Similarly, he's been passive aggressively "responding" to VC criticism by subtweeting and deflecting, and never directly addressing, some of the points raised by @DHH and others.
I take everything he writes with a grain of salt now. As a result, I started to realize his essays tend to be can defensive or just contain a lot of bias, rather than being truly introspective.
More context about the accusation about California regulations and Lambda: https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1211717254712135680
tl;dr: 2 weeks ago, Sandofsky emailed the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education and asked for an update on Lambda School's license to operate. He was told that Lambda "does not have an active license or approval to operate", nor has Lambda "yet to apply for approval to operate as required by law" (see edit-2 below; turns out Lambda recently applied)
AFAIK, Austen has not specifically addressed this. Even though a vague, "We're still going through the process. We did [something] on [x date] and are waiting for the next step around [y date]" would be (initially) sufficient. Certainly better than channeling Elizabeth Holmes in the Lambda slack channel.
edit: just re-read the thread and saw that someone just replied (as of an hour ago) with purported screenshots of Austen's detailed explanation in the Lambda slack "in December":
edit-2: Another reply from Sandofsky, saying BPPE followed up and said Lambda has recently applied: https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1216075710818766848
This matters because when a school operates illegally, the BPPE has no legal jurisdiction when a student has an issue. This means student only have the option of hiring a lawyer. Given who ISAs target, many students don’t have the resources to do this.
But the article took a very interesting turn. It said, (paraphrasing) without gossip, people in power will arrange everything in the general direction of usurping more power (e.g. dictators). And how gossip serves a very important evolutionary need (a powerful, guerilla style technique to destroy power-grabs). If you were under a dictator, openly criticizing them leaves you with a small chance of being murdered. Hence you will choose instead to gossip. Imagine if the dictator then tells all his subjects - "whatever you have heard about me is untrue, it is just some haters hating".
So there is another explanation for haters (and their apparent obsession) - they look around and see a lot of injustice. Usually they are powerless to do anything, and waiting until they achieve something in life might make the problem much worse before they can offer their viewpoint. So perhaps hating has an evolutionary benefit - it gives clues to non-haters to then go and do their own additional research. Sometimes it results in reducing the power of those who become so out of touch that they just casually dismiss all criticism as hating, much like Hillary thought everyone who doesn't agree with her is a deplorable person.
> Imagine if the dictator then tells all his subjects - "whatever you have heard about me is untrue, it is just some haters hating".
I regularly read criticism being waved away with exactly that argument, for example by polticians. It is inherently an ad hominem. Calling someone a fanboy or hater and ignoring their argument in the process _is_ an ad hominem, too. Does not mean the entire argument is (in)valid though.
I mean just, at least try?
It makes very little sense to me. Almost reads like a joke.
Edit: shit I'm dumb
Just taking a perspective publically on something fairly innocuous such as which is the best programming language seemed to attract something much more aggressive than the usual debate because I had a bit of a perceived expertise.
I had a handful of people follow me online commenting on nearly everything, calling me a fraud etc again it wasn’t justified and the topic did not really warrant such a degree of negativity.
And heaven forbid you do actually make a mistake. I made the most tiny oversight about equality and diversity and the baying mob online wanted to tear me to pieces.
One thing I was disappointed about was how the social media platforms responded. They wouldn’t even help me stop some of it even though it crossed a line.
Though it upset me at first, I successfully tuned out and just used it as motivation to prove them wrong. It’s hard though but a definite fact of life.
I wouldn't call that innocuous at all! Quite the opposite, this is the perfect topic for flame war: people tend to have the same kind of emotional attachment to their favorite programming language as to their favorite sport team. You can't really expect a moderate debate on that kind of topics…
> In Indian villages, even today, when an elephant passes through a village, all the elders gather and fold their hands in reverence. They also nudge the children to do the same and bow to the majestic pachyderm. “This is Lord Ganesha,” they say. And the kids quickly bring their hands together in reverence and holler, “Ganapati Bappa Morya!” and so on. The women step out of their homes to offer sweetmeats, lentils, flour, fruits and veggies to the mahout. Some feed the elephant bananas and sugarcane.
While this procession is on the move, a fascinating, though unsettling, thing happens: all the stray dogs of the village, puppies included, start following the elephant, barking and growling relentlessly.
What problem could the dogs possibly have with the elephant? It’s not like they are a match in any way. What competition could the hounds and pooches pose to the mighty tusker?
I’m sure if someone could ask the dogs the reason for their incessant barking, they would answer, “We have no problem with the elephant per se. It’s these people folding hands and offering all that food to the elephant that bothers us.”
But, the dogs don’t have the nerve to jump in front of the elephant or block his way. They will never come in front and will never stop barking from the back.
And so is the way of the world—the more the number of those who look up to you and stand in front with gifts, the greater the number of those who will bark behind you.
The elephant, however, never stops to shoo away the dogs or to tackle them. It keeps on walking, indifferent to the uncouth and clownish behavior of the dogs. But what makes the elephant truly unique and masterful is not just that it doesn’t stop for the dogs. It’s something more profound.
If the elephant doesn’t stop for the dogs, it doesn’t halt for the ones bowing in reverence either.
It remains unmoved by both the glory and the growls. Our true self is beyond praise and criticism, it is beyond disease, death and decay. It shines in its own splendor. (Though a common analogy, someone had shared this story with me from a discourse by Swami Rajeshwaranand.)
The emotions we experience when showered with praises or hit with criticism are temporary feelings that mostly arise when we forget how incredibly empowered and powerful we truly are.
The path of success is littered with opinions and suggestions. Everyone you meet will have some kind of an opinion and you are likely to cross paths with many who won’t believe in you. They will give you a million reasons why you will fail. It’s alright, that’s all they know. You’ll also meet some who may offer you false praise, just to attain a desired outcome. It’s the way of the material world. Then you’ll also meet some who are genuine and will influence your life in a phenomenal way.
Like the elephant, if you can keep your head on your shoulders and remain unmoved by such people and have faith in your own conviction as well as the wisdom to know when and how much to listen to someone, success is yours for the taking.
Couldn't disagree with this more. There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation. PG is making the fundamental attribution error here.
Only the most cursory glance could imply that haters are never successful. If you followed individual haters, you'd likely find many of them grew up and stopped shitposting on Twitter.
"Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom."
I believe it is related to de-personification on the Internet (or otherwise written content). In a smaller community, such would not happen.
I also wonder what would happen to the amount of haters if there were no fanboys at all. In a way, they balance each other out.
As for why famous people? Famous means influence. Whenever a non-famous people gets criticized it won't be read much. Doesn't mean it does not happen.
> There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation.
Could also say in a different way that PG has zero data on whether this is true or not. It's an essay and an opinion and is as likely to be correct as my first paragraph.
Edit: if you define "impressive" as "something a hater could not do" and "not impressive" as notorious things haters do, then I understand downvoting this comment. But that's begging the question.
down-voters should interpret impressive as "making an impression" not "something really good"
1. Their employee list (not updating it quickly after major staffing changes)
2. Legal status: misrepresenting to the public and to customers that the company is licensed to operate in that capacity or is proceeding illegally?
3. Pressuring it's subscription customers to publish positive stories about the product and reportedly even threatening their access to it.
