a few articles on the
subject. The hope is that 1) the author of the articles is better at
persuasion than I am, and 2) my peer's ego is more open to taking advice from
an expert than from me.

If you're Steve Jobs (or Mike Arrington or pg), then you are fortunate enough
to have little need for this persuasive cruft in your life. If the rest of us
want any chance of influencing people higher in the pecking order, however, we
need to cradle their fragile egos.

~~~
vinutheraj
"Learn how to tell them to go to hell in such a way they'll want to go." -
heard in the 61st Emmy Awards, forgot who said it though !

~~~
thaumaturgy
I've done this, and it's fun. It was also a bit of business judo -- I
recommended an exceptionally difficult client to one of my competitors. Gave
'em the phone number and everything.

------
allenbrunson
Well, this is a turning point. I'm pretty sure I've read all of pg's essays,
and this is the first one that I unambiguously disagree with. I think he has
completely overlooked the _real_ reasons Arrington is unpopular, and taken the
topic off into the weeds. I guess it's good to have some evidence that I am
capable of thinking for myself after all. (Heh.)

------
skmurphy
_Because I'd rather offend people needlessly than use needless words, and you
have to choose one or the other._

Reminds me of a quote from Robert Heinlein

"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear.
Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub
together. Often the very young, the untravelled, the naive, the
unsophisticated deplore these formalities as 'empty,' 'meaningless,' or
'dishonest,' and scorn to use them. No matter how pure their motives, they
thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."

------
dfranke
I'm fairly sure it's the comment thread that I started
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=831461>) which set off this essay, so I
guess I'm the archetype of "ordinarily calm people who go berserk when
[Arrington's] name comes up in comment threads". But if your explanation of my
psychology is correct, then why don't I go berserk at you as well? I've
disagreed with a few of your essays, and by and large pointed out those
disagreements in these comment threads, but I've never disagreed _violently_
with any of them. My beef with Arrington is that he writes a gossip tabloid.
Nothing more, nothing less.

~~~
iamwil
The essay is less about arrington berserkers than it is about why pg writes
the way he does, even though the discovery started off as a question about
arrington berserkers.

~~~
babyshake
I agree. One of the common traits of a 'discovery' essay is you don't end up
answering the question you asked.

And I should mention that the reason I don't like Mike involves a very poor
way he treated someone I know.

------
paul
This is a very interesting observation. It might be amusing if PG rewrote some
of his more controversial essays in the second style, then made both versions
available. Think of it as "skinning". Since the discovery version was written
before the persuasive version, the persuasion needn't interfere with the
discovery.

~~~
pg
Intriguing idea, at least as a sort of practical joke. The problem is, it
would change the ideas. For example, when I rewrote the paragraph about labor
unions, I had to ditch the point about fallen civilizations overrating past
eras; though I didn't make the link explicitly, the comparison to medieval
history would be obvious to anyone who'd studied much of it. (People in
medieval Europe felt inferior to the ancients long after it ceased to be
true.) I didn't like tossing this point, but there was no convenient way to
get it into the new version.

~~~
gregwebs
How about a program to re-write for persuasion once you have written for
discovery. I bet it wouldn't be to hard to program one that could make an
essay sound more timid and nice. That is a fairly simple process that I
usually go through before communicating electronically. However, as you stated
you would still have to add the extra content.

------
run4yourlives
_"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss
people."_ \-- Eleanor Roosevelt

That neatly explains my personal affinity towards pg, and my disinterest
towards Arrington and many other "journalists" out there today.

Techcrunch is the Entertainment Tonight of Silicon Valley, and I don't find
the gossip produced by either medium adds a lot to my life.

That isn't to judge him, and certainly not to "hate" the man, but it is to say
that the content is not appealing.

------
trunnell
I disagree on the orthogonality of being ingratiating and discovering things.

