
Dabblers and Blowhards - A Criticism of PG - smanek
http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
======
SwellJoe
I've always felt the painters connection was too tightly focused, though I
think this essay (which is ancient, and would either be more true of pg's work
today or less depending on how much you agree with it) goes overboard and
manages to miss the point.

The bone that I do think can be picked with Hackers and Painters is that there
just aren't very many hackers who are also painters. In fact, I only know one:
pg. I know literally dozens of hackers who are musicians and four who are
writers (oh, wait...pg makes it five). It seems to me that if the two
categories of people were so alike, there would be significant overlap, but
there is very little that I'm aware of. If you take "creative, systematic, and
challenging pursuits" as a whole, however, you begin to see a lot more overlap
(and again, musicians overlap a _lot_ with hackers, moreso than any other
"creative, systematic, and challenging pursuit").

Maybe because I'm a musician and a hacker (by some definition of "musician"
and "hacker") I'm seeing all of these connections in the same way that pg, who
is a painter and a hacker, sees connections between his two loves. It all
makes sense when you're looking at your own likes and dislikes, but nobody
else will really understand exactly what you see in your hobbies.

~~~
pg
Interesting question. Probably one reason there are a lot more
hacker/musicians than hacker/painters is that there are a lot more musicians
than painters. Painting is not exactly a flourishing field at the moment. But
there are a significant number of hackers who are good at graphic design.

The thing I was saying hackers and painters had in common was that they're
both makers. As opposed to the idea prevalent when I was in college, that
programming was applied math. I believe it was in protest against this idea
that Knuth called his books _The Art of Computer Programming._

~~~
SwellJoe
_But there are a significant number of hackers who are good at graphic
design._

Righteous argument. If painting, as an art form, has been replaced by graphic
design, then clearly there is significant overlap, and probably on the same
order as musicians. I don't know how much I believe "painters", as a class,
have become "designers", since almost none of the painters I knew in high
school (I went to a school for fine arts, so I knew a lot of painters) have
since become digital artists, but that may be just a sign of my age...I was
among the last generation of kids that didn't grow up using computers daily.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I think the primary problem is that "painters" is too
specific...though it makes for a better title than "Hackers and People Who
Make Art of Some Kind". When you open it up to include designers and other
visual artists, musicians (like Knuth, who has a massive pipe organ in his
house and plays it beautifully), and writers, the overlap becomes very nearly
100%. Every hacker of note that I can think of off the top of my head has at
least one of these as a hobby, particularly if you allow "visual arts" to
include things like robotics, DIY electronics with an artistic purpose, 3D
modeling, etc. As you've said, hackers are makers, and it often spills over
into other kinds of production.

~~~
pg
_hackers are makers, and it often spills over into other kinds of production_

Yes, definitely. I think hackers may be more like architects than painters,
for example. The reason I wrote about the connection between hacking and
painting is that I understand painting fairly well. I haven't studied
architecture.

The core of this Dabblers & Blowhards thing is a strawman argument. He claims
I say the connection between hacking and painting is much stronger than I do,
then "proves" it isn't. When in fact all I say is:

    
    
      of all the different types of people I've known, 
      hackers and painters are among the most alike.
    

(<http://paulgraham.com/hp.html>)

~~~
tptacek
He claims you say the connection between hacking and painting is strong, in an
essay titled "Hackers and Painters", in which you say, "of all the different
types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike". I
think you're begging the question.

Moreover, you yourself are constructing a straw man. His point isn't simply
that your comparison is broken, but that it's hopelessly filtered through your
own experience. He knows you see similar connections with architects. He's
saying, the only reason you picked "painters" was that your art education
taught you to admire painters and their lifestyle.

The word "fatuous", repeated in his essay, is the core of his argument: that
your insight about the relation between Hackers and Painters is superficial,
and where it applies at all, it's built on knowledge of painting that is
itself superficial.