I ask because this article comes out days after a Business Insider article about a high profile YC company. Its author uses the words "fraud" on their twitter and "cult" in the article, and makes some of the accusations that I've listed above. It's difficult not to suspect the two events are linked.
edit: the thread author just replied that BPPE followed up and said Lambda has recently applied:
> In a follow up BPPE said they recently applied. They also said it’s not possible for any school offering ISAs to meet the legal requirements.
This is nuts.
Does Lambda School market itself, and/or have students in, New York State?
I could find some more about their instructor roster change but forgive me, I'm traveling internationally today.
I actually ended up in chats (directly and indirectly) with a few different LS alumni who didn't know what to do, as they were unable to find work and afraid to speak out against LS for not doing a good job.
Being a good self-promoter puts you prominently in the public eye which is I think attracts a lot of detractors/haters. There are also competitors with very similar offerings who can't match up to Austen's hype machine. They want to claim there is some fatal flaw at the heart of LS to make Austen look like some kind of fraudster. This seems despearate to me.
There are always dissatisfied students. I remember when I was an undergraduate I got into arguments with people on a private facebook group who felt that the course should have been more "spoon-fed" to us and that the exam questions were unfair. People come to higher education with widely varying expectations. As the old adage goes, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
That said, my antenna is up for any serious criticism of AA and LS. So far I've not seen anything beyond to-be-expected low-level grumbling, which is being pounced on his strange growing harem of haters. Which only adds weight to pg's article, in my opinion.
if you’re a startup CEO and you spend a year relentlessly bragging about your startup publicly you invite scrutiny on yourself. You are practically begging others to ask questions you might not want asked.
His chief of staff literally insulted the intelligence of anyone who dared suggest Lambda School was worth less than $100B https://web.archive.org/web/20190921045339/https://twitter.c...
It's like you have to be completely blind to anything critical of your business. Your investors expect it. Your colleagues expect it.
It appears to be a genuinely unenjoyable position to be in. Lambda School is even 1/10th of an Apple? It's mind boggling.
I personally agree that this business model and market has potential to be worth $100 billion someday. Lambda School is one of the leaders in that market right now, as far as I know, so they have that potential, too.
Now, will they remain the dominant leaders for long enough for them to actually be worth that? I think it's pretty unlikely; I think that pie is more likely be split by different, future companies. But of course any company executive is going to believe in their company's potential and future growth.
He's just making an inspirational and aspirational comment about the market they're in and their business, like almost every company executive does. He's not insulting anyone's intelligence. I have no idea how well his company in particular is executing that model at the moment (I do see some criticisms of their program), but I think the company's general idea is a good one, in theory. I'd feel the same if they went bankrupt tomorrow - eventually some other company will try it and get it right.
I don't think that "some thoughtful people who like y" is good enough. There have been big "frauds" in the tech space (and so many in the finance space) were it took years for public opinion to catch up with their actions (Theranos, WeWorks, Epstien and MIT labs) despite some people (Matt levine, John Carreyrou) knowing they weren't above board these people and companies were defended (or not even questioned) by media coverage and big name personalities.
Not by common definition, but perhaps by this article’s.
Carreyrou was obsessive, turned his Theranos crusade into an identity component, and repeatedly used the word “fraud.” Externally, his behaviour was indistinguishable from someone with a beef if one ignored the evidence he raised. (Which was, at least early on, mostly circumstantial.)
Toxic personalities must be ignored. But if someone is calling our fraud in your organisation, it’s worth checking if there’s behaviour you may have left unchecked.
We are certainly all fallible, but thoughtful would not imply infallible, only that you are thinking over (in this case) the actions of the person in this case, prior to deciding if they were wrong or right. A fanboy, or a hater, more or less by definition knows the answer ("right" and "wrong", respectively) before thinking about it much.
Paying attention to the opinions of other thoughtful people is a much better strategy than only paying attention to your own opinion, with all of its perspective problems. If all the thoughtful people you know have the opposite opinion of you about someone or something, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it ought to at least prompt some double-checking on your part.
Those aren't examples of "thoughtful people".
Most people are not complete losers or complete winners. Sometimes they feel a bit of a loser, especially if they have high ambitions but not much above average success, and sometimes they feel winners, especially when compared with people who have clearly achieved less then them in life. Feeling a loser will drive some envy towards people who are very successful. 'It is not only their talent, they were also lucky, they were at the right place at the right time'. Which is partially true.
What pg didn't discuss is that different people get different amount of hate. For example people who misattribute their success to their technical-talent in a technical field, but their success clearly involves other kind of talent or luck get more hate then pure technical geniuses. Also people who like to express strong opinions on lots of often subjective topics get more hate than people sticking to their expertise and to mostly technical topics.
For example pg obviously gets more hate than John Carmack or John Von Neumann.
But at the end of the day: everybody must work on this inside their own brain. Even if it were sometimes satisfying to be a bit of a hater, just don't be one.
I set up a blog way back when blogs were first a thing, maybe 20 years ago. Started posting articles about internet, culture, tech, anything I found interesting.
Almost immediately, I had people dropping by and posting the most vile comments. Whatever I did, I did for bad reasons. I was a bad person and there just wasn't anything I could do or say to fix that.
I never learned how to mentally deal with this kind of blind anti-fandom, but I did learn an important lesson: never joke on the internet, or if you do, be very, very careful it's obvious it's a joke. Because whatever I think is funny because it's silly, obnoxious, or ludicrous? Somebody else will take seriously. And now you've got a new hater.
The net is drifting towards private communities. I think that's a good thing. This kind of environment really isn't healthy for folks.
I've taken that up as a mantra, and never regretted it!
Based on that, I experimented quite a bit with my blog, here on HN, and on various social platforms. Could that magic be reproduced online? Out of 1,000 or so online "friends", I have maybe 3 that consistently promote diversity of thought. Those people could moderate a room on about any topic. The people they gathered around them had all sorts of views and ways of thinking. It wasn't what I had seen in person, but it was the closest I've seen online.
So why not HN? Or FB? Or Twitter? Why did it work when some people ran/moderated discussions but not when others did?
There's too much to go into here, but one takeaway is that there was a system of incremental trust. New people we treat with kid gloves, see how they handle people who are smart and disagree with them. As we get to know you, everybody can relax more and have more direct, honest conversations. But when we did that, it was always full of things you wouldn't want copied and pasted to the public. Not bad things. Yikes! Just stuff that taken out of context would drive some folks nuts.
Online forums do not have that. So we're stuck desperately needing to meet and talk about complex and sometimes provocative things, but our tools are basically made for cat pictures and political memes. The social media services we have today simply are not in the public interest. There's no amount of tweaking that's going to fix that. They exist to serve base and lizard-brain impulses in various fashions.
One thing though. You're absolutely right about the dangers of echo chambers. But if you have an explicit small group, everybody knows what's going on. You know what's worse? Hell-banning, ghosting, and all of this damned AI trickery we do to one another to make people appear as if they are part of groups they are not actually part of. FB is getting so it'll stick you in that small echo chamber ... and you'll never know it. That's fucked up in more ways than one.
I think there's an reasonable expectation to respect, but there are people out there that will take offense to almost anything.
We shouldn't be sacrificing our own rights to accommodate those people.
> never joke on the internet, or if you do, be very, very careful it's obvious it's a joke
This is also true with respect to people who have fanboys. For example PG has fanboys and if you say something negative or that appears to be not respectful of PG (or for that matter certain YC companies) you need to package it correctly to appear to be respectful. This is similar to when people IRL will say 'with all due respect' prior to giving some criticism. In 'mafia' movies this was done with 'not to appear subversive but' (negative comment about the boss of the family).