Sometimes discovery must be done collaboratively. When this is the case, it
can be more _effective_ to mind one's social graces. Otherwise, productivity
relies on other people ignoring negative social cues. I wouldn't take that
bet.

~~~
billswift
Discovery like creation is the act of a single mind; the discovery or creation
often needs to be fleshed out to be really useful, which is often done
collaboratively. But without that initial lonely insight collaboration is
worthless.

------
GavinB
_People who think the labor movement was the creation of heroic union
organizers have a problem to explain_

This is a standard formulation that implies that you disagree with the
statement "the labor movement was the creation of heroic union organizers."

That isn't the statement with which you want to disagree. You want to disagree
with the person who thinks that we could return to the old days, if we were
only more heroic.

Try something like this:

 _Some people think that the reason for the loss of the high-paying union job
is a lack of moral courage in the modern age. Our ancestors were giants, and
if we were more like them we could return to the golden age.

In fact the truth is simpler than the "fallen civilization" explanation . . ._

------
pg
I wrote a new version that addresses the problem embodied in the comments
here: <http://paulgraham.com/pxdremix.html>

~~~
btilly
Reading the article the biggest thing that hit me is that the two versions of
the union paragraph are not equivalent at all.

The first one says that the labor movement was not founded by heros. It
insinuates that anyone who claims otherwise must despise current labor unions
by contrast. And it leaves open the possibility that you're setting the reader
up for a sudden about face where you come up with some non-obvious reasoning
for why labor unions were founded by heros after all.

The second eulogizes the heros who founded labor unions. Then makes it clear
that there is no reason to think that current union leaders would be capable
of less if asked. And concludes that the shrinking of unions must be due to
external circumstances.

With that in mind I can draw up version 3 that says what version 2 does but
not at length.

"Why are labor unions shrinking today? Some say that we have lesser leaders
today. Admittedly today's leaders do not regularly face hired thugs, etc like
their predecessors did. But there is no reason to believe that they would be
any less capable of heroism at need. The cause must be external."

I made the same major points as #3, without causing offense, with fewer words
than your short version. The secret is to avoid offense by figuring out what
could be offensive and not saying it, rather than figuring out what could be
offensive and elaborating on how you're not trying to offend.

~~~
pg
You know, as I was cutting out the stuff about Arrington, I was thinking to
myself, what is the second biggest bicycle shed? What controversial but
peripheral issue are people going to seize on now? Labor unions, probably.

Ugh. After spending so much of yesterday arguing about whether people's
dislike of Arrington was due purely to their high standards for journalistic
integrity, or whether (this being the whole point of a disarming manner) they
were also influenced by his manner, I just can't face the prospect of spending
any of today arguing about labor unions.

I did not say that the labor movement wasn't founded by heroes, but that is
the last I have to say about it.

~~~
mbrubeck
I don't think btilly is bike-shedding here. He's not arguing about whether
you're right or wrong about labor unions. He's talking about whether or not
your (new) first example actually supports your thesis (part of your thesis
being that you have to choose between inoffensive writing and clear/concise
writing).

You give two versions of the "labor union" paragraph. One of them does not say
whether early union leaders were heroes or not (but might carelessly be read
to imply that they aren't). The second states that they definitely were.

The second version is less offensive to people with pro-union biases. But it
is _more_ offensive to people with anti-union biases. If you wanted to avoid
offending a particular person or group, your rewriting approach would work.
But to avoid offending a diverse population you should instead remove _any_
claims (express or implied) about unrelated controversial topics, or simply
choose less divisive topics for your examples.

------
abstractbill
_I'd rather offend people needlessly than use needless words_

Just out of curiosity, have you ever discovered something that you thought
would offend enough of your audience that there was no point publishing it?

~~~
pg
Yes, whole essays.

~~~
rms
Is that what lead to "What You Can't Say"?

Can you hint at some of those ideas?

------
thunk
There's another reason people "dislike" Arrington: they love participatory
righteous indignation, and Arrington is willing to play sink to it. The
ability to bear that, and even revel in it, is something many great people
share, and makes me think TC isn't the biggest thing he'll accomplish.

------
ivankirigin
Do you think there might be another category of writing, that fits in an
essay: story telling?

Some of the most compelling talks I've been to are stories winding through a
narrative. Conciseness doesn't really fit it, and it is certainly designed for
discovery more than persuasion. But it's a bit of both, characterized perhaps
by discovery of the audience - though not necessarily of an intended idea,
which would make it persuasion.