I neither agree nor disagree, but it's graceless to dismiss him like that. I'd
be flattered to have someone refute me as carefully as he did you.

~~~
pg
_the core of his argument: that your insight about the relation between
Hackers and Painters is superficial, and where it applies at all, it's built
on knowledge of painting that is itself superficial._

Can you give an example where you feel he has successfully refuted something
specific I said about painting?

~~~
tptacek
Sure. I've taken his thesis and applied it, substituting "pastry chef" for
"painter" into the text of each of the topic sentences in the lead graf of
each section of your essay. The essay continues to work. Your critic's point
seems valid.

 _You learn to bake mostly by doing it. Ditto for hacking._

 _Because pastry chefs leave a trail of work behind them, you can watch them
learn by doing._

 _For a pastry chef, a cookbook is a reference library of techniques._

 _Another example we can take from pastry is the way that dishes are created
by gradual refinement. New dishes usually begin with a sketch._

 _In hacking, like pastry, work comes in cycles. Sometimes you get excited
about some new project and you want to work sixteen hours a day on it. Other
times nothing seems interesting._

 _A lot of the great cooking of the past is the work of multiple hands, though
there may only be one name on the wall of the restaurant_.

 _Like pastry, most software is intended for a human audience._

~~~
pg
That's not a refutation. Find something specific I said about painting that he
has shown to be _false_ , not merely also true of some other field.

For example, pick one of the list of statements I made about painting that he
quotes in that list in the middle, and explain how you feel he has refuted it.
Or any other statement about painting he quotes.

~~~
tptacek
Your argument was that painting has an interesting connection to hacking.

"No it doesn't," your critic argues, "because in fact you can make the same
argument about many other professions --- for an absurd example, take pastry
chefs".

Unless we're secretly on Usenet, he's refuted your argument. He used evidence
to deny the premise of your essay.

Draw his argument out further, and you can make the same statements about law,
insurance, and surgery. For instance, "because constitutional lawyers leave a
trail of work behind them, you can watch them learn by doing." Or, "a lot of
the great innovations in corporate reinsurance are the work of multiple hands,
though there may only be only a few names in the list of partners at the
firm".

Also: it took time to re-read your essay, read his essay, jog my memory about
your book, and write that response. I'm not sure I feel like your response to
me dignified that work. Can you respond this time without redefining the word
"refute" to suit your argument?

~~~
pg
The challenge I gave you was to find any specific statement I made about
painting that he has shown to be false. It's a disingenous trick to claim that
the thesis of the essay is implicitly a statement about painting. Not that he
has even refuted that. But put that point aside for the time being, and let's
return to my original challenge, which I hope is clear now. Find one specific
sentence or series of sentences I wrote about painting that he has shown to be
false.

If my understanding of painting is "superficial," I should have made lots of
mistakes, right? So let's have one.

~~~
tptacek
Sorry, Paul. I read your essay and his as essays, not as series of independent
sentences to be reviewed like lines of C in a group code review. I therefore
reject the premise that I am somehow obligated to find an individual statement
in it that is provably false.

Next, since you wrote the essay and not me, you're clearly in a position to
dictate what the essay "is about". Clearly, both me and your critic read it as
being "about" the connection between hackers and painters. I muster as
evidence the facts that:

* The essay was titled "Hackers and Painters"

* The essay said there was an interesting connection between hackers and painters in the topic sentence of the lead graf.

* Of the 89 grafs in the essay, 26 have as their topic the connection between programming and painting.

* Of the 17 sections in the essay, 10 of them have as their thesis statement either a specific connection between programming and painting, or an explanation of why that connection is important.

If you want to argue that your essay is "about" something other than painting,
there's not much I can about that other than to complain about unfairness. I'd
rather not.

As to whether your understanding of painting is superficial, I certainly
wouldn't know. But your critic repeatedly and explicitly says it is, again
with evidence. Which of his arguments ring false to you? You might start with
his footnotes.

~~~
pg
I've seen quite a lot of evasions when I asked people to get specific, but
this is definitely the longest.

I didn't ask you to find a passage that's provably false, just any specific
statement I made that you feel he's refuted. It's a red herring to suggest
that simply because I ask you for evidence, I'm somehow claiming that essays
work like math.

You're not of course _obligated_ to provide evidence, when asked for it, but
most people on forums do so voluntarily in order to preserve their
credibility.