Phil: "Who knew people on the internet could be so mean?"
I really appreciate how PG applies a sort of pattern matching sense of logic to the world to create really novel insight-- his pattern match here is that haters are fanboys. But it rings a bit untrue, and I don't think yields real insight.
Startups, PG himself and tech have to weather a wide swathe of criticism-- but it can often be warranted. It can seem like companies have haters, but do they have haters or valid critics?
Here's some of the very valid criticisms that tech has had to deal with:
- facial recognition abuse
- privacy data breaches
- misrepresentation of value to shareholders and customers
- theft of contractors tips
- myriad harassment claims towards all genders
- retaliating against whistleblowers
- massive settlements to employees who are accused of crimes
- ceding to Chinese demands for censorship
- taking contracts for controversial governmental agencies
- squashing nascent union organizing (agree or not, people have a right to discuss and consider this)
And I'm sure I'm missing some here.
So ultimately his pattern matching is incorrect. The Twitterati take constant aim at PG and tech for what are quite serious issues. Simply put it's not haterism, it's valid criticism.
Despite that, his other points have merit. Haters and fanboys do have similarities - they stem from the same root cause, that they were emotionally impacted by someone. If that was a positive impact at a time in their life when they really needed it, they are fanboys. If it was a negative impact at a time when they were already struggling, they become haters.
I'm not a fanboy of pg, just a reader, so I'm not going to act like he has let us down by penning a weaker article. We're all imperfect beings, whether we are fanboys, haters, or blog authors whose works isn't always the best. I'm going to look at this specific post as a rough draft that got shared too soon.
I highly doubt any of this would’ve happened if the CEO had not spent a year relentlessly boasting about his company in a way that you’d expect a used car salesman to do. It was (and continues to be) too fantastical in a way that anyone who has worked in startups knows is rarely the case behind the scenes.
When you invite scrutiny upon yourself by being shameless seller in chief it’s your own doing, not because people suddenly decided they wanted to come out of the woodworks and bash your work.
Lambda School hasn't been under criticism for literally years because Austen sells too hard. It's because they've done some shady, unethical and outright illegal things.
Their refusal to pay license fees while publicly claiming they did has jeopardized every dollar of revenue they're set to collect. If I were an investor, I'd be pretty mad about that.
Their decision to operate as a high pressure environment has created a string of negative stories on Twitter and Reddit about how pressured students felt.
Their wage disputes with their former educators meant they had to switch to relatively unknown and unverifiable teaching staff, which makes it a lot harder to take them seriously.
The idea that it's LS's presentation that has failed seems like it underestimates the problems at hand.
It’s literally the only reason most even know what Lambda School is. That’s my point.
Predictably there are many fanboys of PG. Very generally a negative comment about PG that is not packaged correctly and with care will get a certain amount of backlash on HN vs. the same about an unknown or lesser known person. It's as if the 'fanboys' feel it is their duty to defend the person (PG or otherwise). And (per my comment elsewhere) it's that love that drives the haters. It feels (to the hater) undeserved.
The ironic part of all of this is survival wise the non fanboy (what PG would call 'hater' but don't agree with that wording but will go with it) is way more likely to engage and interact with others vs. the famous person. For example if someone were to write to you 'codingdave' most likely you would interact, engage or help (and if you didn't my guess is most others similar to you would). The fanboy who has defended the famous person won't get the time of day from that person (or a trivial interaction at best). The fanboy doesn't even exist in the eyes of the famous person.
I've had similar experiences with my own family. At a dinner with relatives they will totally get up in arms over some person who they don't know, that doesn't care about them, that doesn't know they even exist. They will get into a fight (with a person close to them) defending that person. And what they will do is burn a bridge with a person that is of direct relationship (and 'value') that survival wise would make more sense not to 'piss off' (for lack of a better way to put it).
Further the replies could not be with the same handle (other than the PG handle). So nobody would upvote just for the reputation (positive or negative). (Or perhaps three handles PG, Anon same handle, Anon unique handle).
I think PG has a very specific audience in mind when he writes: founders. I don't think he's trying to create a holistic understanding of "haters." I think he's trying to tell founders not to think about them. It's a waste of their (founders') time.
Haters, and the accusation of being a "fraud," cut to the quick of the confidence founders need to be successful. They often already feel like frauds (or imposters) and acquiring haters only seems to confirm this for them.
I see this glib (and in my experience accurate) treatment of haters as a device founders can use to stay focused.
But I think the other side of your point is worth exploring. As a founder, how do you assess when you have gone (or are contemplating going) too far? Given the fine line between overconfidence and under-confidence, can founders even expect themselves to be able to make that self-assessment?
I really appreciate this sentiment. A weaker article is just that, weaker, not indicative of anything else.
Or it might be just a curious coincidence, and not indicative of anything else.
haters are just part of life. No need to get worked up on them and make sloppy, weak arguments about them.
> "I've been able to observe for long enough that I'm fairly confident the pattern works both ways: not only do people who do great work never become haters, haters never do great work"
He's a social scientist doing work on human behavior?
Graham probably won't read this, but my advice to him (from a moderate admirer, not a "hater") is not to do this to himself.
But I think most of us here have never actually experienced haters. We aren't big enough, famous enough, successful enough. We may have seen people who were haters of someone else, but we've never been on the receiving end. And I suspect that, as PG said, when you receive it for the first time, it can be confusing. I think it's a valid thing to note, and to mention to people who might become big, important, or famous. (But also mention not to use this to turn off all criticism.)
How about "Taylor Swift has haters, but so did Jeffrey Eipstein and Elizabeth Holmes".
And to top it off he calls both labeled groups of people "less than men".
All of this setup to deliver the profound advice to just ignore them.
(Before people call me a "hater", note that I strictly do not meet the definition, because I like a lot of his essays.)
Is a hater akin to a criticaster? Like a critic without substance? And a fanboy a fan without substance? Then the burden of proof to prove a lack of substance is with the person who starts to use the word "fanboy" or "hater". As such definitions are essentially ad hominem (and no, you being attacked personally does not warranty an equal ad hominem).
If he were discussing the word "fangirl", he'd probably say "not a woman" instead, but I think that would result in more flak ("as a mam, who are you to judge if a woman is a real woman or not?").
I feel like a lot of the posts in this thread are missing what he's actually trying to say here.
"He's less than a man" and "Haters are generally losers"
- to me shows an unhealthy level of grandiosity, and an inability to fully understand another person's experience.
Yes this article might help you deal with some stuff, but it's also not scalable and avoids examining the underlying deep rooted societal inequities that cause these addictive behaviors in people in the first place.
At the same time though, I am grateful to the author for showing himself. I think having these conversations helps us evolve.
Now go watch 'The Work' (2017): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8OVXG2GhpQ
Your point seems to be though that we need to understand haters more (and if pg's thesis is correct, fanboys). I agree that as social planners, we do need to see why they arise, what their background is, and how social media amplifies it. But that's a big topic and pg doesn't even claim to address that.
By analogy, when you are being attacked by a hater, like many famous people, I don't think social planning is your first order response. Much like if someone were to hold you up with a gun, your immediate response wouldn't be a reflection of the societal conditions of the assailant.