------
dschobel
Good piece but it neglects another category of writing to its own detriment,
that on the opposite end of the spectrum of "pleasing everyone", namely,
writing which exists for no other reason than to provoke a response (aka the
Ann Coulter school of writing).

My personal experience is that this sort of writing is far more common than
the ingratiating kind when you get out of the school/professional environment.

------
alex_c
_I could write that way if I had to [...] It makes the same point [...] But
written this way it seems like a defense of present-day union organizers
rather than an attack on early ones. [...] If I believe everything I said in
the second version, why didn't I write it that way? Why offend people
needlessly?_

I disagree that it makes the same point. I'm sure it's intended to make the
same point, but it doesn't - "written this way it seems like" == "it makes a
different point", as far as I'm concerned.

The code example isn't a perfect parallel: you can cut down code but still
have it perform the exact same functionality - it either follows a certain
execution path or it doesn't. That's not so easy to do with writing, since
there is no "hypothetical perfectly unbiased reader".

I don't think it's about offending people or not, it's about whether or not
the reader walks away with the point you're actually trying to make. It should
usually be possible to avoid both "offensive" and "fawning", and settle on
"neutral".

Of course, the problem is that "neutral" is often the most boring to read.

------
auston
I've met Michael Arrington once & talked to him on several occasions. He was
never short or rude, only seemingly, endlessly occupied.

In fact, all of the staff @ TechCrunch seem to be nice, people of the few I've
met.

------
dpapathanasiou
Reading this reminded me of Ellis and Harper's concept of Core Irrational
Beliefs, from their book " _A Guide to Rational Living_ "
([http://books.google.com/books?id=3JB9sLEV-
SoC&dq=isbn:08...](http://books.google.com/books?id=3JB9sLEV-
SoC&dq=isbn:0879800429)):

" _Everyone I meet must treat me just the way I like; otherwise, they are
completely worthless!_ "

The key, of course, is to recognize when you're reacting to those kinds of
mental triggers and change your attitude and manner accordingly (which is
easier said than done).

------
10ren
I am charming; you are respectful; _he_ is _ingratiating_. It's a loaded term,
not a neutral one befitting the dispassionate pursuit of truth, aka
_discovery_.

I found the second example of unions (the "ingratiating" one) easier to
understand, because it was concrete, and therefore allowed me into the
author's point of view, and had redundancy so I could easily confirm what I
thought he meant.

Also, the fact that he admires courage makes me think we have similar values,
and therefore, _he is worth listening to_. There exist extremely intelligent
people who lack compassion and wisdom, i.e. foolish villains. I don't think
their advice is going to be very helpful.

 _But the conventional behavior when meeting someone new is to act extra
friendly_

And now I show what sort of person I am: I read the above line and thought..
ohhhhhh... _that's_ what I've been doing wrong (no, not sarcastic). I've also
thought that people who act extra friendly on first meeting are really
insincere. But sounds like it's standard communication protocol, and
communication is improved by speaking a common language, so I really should
start doing this. Thanks pg!

------
messel
"Most writers do. Most writers write to persuade, if only out of habit or
politeness. But I don't write to persuade; I write to figure out. I write to
persuade a hypothetical perfectly unbiased reader."

This is one of those pearls that makes reading Paul very satisfying. This
inside view is vital when it comes to understanding people.

Why we write is essential to crafting the best version of a
post/essay/article. I write for the most biased observer, myself. If I can
respect the point and style of one of my posts, it gets published and the
yardstick I measure content by does fluctuate daily.

When I cover a topic well, I can easily link back to that thought process
within other posts to convey my ideas in a well thought out manner.
Modularized web commenting if you like the concept allows for more rapid
responses of higher quality to ongoing discussions.

The great part is, I can go back and update older concepts with a fresh
perspective by writing follow on posts.

------
shiro
Interesting read, but somehow I sensed there's a touch of persuasion in this a
lot more than other pg's essays. Maybe persuasion isn't the thing...
explanation? It sounded like pg's trying to explain really hard why his essay
was in that style, rendering the outcome slightly verbose than his usual
essays.

Maybe this is just a false impression. But it may indicate that it is more
difficult to talk about oneself than about something/someone else.

