
Paul Graham was right. It sure looks like ideas are worthless. - falsestprophet
http://my-million-dollar-ideas.blogspot.com/
======
create_account
The next guy who upvotes anything starting with "Paul Graham was right" is
going to get his legs broken.

Ok, not really (just saw the Sopranos on dvd last night), but let's not turn
this into a dumb fan boy site.

There are tons of those already.

~~~
juwo
I disagree with Paul Graham - but no one commented on these
arguments(<http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=19535)>

<http://juwo-works.blogspot.com/2007/05/ideas-are-worthless-wrong-ideas-
can.html>

~~~
jkush
That's because you're playing with semantics. Ideas are worthless because an
idea can't solve a problem. It's the implementation of an idea that solves the
problem.

~~~
juwo
Well, think back to the idea Einstein had when he was a 14 year old kid.

"if I can ride a motorcycle as fast as a beam of light..."

was it worthless?

~~~
SwellJoe
Yes, it was, until he executed on it as an adult and formalized it and made it
into something useful. Had the idea stayed an idea, or just been handed off to
someone else who hadn't the mental capacity to do something with it, it would
have remained worthless.

In short, Paul was right. Ideas are worthless. Ideas plus execution can have
value.

Why fight it? Got some great ideas but no capacity to execute? Just accept it
and start executing.

~~~
juwo
from my blog post: "An idea is a seed; many ideas have to be discovered and
implemented along the way for it to grow up. The initial fertilisation is
essential, but differentiation into organs, the "other ideas along the way"
must come along."

this was the seed. even after differentiation into organs - as the Theory of
Relativity, it was still an idea on paper. You cannot reasonably argue that it
was worthless. Other people executed it.

~~~
jkush
Look Juwo, you're still playing with words. It's not so much that an idea is
WORTHLESS (where it doesn't have any value) as it's that an idea doesn't
really count for anything UNTIL it's been brought out into the real world. For
all intents and purposes, Einstein's ideas were worthless until he put them
down on paper.

Let me phrase this another way: what if Einstein had never written The Theory
of Relativity? Would his ideas still be worth anything just sitting there in
his brain?

Also, PG never wrote that ideas were "worthless". He wrote that people
"overvalue ideas". This is what I mean when I say you're playing with words.
Changing "overvalue ideas" to worthless frames it very differently and isn't
very precise.

~~~
juwo
I am not bothered to look for his article but I am sure he used the term
"ideas are worthless". Otherwise that phrase would never have independently
stuck around here so long.

~~~
jkush
See here: <http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html>

He did write "The fact that there's no market for startup ideas suggests
there's no demand. Which means, in the narrow sense of the word, that startup
ideas are worthless."

What I mean when I say playing with words is that he qualified that statement
with "in the narrow sense of the word." He was also referring to startup ideas
in particular.

This discussion is getting to be a little ridiculous because you're splitting
hairs and and missing the point entirely.

~~~
juwo
I dont read his essays any more.

No, you are missing the point.

So, now it is qualified by _startup_ ideas? Then where did all the "ideas are
worthless" phrases come from? (like this thread).

If you agree that in general, ideas have worth - some more than others - then
we are on the same side. :)

~~~
akkartik
"where did all the "ideas are worthless" phrases come from?"

Perhaps from _other_ people who contracted a phrase because they understood
what the context was? How'll you know unless you read the original source?

------
ralph
Don't waste your time clicking on the link.

------
byrneseyeview
Well, _bad_ ideas are worthless.

