
Paul Graham Is Still Asking to Be Eaten - gizmo
https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/paul-graham-is-still-asking-to-be-eaten-5f021c0c0650#.oaaboc16c
======
steinsgate
Given two technically and aesthetically identical products A and B, if A
manages to get significantly more funding, better management and outreach, it
will probably sell more. We would say that the market thinks that A is more
valuable. But A and B are identical products, so where is the difference in
value coming from?

I think funding, management and outreach all depend on human resources behind
the product, most importantly, the team of founders. They have to get the
funding, manage the company and communicate well to customers. If the founders
are "high value", they can imbibe the product with some of this "value".

A system of computing values, which includes this "human value" is
problematic. In this system, the value of the Nazi philosophy, let's say,
would depend on the person propagating it. A charismatic leader like Hitler
brainwashed a lot of people into believing its legitimacy, thereby increasing
the value of the philosophy. The same philosophy, in the hands of someone
else, might not have gained any foothold.

When we talk about equal opportunity, we talk about resources like money. But
human resource can also play a huge impact in determining the value of a
product. I do not know what the definition of equal opportunity in the context
of "human value" should be. It is clear that a certain class of people possess
more "human value" than others, and there is an inequality because of this.
The question is : where does this value/inequality arise from? And should
society continue including this in the computation of value, or should we
construct rules where this value is suppressed?

In summary, the market is not a detached entity judging value, but it can be
influenced by "high value" people to go in a certain direction.

~~~
Natsu
Another name for that "human value" you discuss would be "influence." I don't
know of any system immune to that. Some proposals, like the one in China to
have a "social currency" system (i.e. the government gives you money for
promoting their ideals) seem more likely to promote the value of influence
rather than decreasing it so I'm not even sure if there's an agreement over
whether it's good or bad. Honestly, I suspect it depends on the positions of
the person with it: that is, people will be unhappy when people they don't
agree with have a lot of influence and happy when people they do agree with
have a lot of influence.

~~~
steinsgate
Yes, influence is a closely related concept. However, I think of influence
more as an effect of "human value" rather than being the value itself. An
example : Mark Zuckerberg did not have significant influence before he started
Facebook. But he had the value even before he started Facebook. This "value" I
am talking of comprises of , among other things, peers, habits, worldview,
drive, social understanding etc. of the person in question.

~~~
ap3
How about Harvard vs a local community college?

------
goodcanadian
Wow. I was not impressed by PGs essay. He had some points, but seemed to be
looking at the issue from a very narrow point of view. I gave it a 'C.' I
would love to see a high quality criticism. But this? I don't know if this has
any points; I couldn't get more than a few paragraphs in. As another comment
put it, "barely literate invective."

~~~
notahacker
I think a comment at the bottom of the linked article puts it perfectly: "this
sounds like two straw men having a fight"

~~~
flinty
straw-person /s

------
giaour
While I can't say this is the best written essay I've ever read, I do find it
telling that most of the commenters would rather dismiss the piece as "barely
literate invective" than engage with the arguments it advances.

If you don't have anything to contribute beyond an angry critique of the
author's writing style, then maybe you should sit the discussion out.

~~~
goodcanadian
Fair point, I suppose.

However, I have trouble engaging with the arguments when I can't even read far
enough to figure out what they are. The article starts out by calling PG names
and then throwing up straw men. It almost seems designed to piss me off enough
to stop reading . . . and that was my point.

------
transitorykris
The post is a great example of how the term "value" is misunderstood. Value in
the context of startups (Lean's definition) is not the same value when I talk
about a nurse's or school teacher's work. The distinction is subtle, and when
the subtly is missed can lead to anger because it feels as though a kind of
value is being devalued.

~~~
foolrush
The writer completely understands this issue and is why she is reframing it.

This is part of the thesis, the manner in which capital forwarded by VCs into
startups, shape this dysfunction.

~~~
braythwayt
Yes she perfectly understands the difference. The problem she is attacking is
that in Silicon Valley, people pave over the difference and act as if creating
wealth is in and of itself creating both kinds of value.

~~~
tmercer
Does she have a source for this? Because PG's essay never made that claim,
which is why people are accusing her of strawmanning.

------
jdminhbg
This is barely literate invective. It does not belong here. That it's
generating enough upvotes to get to the front page of HN is a symptom of
increasing politicization that's really degrading the quality of submissions.