~~~
tptacek
You said:

"Hacking and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different
types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike."

Your critic refuted that hacking and painting have much in common, and
probably (but obviously speculatively) that hackers and painters are among the
"most alike" of all the people you know.

And again, this appeared to me to be the central argument of your essay; it
would not have been so widely noted had it argued instead that "hackers are
like everyone who does constructive work", because by enlisting gardeners,
grade school teachers, and psychologists, that argument reduces to "hackers
are like many of the people you know". A barista at Intelligentsia Cafe
downstairs from me invented an excellent drink --- horchata with a shot of
espresso. Hackers are apparently also like him.

At this point, because you are calling me names instead of rebutting any point
I make, I can only guess that you think none of these points are valid, and
that hackers and painters share a unique bond, one that you feel your art
education and work history allowed you to reveal in an essay (were it not so,
the topic wouldn't merit the work you put into it). If you're seriously asking
me the questions you're asking because you want to know the answer, and not
because you want to win an argument, I'll say that when I read "Hackers and
Painters" originally, I agreed with you. When I read your critic, I believe
him more: there's there's little interesting to say about the relation between
hacking and painting as practiced by modern professional artists.

~~~
pg
"Hacking and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different
types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike."

Well, he certainly didn't refute the first sentence. Arguing that other things
have a lot in common with hacking doesn't prove that painting doesn't. And I
don't see how either you or he could say anything about the second. You don't
know who I know. And I didn't even say they were the most alike of people I'd
known, only among the most alike.

You both pretend I'd written "Hacking has more in common with painting than
any other field." But if I'd meant that, I would have said it.

In fact, I say explicitly that what hackers have in common with painters is
that they're both makers, and I mention other types of makers (writers and
architects) who are also like hackers. The kinds of work I claim hacking is
unlike are math and science, which I think is an important point, because lots
of people have tried to push it into the mold of one or the other.

Now that's settled, will you answer my original question? Can you give me an
example of a specific statement about painting that he's refuted? Not (what he
claims is) the thesis of my essay, but one of the statements I make
specifically about painting. As you point out, he attacks these "repeatedly
and explicitly," with footnotes. I'm asking you to produce just one you feel
is convincing, to support your claim that he has "carefully refuted" me.

The reason I'm asking is because I think you'll find, when you look more
closely, that you've been convinced by the form of his arguments (the emphatic
tone, the citations) without actually understanding them. But go ahead, prove
me wrong.

~~~
tptacek
I see your point, Paul. But if all you're saying is that hackers are like
"makers", your essay is really boring. There is nothing special about being a
"maker". And because you've applied no rigor to defining the term, you haven't
even set up a comparison: you can substitute "mathematician" as easily as
"painter" or "bicycle builder".

Meanwhile, your critic has provided several examples of ways hackers are
specifically unlike painters. For instance, you felt painters needed to know
about paint chemistry, like hackers need to know about big-O notation. No,
your critic says, most painters don't know anything about paint chemistry,
just "fat over lean". Painters, the critic very credibly notes, also get laid
more than hackers.

I've answered your original question several times over now. You seized on the
word "refute" and demanded that I provide a specific statement that the
critique refutes. I caved and said, "ok, you said hackers are more like
painters than most other people you know". You've now backed off that
statement, which I still read as the core of your argument. You've now mooted
the argument. I'm fine with that.