Also, I'm curious whether you'd think this post would be equally toxic if pg only addressed fanboys: "Some fans slavishly love you. It's probably best to ignore them." Is that toxic? Does that generate a similar call-to-action to see why some people are so uncritical?
Your analogy seems inapplicable here. This was an essay, not an immediate response. Whatever we may think of the response, it seems fair to put it down as the well-considered position of the author, unless they retract it later.
On a certain level, I probably agree with you. The word 'loser' dehumanizes people by focusing on their lack of achievements that society cares about, and achievements or agency in their own life.
How do they feel about this state of things? Probably not so good. Why did this happen, and what can they do about it? Well, maybe they're stuck in a shitty situation due to a confluence of psychological or even medical factors that's largely outside of their control. Maybe they're deserving of a break, some sympathy or a helping hand.
But if a person (who might or might not be in this situation) happens to behave destructively towards others, it's possible to discuss that while still acknowledging the points above.
Maybe 'loser' and 'less than a man' is an insensitive way to express it, which is why I was asking how you would express the central point. I think that "Ignore the haters, they're just fanboys with the sign flipped and not important" is sound advice to someone who tries to keep their sanity while attempting to do something good under a massive amount of scrutiny and criticism (some founded, most unfounded).
I don't think we have to go so far to see examples of famous people that would have been much less stressed, had less problems and kept their focus if they'd been able to follow this advice in times of extreme stress. A couple of Elon Musk's famed Twitter episodes come to mind, if you're looking for examples.
Even though famous people are in a position of privilege, they're still humans and have to endure the same emotional reactions as the rest of us. Usually amplified, since they get such a massive amount of attention. I think it's valuable to give them some coping tips.
I think that a majority of the people who post on HN are ambitious people who have such contributions as a very central part of their identity. Many people here might unfairly judge someone who works a part-time job, mostly watches Netflix in their spare time and is generally a good person in most interpersonal exchanges. And there's certainly a lot of people here who would judge themselves if that's all they did.
For example, I know an Elon hater (not a critic, a hater). And I tried to understand it, but after asking questions it’s clear that the answers made no sense and they were trying to post-hoc rationalise their emotions. Sure, Elon has done bad things, but overall I’d say he is a net positive for the world. That is not to say we should condone everything he’s done or give him a free pass, but it is to say that the negatives do not cancel out the positives. He is not all bad, and he does not deserve haters (this is not the same as being beyond criticism).
Anyway, the hater I know is pretty privileged, and as Paul speculated really quite talented in some ways. I would also say they have underachieved in their own eyes. And that may be where the hate stems from.
Why did they underachieve? Perhaps lack of commitment and discipline, from my best knowledge. Interestingly, earlier in life they were also a fanboy of some things that may have harmed their career, by influencing their choices in a negative way. That also ties in with Paul’s essay.
I think it’s this type of person PG is labelling as haters and losers. Not people who have had traumatic experiences or very difficult lives.
I agree “loser” isn’t a mature or good choice of term, and ironically I think this is a sign of an emotional reaction from PG - but I empathise with that emotional reaction.
If you want to make the world better and are positive and optimistic, haters can drive you nuts. It’s like - “ok, I get it, you aren’t on the same page or you don’t like me - but please at the very least just ignore me rather than constantly criticise everything single thing I do without rationale. I’m just trying to help the world a bit, whilst you are doing nothing. I’m not asking you to be like me and devote your life to something - just to leave me alone.”
As a good example, consider Greta Thunberg. Regardless of your opinion of her, she is out there every day campaigning for a proper response to climate change. In doing so, she’s devoting her life to helping (even saving) all of us, trying to ensure that when your grandkids grow up they’re not living in some godawful scenario. And then her reward is so much hatred and vitriol from people who aren’t in prison living a terrible life with psychological scars - but rather from perfectly comfortable middle class haters. I can imagine sometimes she must sit down at the end of a hard day and think “what the hell is the point trying to help these people? Why do I even bother?”
(Defending PG here, but I’m not a fanboy. Used to love a lot of his writing, now dislike it more than I like it when I learnt more about the reality of startups and VC. Have really disliked a lot of his recent writing but as a very positive optimistic person I really don’t like the hater culture so this resonated with me).
Come on, this is ridiculous. She’s a political entrepreneur. She has her goals and values and they stand in direct opposition to those of others. She’s fighting effectively for them and they hate her for the threat to them she represents. In that she’s no different to Friedman or Krugman, or among elected officials to Trump or AOC. She put on her big girl pants and got into the political arena. When you do that and you’re good at it people are going to hate you. That’s humanity. People hate their enemies. People hate those who want to take things from them, or who say that they are bad or what they want is bad.
People don’t hate technocrats and engineers who propose keyhole solutions to climate change. They hate peoples who want to take b their nice big houses, their cars, their international holidays. Nobody hates Project Vesta, and they have a workable plan to reverse all CO2 emissions since the dawn of the industrial revolution for a mere 1.7% of global GDP.
Her father, with a prior career in social media, is running the show. That recent Facebook bug even revealed that he was posting on her behalf: https://i.imgur.com/KdsN3u7.jpg
It's really sad that she doesn't get to be a kid. She is being used.
"Greta Thunberg - January 11 at 7:36 PM:
Some people have been asking who manages this page. First of all, since last spring I only use Facebook to repost what I write on my Twitter and Instagram accounts.
Since I have chosen not to be on Facebook personally ( I tried early on but decided it wasn’t for me) I use my father Svantes account to repost content, because you need an account to moderate a Facebook page. The rest that is shared on Facebook is reposted from Twitter and Instagram by the guy who founded the Greta Thunberg Facebook page long before I knew it existed. His name is Adarsh Prathap and he lives in India. Since a lot of people thought it was my official page in the beginning I asked if I could co-manage it and he said yes.
All texts posted on my Facebook page has of course been written by me, just like everything else."
... plus some very unfortunate gender stereotyping.
That said, there is one other aspect worth commenting on: the "nearly successful" kind of hater. Yes, they absolutely exist. Academe is particularly full of them. The reason, I think, is simple: some people resent those they compete with. For that kind of person, that means the people right next to them in whatever real or imagined ranking. Those further above or below are irrelevant, and not worth hating.
The other key (subtweeting a bit myself here) is that some people invite this particular kind of hate. They exaggerate any difference between themselves and those they have barely outdone. They hotly deny the role of luck or privilege in achieving their status, more often than pg seems (or wants) to think. Psychologically, they mirror others' envy with a desire to reaffirm their position in a race they know could have gone either way. There's a bond between the haters and the hated, and often both sides participate.
> Could a hater be cured if they achieved something impressive? My guess is that it's a moot point, because they never will. I've been able to observe for long enough that I'm fairly confident the pattern works both ways: not only do people who do great work never become haters, haters never do great work.
Listening to that old Steve Jobs interview where he talks about Microsoft (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJWWtV1w5fw) I think there elements there of what Paul would be calling a "hater". A view that there's something a bit wrong with the world when particular non-ideal characteristics are rewarded.
It sounds as if Paul has enough of his own personal issues with haters that he wants to put them all into an irredeemable bucket.
It's appropriate for Steve Jobs to talk about Microsoft, because they were competitors, out in the arena. Steve Jobs himself is famous. So this a different situation than the classic hater scenario, where a person of no fame attacks a person of some fame. Still, maybe Steve sounds like a sore loser, which is basically what Paul Graham said that haters are.