~~~
objclxt
> _is a symptom of increasing politicization that 's really degrading the
> quality of submissions_

Yes, how strange it is that when PG posts a particularly inflammatory piece
about income inequality people _might_ want to respond to it.

~~~
Natsu
A proper response might be worth reading, but this is a bunch of insults
attacking a poorly-constructed strawman made out of words stuffed into PG's
mouth.

~~~
bmer
I'd like to offer a counterpoint to those who believe that this is simply
"nonsense invective".

I think the submission is worded like the "everyman" talking, but it makes all
the right counter-points.

* venture capitalism != democracy

* venture capitalism = the few get to decide what is valuable

* venture capitalism does not create wealth because existing wealth is used to legitimize "new wealth"

* venture capitalism cannot be used as the solution for everything, because in its existing form, it already undervalues things we would all care for (teachers, nurses, etc.) and overvalues things we all understand as entertainment (Candy Crush Saga)

* Paul Graham has written some very weird things -- his article then, taken holistically with the background of his other opinions, is scary

Pretty well written, I'd say. I am curious to know what words were stuffed
into PG's golden mouth.

~~~
Natsu
The parts claiming that PG hates the "poors" would be one example of stuffing
words into his mouth. I have difficulty locating any of the points you
mentioned in the article itself.

EDIT: Here's the false "distillation" of PG's essay put into quotes (i.e.
stuffed into PG's mouth): "I can distill the essence of the entire argument
to: “Don’t hate the player, but don’t hate the game either. Hate yourselves,
stupid poors, for not getting VC funding to start a company.”"

EDIT 2: To reply more fully, point-by-point:

* There may be some kind of actual point there in that one needs to have currency in order to 'vote' for startups. I think the point of calling it democratic is that people choose what they want rather than having it chosen for them.

* The few are becoming many with things like Kickstarter allowing just anyone to help bring things to reality, though you may have some point in that the amount of money you can bring to bear on the problem is at issue.

* "venture capitalism does not create wealth because existing wealth is used to legitimize "new wealth"" \- I don't even know what you think "wealth" is, but I'm guessing your idea of it is tied up in currency (dollars, Euros, whatever). If we didn't have, say, a cure for Malaria and a startup brings us that, it's new wealth. This is separate from the amount of currency that may exist in the world or how it may flow as a result of this.

If we give everyone $1,000,000 in currency, it doesn't change the amount of
actual things we have that could be buyable like, say, cars, though people
might be less willing to sell them for particular amounts of currency due to
inflation. So this point is completely incoherent as the two sides of it are
causally unrelated and it seems not to understand the use of 'wealth' as an
economic term.

* "venture capitalism cannot be used as the solution for everything" \- A strawman, as nothing is given to show that PG has actually claimed that. Instead it gives us this: "The solution to poverty is as transparent as starting Google, you stupid poors. Come on! Figure Google 2 out already, you idiots."

* "Paul Graham has written some very weird things -- his article then, taken holistically with the background of his other opinions, is scary" \- Fear is the "mind killer" and its effects can be seen in this piece.

------
vasilipupkin
I think it's possible to vehemently disagree ( as I do ) with Paul Graham on
his inequality thesis, and still be logical and coherent. This article is
neither. It's patent nonsense.

~~~
genericresponse
I actually think it's quite well written. It's not out there to dispute PG's
central point. It's written to dispute the idea that Silicon Valley's
engineering/business/vc minds have demonstrated skill at building anything
more than an economically better future for themselves and those within the
system. If it achieves that it seeks to invalidate PG's expertise. (From which
much of his authority is derived. A concept familiar to Holly Wood as she is a
sociologist.) It also criticizes his breadth of knowledge in the subject area,
something an academic would be in a position to comment on. (I'd love to hear
from an economist or another social scientist on whether PG's suppositions
reflect the broader literature.)

Getting back to the article's main attack- It does so by making a logical, if
emotion filled, attack. Venture capitalism is still capitalism. Participants
work to, primarily, their own economic benefit rather than the benefit of
society. (Yes, it's the worst system except for all the rest, but it still
doesn't make the most long term beneficial allocations. See: poor funding for
fundamental science research.)