I agree, the critique is stylish and fun to read, and more convincing for it.
Maybe that's not fair. But your essay got more attention, so I wouldn't worry.

~~~
pg
Where did I back off any statement? I still think hackers are more like
painters than most other types of people I know.

I notice now that you've finally produced a specific statement about painting
that you claim he's refuted, though. And you are mistaken, as I think even you
will have to agree. What I wrote was:

    
    
      All the time I was in graduate school I had an 
      uncomfortable feeling in the back of my mind 
      that I ought to know more theory...
    
      Now I realize I was mistaken. Hackers need to 
      understand the theory of computation about as 
      much as painters need to understand paint chemistry.
    

In other words, I am in fact saying that painters _don't_ need to know a lot
about paint chemistry, and using that as an analogy in statement that hackers,
similarly, don't need to know much about the theory of computation.

Is this finally starting to give you second thoughts about the idea that he's
"carefully refuted" me?

~~~
tptacek
I think he _wrote_ carefully --- his critique is funny, a fast read, and works
on multiple levels (as a parody of your writing style, as a reasoned criticism
of your argument, and as a takedown of the cult of personality that surrounds
you). I don't think either of your arguments are particularly careful anymore.

But you're right, if one chooses to be harshly analytical about your essay, it
is indeed hard to pin you down to something that can be refuted directly.

Again: he wrote something clever and funny about you. You should be flattered.
Right now, you really just seem petulant.

------
timr
Aha...I _knew_ I'd read this before! It's linked in the article from this
post:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=143148>

which spawned a large comment thread that's probably worth referencing here.

------
zasz
I draw a little bit, and I couldn't see anything wrong with pg stating the
following:

"Most painters start with a blurry sketch and gradually refine it."

Unless the author or some other great painter manages to get it perfectly
right from the very first stroke? I only draw, I don't paint, but I can
definitely see similarities between going through iterations and drafts in
programming and art.

~~~
narag
That's indeed the way current painters work. I think what the author says is
that it wasn't when oil paint was invented.

~~~
zasz
Yes, but the only refutation I think he has is this little footnote saying
that underneath the layer of paint is a super-precise line drawing. I would be
incredulous to hear that super-precise line drawing was not a refinement of a
blurrier one that just set out the basic idea.

------
r7000
I immediately assumed the analogy was meant to portray hackers as 'makers',
artisans etc. in order to broaden the readers perception of what a hacker was
or could be. I was immediately interested in finding out where the author was
going to take the idea and was pleasantly surprised. An analogy is used to
quickly open up the reader's mind and prepare them to think about something in
a new way. Was this one perfect? None are. Did it work? Yes.

This article, on the other hand, is merely one in a long line of internet
articles that purposely refuse to get the point of what they are criticizing.

On a personal note. I read H&P while taking breaks from driving on a cross-
Canada trip. My original driving partner is a painter. He had to drop out and
a hacker friend took his place and brought along the book. I thought it was
amusing at the time and told him the title would have been more appropriate
before the change.

------
tptacek
Did any of you catch the Minnaert recommendation, for "Light and Color In The
Outdoors", the author's notion of a strong work about the connection between
programming and art? I bought a used copy for Erin, and it was pretty awesome.
Did any of you read it? What did you think?

------
timcederman
From the article - you can't say hackers figure out both "what" and "how" in
most cases. Usually there is a designer and/or usability expert who figures
out what.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
I don't think he did say that -- rather that in the _best_ case, they do both.

------
tdavis
I find it hard to believe this isn't a bit of participatory narcissism
considering he goes to great lengths to point out how often artists get laid.
Which also couldn't possibly be an overly-broad generalization. Although he
gets a point for the use of "weenis."

Pot: Kettle, you are black, sir!

~~~
tptacek
It's parody. He's simultaneously pointing out the grandiosity of Graham's
allusions, taking the piss out of them by comparison, and mirroring Graham's
style to do it.

It's a really nice piece of writing, and it's even more fun if you read it
with a copy of Hackers and Painters next to it to spot the references.

------
sapphirecat
Is the author of that "criticism" trying to parody what they see in PG's
writing? It could just as easily be self-referential.

------
erdos2
The author misses the point that PG's essays are not intended to be understood
literally, but as literature, to be appreciated on an aesthetic level only.