But I watched and listened to Steve Jobs a lot, and I read his biography. And he reminds me of myself, although outwardly I am polite and back down in debates. Basically Steve Jobs says what I think. I like minimalism and simplicity and perfection and beauty. Steve Jobs was rich, but you have to admit he was different than your average mediocre rich executive. I think he was motivated by beauty more than wealth, as am I.
Furthermore, Microsoft is the antithesis of all my values. Whereas I would spend too much time and money to make things perfect, they would cut corners to make more money. I hoped for my product to gain fame by merit, Microsoft relied on advertising and business tactics to run everyone else out of town.
And so my takeaway of Steve Jobs is just what you would think: Thank you for saying what I was feeling! I think he hated Microsoft, but not because he cared about money or fame but because it frustrated his attempts to spread beauty and perfection everywhere. (Lest that sounds way too nice, I would qualify it by saying that someone can pursue beauty selfishly, at the expense of the people around you.)
DISCLAIMER: I'm a fanboy of Steve Jobs.
It seems reasonable to me that that's a different kind of psychology than the fundamentally impersonal "fanboy/hater" ideas in the essay.
Jobs did a lot of that in his “we are pirates” phase. Us-v-them is a legitimate leadership tactic, and requires somewhat demonising the them.
I like the idea of a fanboy being a sign-flipped hater. But these are spherical cows. I’m not sure we can draw real-life lessons from their comparison.
(For example, fanboys can be evangelists and haters canaries in your coal mine. History is filled with delusional people doing great things.)
this reads like a justification for ignoring criticism by attributing the criticizing party to being a hater.
A good example of this might be politics. Let's talk about the previous President. If you think the JPCOA was a bad deal, you're skeptical of drone strikes, or you disagree with the Affordable Care Act, you might be some form of reasonable Obama critic. If you think Obama is a secret Muslim who was actually born in Kenya and that it's disgraceful and un-American for him to wear a tan suit or ask for dijon mustard on a hamburger, you're probably a hater. That sounds deranged, but there are some deranged people out there and you should ignore them.
In other words, only take criticism seriously if it's serious criticism. (I think I stole that line from mechanical_fish.)
There was a clarification earlier in the article about the difference between a one-off piece of criticism and a pattern of obsessively negative commenting on everything you do.
A critic might respond to every Tesla mention on Elon Musk's twitter with a negative response because they think (rightly or wrongly) that the company is overhyped.
A hater would do the above but also respond negatively to him posting a picture of a sandwich he made and say that it's a terrible sandwich just because he made it.
I took the article to encourage trying to differentiate, and if you find yourself interacting with the latter, then not thinking much about them seems like a valid technique.
Yes: the former are trolls while the latter are haters.
> "It's unfair that so-and-so is famous," but "It's unfair that so-and-so is famous, and not me."
I believe this only takes < 1% of haters, since "Not me" is not very sustainable and would die out soon. The majority of haters are "us vs them" mentality, which makes hate persist decades. If someone hates a movie maker or a company, it's either:
1. It's DC vs Marvel. They are similar enough to the rest of the world, but there are nuances to the haters and fanboys. Similar things are Vim vs Emacs, Java vs C#. There were also flamewars between Intel and AMD fans, but since Intel clearly outperformed in previous years, both alliances seem died out almost at the same time -- It's just a CPU.
2. He actually hates the genre/category. He hates comic movies as a whole, as it absorbs most of the resources in the market, making the genre he loves never to be cost-efficient to be made anymore. There were some extraordinary movies in the 20th century because movie companies are still exploring business models.
> "because anyone famous knows how random fame is"
This is where the problem is, just we don't know how to fix it yet. Haters are just a phenomenon. Not only it's random, but also it's ridiculous. Scammers exist because people are vulnerable to scamming; Tiktok exists because people are vulnerable to the designed mechanism. Massive surveillance exists because it just works.
It's more than Okay to criticize scammers instead of competing them.
> "although they are occasionally talented, they have never achieved much."
> "successful enough to have achieved significant fame"
It's very hard to correlate success with fame. Taking PG's Lisp vs Blub example, if someone was evangelizing functional programming in the early 90s, they would never as successful as mediocre OO experts. It takes time. PG has spent so much effort on evangelizing Lisp, he never as famous as Martin Fowler or Uncle Bob in the industry.
As another example, Uncle Bob coined the term SOLID. I found almost all my colleagues know SOLID, most of my colleagues know Uncle Bob. However, those people behind those ideas like Barbara Liskov and Bertrand Meyer are much lesser known.
They may have achieved great things in one area but in other areas they are somewhat average and very much like us. Anxiety, doubts, misdeeds, regrets, emotions etc.
Like pg is great but he’s also not a god. Don’t treat him like one. We’d prolly be disappointed. He’s said a fair share of crap as well some very insightful things.
oh yes, blame them! the lazy buggers! 
edit: avoid Medium paywall on  = http://archive.is/ksROw
I believe this story is incredibly harmful because it doesn't help 'non-participants’ or 'spectators’, as you call them, understand the limitations of their society, and how this impacts them. One of the things I'd like to do instead is to help show them (and anyone else who is interested in reflection or meaningful social change) how these systemic inequities are often slowly grinding them down, and how they can organize to change the system. If I don't help do this I think I might doom them to a life of self-loathing, not to mention that I myself would live in a world of self-masturbatory self-aggrandizement, not really connecting to others and relying instead on my perceived superiorty for comfort and safety; which I think starts to taste bitter if used as a strategy for a long enough period of time.
Don't see the inequities I am talking about? I promise you they are there when you start looking. Some of the ones I've found most glaring are (1) the systemic racism at home in the US, (2) the ongoing battles of the Global South against Global North-controlled extractive and exploitative debt, and (3) imperialistic Intellectual Property agreements which causes ongoing local and global information asymmetries. The bravery of the men and women who have been fighting in these battles is astounding: Audre Lorde, Bell Hooks, Cornel West, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Sankara, W. E. B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, Howard Zinn, MLK, Paulo Freire, Cedric Robinson, and many more.
Besides Anand Giridharadas and Rutger Bregman, a recent example of someone doing this important work is Law Professor Mehrsa Baradaran, author of 'The Color of Money’. There is a great summary of her arguments here: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/banking-against-black-ca...
I think these are some noteworthy excerpts:
"The problem is, black capitalism has not improved the economic lives of black people, and Baradaran deftly explains the reasons why. Black people were systematically excluded from New Deal policies, including the subsidized FHA mortgages that proved fundamental in increasing white wealth, through redlining and racial covenant agreements. Where black banks did exist, they were consistently less well funded, less profitable, and made fewer loans than white banks, rendering them powerless to substantially improve the prospects of black community members. And herein lies one of the most important lessons of The Color of Money — over the course of American history, white economic success has often been subsidized by black dollars, rather than the other way around."
"Even as Baradaran criticizes the implementation of black capitalism, she claims several times that the reason black banking does not succeed in lifting black people out of poverty is that the mechanisms of free-market capitalism were blocked from proper functioning by the “structural inequalities” of racism, as if these existed outside and apart from capitalism, and infected it. Racism made capitalism sick, and if we could fix the former, the latter would deliver equal benefits to all. And yet, one can take the historical evidence she presents to argue something quite different: racism is embedded in the foundations of American capitalism."