Moreover the article criticizes PG (citing his lack of perspective) for
promoting a "bootstraps" ideology. It tries to illustrate that the ideology is
flawed in two ways: 1. The people who could most benefit don't necessarily
have the personal capital (time, knowledge, etc.) to effectively run a
startup. 2\. It implies that there is only so much problem space that can be
effectively addressed at any given time.

This is written in the style of a qualitative sociology monograph. I find it
quite compelling, however, I'm not surprised that the crowd here doesn't share
my view.

~~~
vasilipupkin
Plenty of paragraphs that are utter nonsense. Example:

"First of all, over 95% of startups fail. Every venture capitalist knows this.
Those pesky things, for the most part, just eat money and more often than not
actually destroy wealth. But the second reason why you should not allow
yourself to think that startups create wealth is because of how they are
funded."

This is nonsense that displays utter lack of understanding of startups,
venture capital, economics, finance. To refute it, I would have to start with
an Econ 101 lecture, followed by a lecture on basic statistics and probability
distributions. In short, it's just incoherent nonsense

~~~
genericresponse
I'd love to hear it, because it took me a quick Google search to find numbers
for startup failure from 80%-95% cited. (Much higher than the 48.8% I found
for small business failure rate.)

Moreover, I'd be interested if anyone has actually done a comprehensive study
on total value (long-term economic and short term investor profits) added/lost
from startups. I wouldn't be surprised if we found something that looks
net/net negative or even pretty small.[1] (That is startups globally, not just
VC funded or SV startups.)

If startups are engines of wealth re-allocations rather than drivers of long
term economic benefit. Well, then silicon valley is just as bad as Wall
Street.

[1] We're quick to count the successes, but struggle to count the failures.
More than that, many startups, as the author points out, are entertainment
companies that don't add much economically. Finally, how much money is churned
out of investable capital into acqui-hires? How much of that delivers a
meaningful return vs. defending a market position?

~~~
petra
There was a research .in 2010 measuring a decrease of 40% in empathy among
college students since 2000[1]. And Israeli researcher who talks with teens
everyday and deals with those subject recently did an interview in an Israeli
newspaper , and he thinks that the cause is smartphones and social media. He
frames this as "our children are becoming less human".

If you add that into the calculation, it could be that the total value of all
internet startups, Paul Graham's specialty , is greatly negative, and they're
not just silly entertainment.

[1][https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-
love/201005/shocke...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born-
love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000)

~~~
Natsu
How are startups responsible for empathy in college students?

~~~
petra
Teenagers have little face to face time , and a lot of social media time , due
to the addictiveness of smartphones, and various social media apps and
probably various games -mostly created in silicon valley.

Face to face time is where you learn emotional intelligence and empathy. A
simple example: usually in real life , when you hurt someone , you see him
getting hurt and you might feel ashamed. Social media lacks that.

~~~
Natsu
That's an interesting theory. How would you test it to prove (or disprove) it?
Would you predict that it would change as video chat becomes more commonplace?
Why or why not?

~~~
petra
There's this study :

[http://www.csudh.edu/psych/Virtual_empathy_-
_Positive_and_ne...](http://www.csudh.edu/psych/Virtual_empathy_-
_Positive_and_negative_impacts_of_going_online_upon_empathy_in_young_adults.pdf)

It says "little negative effects for online usage, except for gaming both for
males and females", but the other thing it says - "little decrease in face to
face time" contradicts other research that talks about greatly decreased face-
to-face time :

[http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/1137/the-effect-of-
tech...](http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/1137/the-effect-of-technology-
on-face-to-face-communication)

So it does require more research.

As for changing to video chat - i'm sure that would help(to some extent, and
depending on video chat quality [things like eye contact]) but the weird
question is - how do you make face to face chat as addictive as
facebook/reddit/HN ?

------
danso
Um...how did this get upvoted so much? I mean, it's sometimes fun to watch the
popcorn fly, but this was kind of tepid...I stopped at the explanation of what
a VC-funded startup is. Too much telling, not enough showing (I didn't read
pg's essay).

However, I was surprised that the author was offered $500 from a friend to
write a post on Medium. Is writing-as-a-career back in style? I'm all for
that.

~~~
tipiirai
Because it was a valid response and many liked it, including me.

------
melted
All I can say is this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLiu7B25G4o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLiu7B25G4o).
Please stop blogging. Thanks.