[EDIT]: I found why I felt it verbose. The latter part, about pg's essays'
attitude to mention facts plainly and succinctly, hence they tended to offend
some people, was obvious. So I felt it was unnecessary explanation. Probably
it is necessary for different audience.

------
barrkel
I dislike Arrington primarily because of his attitude and verbal tactics I've
heard when he's been on various podcasts - largely Gillmor Gang, IIRC.

He reminded me strongly of a salesman, in that he used simple yet insidious
verbal tricks to "wind people up", as we say in these parts, though less self-
serving - more in an idly sadistic and demeaning way. He was a negative and
arrogant force in the conversations, and they improved when he left.

Techcrunch just seals the deal - it's not a site I have in my reader, I just
see it occasionally here or other links.

------
matthewjbright
I really like th idea of writing to discover. Learning by discovery and
exploration has been my education. It is also the way that I write - to
explore, not to convince.

I hadn't been able to articulate this to myself coherently until I came across
this on the Khosla Ventures site (complete with Vinod Khosla's notes such as
"this is commie horse shit" and "MBA bullshit" (!).

[http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/What_makes_entre...](http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/What_makes_entrepreneurs_entrepreneurial.pdf)

------
shimon
An exercise from the essay:

...And present union leaders probably would rise to the occasion if necessary.
People tend to; I'm skeptical about the idea of "the greatest generation." [2]

Footnote:

[2] Oops, offended another constituency. Exercise for the reader: rephrase
that thought to please the same people the first version would offend.

Please submit your solutions below.

~~~
rms
And present union leaders probably would rise to the occasion if necessary.
People tend to; all generations have the potential to be as great as the
(Greatest Generation, GI Generation) when faced with sufficient external
challenges.

------
adamc
I was glad to read this, as it addresses questions I've had for some time.
There is nothing wrong with writing to figure things out, so long as you don't
expect it to persuade or interest many others (although hacker news is
obviously a congenial audience for many of them).

------
richcollins
This doesn't help either:

<http://www.blogpi.net/wp-content/uploads/arrington-cigar.jpg>

------
throwawayac
I've met him. Plus a bunch more Valley personalities. I've been underwhelmed
by their openness to non-fawning unknowns. Which is amusing me. A couple of
years ago I sold my unknown european startup in a private (and NDA'd)
transaction for around 45m dollars. After the handcuffs expired I moved to
silicon valley last year and since then I've been lurking in the community.
I've been talking to everyone and not playing up my background. The arrogance
and name-dropping is hilarious. The importance of being in the right circles.
I actually have a day job working on a fun project so that I could meet and
work with people. Immerse myself in the culture so to speak. I find it there
as well. Newly minted Stanford PhDs sure are full of "confidence" shall we say
:-)

I'm small fry - don't get me wrong - but the 'personalities' certainly want
you to do the running and love the attention. I'm actually pondering starting
my next company somewhere else because, frankly, I'm not convinced that the
valley echo chamber is the best place to be (unless you are flipping fad
companies of dubious long term value).

Let the flames begin ;-)

~~~
pclark
come to Cambridge, UK. Nice city, people and startups.

~~~
throwawayac
Nice place and people but awful weather IMHO. I'm rather partial to the warmer
climes.

I've heard the traffic is a hassle there? Can you comment?

~~~
ajb
The traffic is a hassle only in the rush hour. Most tech companies here
operate on flexitime specifically so their employees can avoid it, which works
pretty well.

Having said that, I haven't worked anywhere else. The perspective of someone
who had would be useful.

~~~
pclark
where do you work? :)

------
zackattack
If we want to nit-pick about semantics, I don't think it's a true dichotomy,
because discovery persuades rationalist readers. In fact, in psychology this
is called the Central Route of Persuasion.

Also, your essay reminded me of the caterpillar from alice in wonderland.
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgbntWU7pG8> \- 47 seconds in). What's the
isness in yo bizness!

------
adrianwaj
I like Michael Arrington because he's pro-Israel and sees the evil in
Holocaust deniers, and calls them out on it. That takes balls and brains,
especially if you're not Jewish.

-discovery version

edit: I'd better tack on my favourite quote from the essay:

"I'd rather offend people needlessly than use needless words"