You are right that systemic inequalities should be pointed out and improved upon. On the other hand we should also not lose sight of the fact that the most equal and fair societies on the planet are the western ones. Even if one is part of a disadvantaged minority it might well be possible to make much of ones life in the West. Try being part of a disadvantaged minority in China and one might find oneself in a concentration camp instead.
I don't live in the US so I am a spectator as far as racism goes there but I agree that this exists and is a problem. Especially police shooting unarmed black people is obviously a horrible thing. I do have to note though, that your example comes from a long time ago and that much improvement has been made on this front over the decades. I also agree about imperialistic intellectual property, especially patents are a big problem. Software patents should just not exist, for instance. As far as the global south vs the global north I was under the impression that this situation has actually been improving in the last decade or so. People starving to death has been a diminishing problem, as far as I know.
On the one hand it is good to point out inequalities and do something about them but on the other hand it can also make people feel hopeless so that they will achieve less then they otherwise would. This is also something that is happening to black people in the US. I once was on an online forum where the posts of a young black person gave me the impression that a case of self-learned helplessness was going on there where most of the racism involved was coming from fellow black persons and that the group-think thing was not beneficial at all.
I have trouble understanding why someone over 25 would be either a fanboy or a hater. People are just people. No matter how good someone is, they fuck up, make mistakes, aren't so good at other things and have flaws. Likewise, even someone you find terrible or a 'fraud' has their success or fame for a reason. You may not agree with it but obviously someone sees value in.what they do.
I just can't understand spending the energy obsessing over people either way. I understand recognizing the great achievements people make or being critical of flaws. But to obsess over them seems like such a waste of time and energy.
Nobody's perfect and nobody's completely and utterly hopeless or a fraud or whatever(I see why this term is causing some discussion on hn. It is tough to find a suitable word to describe how a hater would view the hated).
Also, as much as being either a fanboy or hater is a waste of time, feeding off of either of them is also. However good the fanboy's make you feel, it sets you up in a bubble where you start to believe what they say and start to truly believe you can do no wrong. Likewise, the criticism of the haters doesn't really allow you room for critical self analysis because you can do no right.
And as for that bit switch, the funny thing about haters and fanboys is that switch isn't permanently set. It can switch back and forth for the most arbitrary reasons. Because, it's all just obsessive energy and it doesn't take much to switch focus either way.
> There are of course some people who are genuine frauds. How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? Look at neutral opinion. Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous. Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by them. So if there are some thoughtful people who like y, you can usually assume y is not a fraud.
Just look at recent history- Enron, WorldCom, Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes (and many more) were ALL widely celebrated by neutral third parties before being exposed as frauds. Neutral opinions are often neutral because they haven't done much research on a topic. Thus, they are often relatively uninformed opinions.
And these frauds were NOT conspicuous at all. They worked very hard to present the appearance of success. It took some dogged investigations from "haters" (by PG's definition) to reveal the truth.
The very premise of this question is broken.
What matters is whether y is a fraud, not why x is calling them a fraud. The way to discover whether y is a fraud is to look at any evidence x provides, and/or think about any questions x proposes.
If x is correct, what does it matter if they’re a hater? If x is incorrect, what does it matter whether neutral opinion agrees with x?
Imagine we applied this logic to barristers. The defence rises to argue that the police exceeded their authority by searching the accused’s home without a warrant.
“Your honour,” the district attorney/crown attorney drawls, “My friend acting for the defence is a notorious police hater. Day after day, all they do is nitpick and question the actions of the police and the conclusions we the prosecution draw from the evidence.”
If x is a hater, they may indeed bring forward useful evidence. Even their silence can be useful evidence: if a Courtney Cobain hater doesn't think she killed Kurt, that's pretty good evidence that there isn't even the flimsiest case that she did, since if there was, the hater would have obsessively investigated it and presented the best case.
However, the existence of a hater, or many haters, doesn't provide any real evidence that y is a fraud. It's just evidence that y is famous. In the same way, a defense attorney questioning the actions of the police doesn't in itself provide any real evidence that the police acted questionably. It provides evidence that they are a defense attorney.
It probably isn't a good strategy for finding the truth to carefully consider all the claims that y is a fraud if they are famous. That's because any famous person will have many thousands of haters, and so there will be many thousands of such claims to review. Maybe if a friend of yours is such a hater, talking to them is worthwhile. Or maybe it's worth reading one or two antifan diatribes. But at some point you probably want to plow your attention into more fertile fields.
Speaking of which, I have appreciated and admired your thinking for many years, having learned a great deal from you, and I even thought of you as a friend. So it came as a shock when you blocked me on Twitter. What did I do?
Isn't the "why" quite important? I mean, probably the one thing that is important? I.e., that the hater is a "hater" is not important, but why he is a hater. If there is no reason than the "hater" is unfounded.
I would argue that "hater" mostly is an ad hominem attack on someone. It would be interesting to know what haters bother P. Graham for. In general for being a kinda celeb? He doesn't write the "why" in his essay and neither tries to understand it, but argues they are irrational fanboys.
In both cases there were career incentives that drove each to pursuing their targets. At no point did either say to themselves, I hate this fraud because why good on him/her and not me? They thought, I’m going to bust this crooks ass because this is a true injustice that should be exposed, and I’m going to be the one who benefits from doing it.
There’s a big difference between cheating and succeeding (that’s what I think haters don’t want to believe), and in some cases like the two you mention, it wasn’t just perceptual. There was hard evidence of fraud.
Your reasoning that Carreyrou is not a hater because he had "career incentives" that drove him is not a sound argument. A hater is not necessarily some kind of evil altruist, i.e. hating purely with no respect to personal gain. If you seek to destroy something by violating your own principles (e.g. journalistic truth), then you can be thought of as "hating"/"despising" that something, whether or not you personally gain from its destruction.
That is exactly the thrust of PGs essay. Neither of those people violated their own principles. Holmes and Madoff are frauds. Full stop.
Tim Draper did consider Carreyou a hater. Draper was proven wrong the instant Carreyou was vindicated. Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me” like Draper might have thought. He wanted her to fail, if anything, because she deserved to. Truly deserved to.
That said, I agree PG's essay isn't intended to be about people like Carreyrou, or the SEC investigators into Madoff, etc – I am confused about which real-life people of consequence he's actually thinking of, because it's strange to write an essay about such an abstract strawman.
But referring back to u/rjdagost's top comment, about totally disagreeing with the footnote that begins with "There are of course some people who are genuine frauds", and that PG's reasoning is unsound because Enron, Theranos, Madoff, etc. "were ALL widely celebrated by neutral third parties before being exposed as frauds"...people like Carreyrou were not seen as "neutral third parties". Again, with respect to Carreyrou, Draper and allies accused him of chasing a Pulitzer, i.e. advancing his career.
It's only through the passage of time and accumulation of evidence that people like Carreyrou are vindicated as being "neutral" or "objective". I guess this is a long way of saying that PG's essay feels like drawn out exercise of begging the question.
The whole point of his essay is that haters are inconsequential and can safely be ignored. If you don't think these are real people who exist, spend more time on social media and they'll inevitably appear.
I think his essay is explicitly addressed less to those of us here in the peanut gallery and more to the people who accumulate haters.
> Carreyou didn’t want Holmes to fail because “why her and not me”
Why is envy assumed to be the motivation of the "hater"? If I recall correctly, Markopolous was driven by the idea that cheaters shouldn't win. Is that any different than the "hater" who is driven by the idea that person/product/concept "X" is unworthy?
The world needs haters for the same reason it needs entrepreneurs. They're usually wrong, but sometimes they're right.
Moreover even when there is "no good reason" initially, good reason might be found eventually. Scrutiny usually begins with the intuition that something doesn't add up, with the actual evidence arriving later. The "hate" for the fraudster precedes the exposure of the fraud.
I think we're all saying the same thing just fighting on semantics.
These accusations of fraud are all truth-claims about the world. They are provable, or they may turn out to be false. But what cannot be disputed is that these are claims of substance.
pg argues that accusations of fraud are simply playground style insults lobbed towards those who are too successful by spiteful and bitter haters, who are mediocre and unaccomplished, and therefore not worth paying any attention to. I think that's way too dismissive.
Of course, when all these substantive points were raised to him on Twitter, he slinked off and didn't respond to a single one. PG also seemed to be implying that Tesla/Musk criticism was "too dedicated" or "too committed" to be organic, lending support to Musk's tactic of deflecting all criticism as oil industry funded propaganda.
If I claim that Tom Brady, say, defrauded someone, that's an accusation about actual deeds involving actual money. If I claim that he's a fraud, though, I'm claiming that he's not actually any good as a quarterback. That's a very different claim. One claim lives in the realm of objective facts about actions; the other lives in the realm of emotional reaction to success.
For many people, calling someone a fraud is simply shorthand for saying they are a fraudster. Not that they have no talent, but that they commit fraud.
This is always obvious in hindsight.
But there are companies for which the "haters" are doing this sort of analysis right now, and they are regularly dismissed because "this time it's different" or because "they are on <insert lobby>'s payroll".
To take the Elizabeth Holmes example from the top of the thread, people were very quick to associate critics as sort of bitter, mysoginist people who were uncomfortable with entrepreneurial women, and the media was enamoured with Holmes even when it became increasingly obvious that something was extremely fishy about the whole business.
If we were living in a world where successful people were heavily scrutinized rather than treated as celebrities then PG's rather dismissive tone of 'haters' would make sense. As it stands haters can often be people who have contrarian and angry reactions for relatively good reasons.
And I'd go a step further. Uncritical hate can be useful in right dosage. Hunter S Thompson is one of the most important journalists of the last few decades, and he made it very clear that the civil, nice, polite, pseudo-critical attitude is often just a way to shield people in power.
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
Also the emphasis on 'neutral opinions' is revealing. The problem when speaking to powerful people is that they're very adept at deflecting 'objective' criticism. It's the sort of discourse they're accustomed to. Hate and anger and even slightly mad and irrational criticism can come from a place of truth. And it can be valuable because in contrast to polite discussion scathing anger is hard to deflect. People in a position of power know how to deflect neutral criticism, they don't know how to deal with loud resentment. For many people, that kind of resentment is the only way to even voice their opinion.
The tone of the article sounds so far removed from reality that the article makes "famous people" sound average, the intelligent upper class like the only one with a license for legitimate criticism, while everyone else is a loser, imlpying that losers do not have valid opinions or that their sentiment can be disregarded because they have not learned how to voice them politely.
I don't know if Paul Graham reads these comments, but if you do you may ponder that it almost sounds like you're categorizing the vast majority of people as losers, and emotional expression as invalid. That's the only tool most people have to make themself heard.
My theory for why so many famous people are sensitive to hate is because hate establishes a lack of respect for authority. It dismantles a lot of pretentiousness around so-called 'critical thinking' in particular in these tech circles. The civility attitude on HN is a good example of this. I don't think it exists to actually think critically, it's just an occupational license to have a quick way to disregard the opinion of people who are perceived to be unsophisticated.
Where you wrote:
"Entertaining the idea that..."
"... is revealing ..."
"The tone of the article sounds like..."
"It almost sounds like..."
These are all places where one could interpret things very differently.
I read the whole article also, and drew none of the conclusions you did.
Anyway, haters sometimes can’t be ignored since they often spread lies at every opportunity, and these days damaging misinformation travel way faster than truths and are very hard to clear up.
Follow who is going to profit from the hate. An uncritical hater can't rile up thousands or millions of people worldwide to hate something only specific people have access to.
Ironically, I have noticed strong fans are also strong haters and it doesn't take much for them to change their side.
To me, critical thinking is like a veil. It describes many of the behaviors and skills underneath which are not so generally applicable. Empathizing is one of them which many critical thinkers outside of their domain forget about (it's not their fault).
A classic HN example is only a few programmers are needed to replace [insert wildly different industry jobs]
Some media influencers are purposefully obvious, critical thinking requires time and energy so once people think they figured out the obvious bait, they stop at that and move their attention to someone who calls out the obvious bait pretending to be an authority of trust. It also gives you power for denial of those untapped as conspiracy theorist or haters.
It was quite disturbing and confusing to watch this happen. Since then I've starting engaging fanboys with caution, the same way I might engage haters. I take their opinions with a large grain of salt and try not give them a reason to get too obsessed.
I can see three possibilities here:
1. I've just been lucky so far.
2. I have haters but I've simply not noticed them.
3. There's a range in the spectrum of "fame" where people attract fanboys but not haters -- particularly when people are famous within narrow niches -- and I'm in that range.
I'm leaning towards the third possibility, but I'm curious what other readers think here.
EDIT: pg points out on Twitter that haters are rarer than fanboys, so it may be a combination of 1 & 3: I've been lucky, but most "minor celebrities" are lucky.
1. Your source of fame is one-dimensional. You're famous for a handful of achievements, they're unambiguously positive, and that's pretty much all that most of us remember.
2. Nobody perceives you as having power over them.
3. They hope that you'll make a 4.4 release of bsdiff with an improved suffix array construction algorithm. Maybe divsufsort, as it looked good in "SACABench: Benchmarking Suffix Array Construction" (2019).
At least, that's my personal guess. :P
But that kind of fame doesn't really garner enough envy for people to develop much of a hatred toward you. Also, when someone badmouths a really famous person, that badmouthing can get some traction on its own just from the namedropping. When someone badmouths a niche-famous person, it's hard to get much traction. So their envy/ hatred doesn't really go anywhere.
I do wonder if there should be a third category, for people whose hatred and envy are so deep that they represent a real danger to their target. I will be happy to never have that kind of fame.
I feel this is very important point pg didn't consider in his essay. The degree of fame one has amplifies the fanboyism and hate they receive, because the more famous someone is, the more status can a fan or hater get with their peers by displaying obsession about said celebrity.
I think another example would be two famous people in a particular industry. With one, you can't find a reddit thread mentioning his work without somebody chiming in to whine about how he presents his opinions; they'll complain the way he expresses himself is that other people who disagree with him are wrong, which irks some people. The other is extremely fastidious about his public image, and he tends to exude a sentiment that what he's saying is just his opinion, and I don't pick up the same level of hater activity. The attack surface just isn't there.
^^ I tried to keep it vague, just for fun, but I guarantee some people can parse out who these two people are.
(Or I'm not using the word properly which might be the case because I'm not native English -- I have friends who are as well known/successful on their field as you are (apprx.) and I'd never call them famous.)
But it's interesting to ponder when the whackos start to gather and why.
Firstly, there's definitely a point in which you attract fanboys but not haters, and if your popularity/fame is in a smaller niche, you may never end attracting the latter at all. Generally, someone tends to get haters when they go 'mainstream', and their work is shown to people that don't like it/can't see why it's popular or successful.
Number 2 on the list probably has some relevance too. For both fanboys and haters, since it's entirely likely every creator has both people who'd love them/their work if they found it and those that'd hate it, and also likely that not everyone in those camps has come across it yet.
In addition to that though, I think there are two more factors that play into how much of a hatedom you have, and I guess also how many fans you have too.
1. How you deal with attacks or criticism. If you ignore the trolls and haters and respond in a civil way to critics, you'll get a lot fewer haters than if you lash out at people. A lot of the folks with more... dedicated critics fall into the latter group. See Chris Chan, Darksyde Phil, Derek Savage, that guy who makes Yandere Simulator, etc.
2. The topic of your success/supposed expertise. If your work is seen as political, it will get a more backlash than if it's about some hobby/interest than most people are neutral about. For instance, I've recently posted two things that got popular; some videos about glitches in a certain video game, and an article calling out web developers/software engineers for using frameworks in situations where they didn't need to.
The former got mostly praise and questions, the latter has brought about a ton of personal attacks and criticism.
Someone who writes a successful article about why Donald Trump got elected/is popular is going to get a lot more hate than someone who writes about quantum mechanics.
I'd say it's a mix of those factors myself.
True "haters" are way more rare than overly sensitive people imagine, and those people have a tendency to label any criticism as "hate". I think it's as simple as that.
How else do you explain Elon Musk being on the cover of mainstream magazine publications 50 times in the past 5 years while at the same time claiming the media treats him unfairly?
These overly sensitive people are the same type who believe their accomplishments are all skill, no luck.
I wonder if it is rarer, or that haters are caused by a reaction to fanboys?
It seems to me that haters often start off reacting to the uncritical nature of fanboyism, and then that reaction slowly slips into hate directed at the person.
(Not always though - maybe this is one particular type of the fanboy/hater relationship)
Most ventures fail. Startup ventures fail even more often. If your goal was to be right most often, you would just bet that every new thing would fail. So there's something inherently illogical about being a fanboy about anything. A fanboy is definitely doing more than just looking at the odds and making a rational decision, they are putting their faith in something.
Because a fanboy derives their enthusiasm from more than simple reason and the odds, they become a threat to anyone that eschews emotion and solely uses traditional valuation models. Fanboys are hated not because they believe in a product or idea, but because they ignore tradition.
Look at Apple fanboys. They seem to cause haters because of their uncritical boosting of anything Apple.
(Also PG's essay seemed mostly about fanboys and haters of people, not of a particular startup)
Apple haters have a point: Apple hardware is far more expensive than similar performance on other systems. So using a traditional objective metric such as performance per dollar, Apple is objectively worse.
However, most Apple Fanboys know they are paying a premium. They love Apple for other, less quantifiable reasons, such as design quality, beautiful integration, good marketing, and the vision of making a more human machine.
The metrics that Apple fanboys value are at complete odds with many traditional computer enthusiasts, who value specs and raw performance power.
Therefore, a "fanboy" of anything (whether that's Apple, Tesla, or the startup of the day), is not necessarily being uncritical, they are just using less commonly accepted metrics of value.
Now in this essay he is catching more criticism in the comments here than I expected.
1. For calling someone a loser. I interpreted this to be an act of the will. I can't imagine Paul Graham calling someone a loser who is trying his best.
2. For using the phrase "less than a man." A man is a mature boy. I interpreted this as a pithy way to say that someone is immature, and again by choice.
And yet... there are plenty of wildly successful people that are fans of sports, and haters of the rivals. Obama is famously a basketball fan, for instance.
I get that it’s a lot milder than hating on a person, my point is that this is a thing that is in almost all of us. The smart people just know when to compartmentalise those feelings.
I think the compartmentalizing you mentioned is interesting. In American politics right now, the home team and rivalry mentality seems to have spilled out into actually important areas of discourse. At the same time, neighbors still live in relative harmony in their day to day lives.
I just wonder if PG's theory really is more about trolls, despite him specifically addressing the distinction.
Quite the contrary! My impression is that most famous people are quite full of themselves and attribute too large a portion of their success to skill, when luck (being in the right place at the right time) was a significant factor.
> What sort of people become haters? Can anyone become one? I'm not sure about this, but I've noticed some patterns. Haters are generally losers in a very specific sense: although they are occasionally talented, they have never achieved much. And indeed, anyone successful enough to have achieved significant fame would be unlikely to regard another famous person as a fraud on that account, because anyone famous knows how random fame is.
I guess pg was going more for the startup founder and creative worker aspect but wouldn't a lot of it be explained by the need to be in a tribe?
You can find intelligent people in politics hating others simply due to the mere association.
A lot of startups are politically and socially charged (disruption in the power balance of society) so it makes partial sense for someone to hate otherwise they may lose their security out of their primal instincts.
It becoming a part of your identity is likely an unintended consequence of validation from enough insecure people.
Further, someone can capitalize being insecure. Probably how a lot of political celebs comes into power.
Everything more recent than that does not have the notes linked in the body.
So if people become haters because they never achieved much, why do people become fanboys?
In todays society pop culture is what is mainstream: think positive, smile, listen songs that dont mean anything but are also not hurting anyone, be happy, even if something is negative concentrate on positive (X company is adding toxic chemicals to their food but they have such a lovely packaging), but bottom line, pretend that everything is nice and fine and you will die with a smile on your face.
The problem is that the society is going into endless circle of self soothing minds, that are not only ignoring the hell of a lot of things that needs to be fixed (from society, environment, companys... products) but are also satisfied by someone selling them intelectual or physical product that is a junk but offers them a dream that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle/thinking/... and are furious protecting that illusion from anyone daring to criticize it. This was a funboy a decade ago. I am observing with horror that now it has become mainstream.
Once the options to contradict logically are gone, as a last scream of mind defending their ego is an etiquette "you are a hater".
In that moment everything seems fine again.
"It is not me.", "It is not the product I love.", "It is you.", "I can go back to my illusion now.".
So Graham. Smile. Be happy. Be positive. Dont be a hater to haters. As maybe... they are not haters after all.
To the person receiving criticism, everything is hate. Look at pg's twitter on Tesla: doesn't understand the hate. Has he read the criticism and refuted it? No, he dismisses it.
That's some immature criticism-receiver that you are describing here. You have just implied that it is impossible to receive criticism without thinking of it as hate, which I find to be false.
I mean, the article literally says the calling card of a hater is the use of the word "fraud". Meanwhile, we see actual fraud in Silicon Valley (and beyond, of course) all the time. God forbid it gets called out.
I'm old enough to remember the flak people took on these very forums for calling Theranos a fraud: thoughtful people obviously did due diligence on the company, critics (losers?) couldn't stand seeing a woman be so successful.
I just disengaged from all these people. I don't read comments on my blogs or articles. But still, having negative fanboys impacts you the rest of your life. You imagine them calling you out. It pulls you down and slows you down.
Thanks for this PG.
PG is likely dealing with a phenomenon that most of us have no personal experience with.
All I can do is try to embrace his understanding to get an insight because I have no idea what it's like to have some stranger obsess about me for good or ill.
I notice some people commenting here who seem to think that trolls and people who dislike you casually are the same as the "haters" PG is writing about. I don't think they are.
1) The person who they hate to them (the hater) appears to have more luck than talent. There are others with the same or more talent (maybe even the hater or someone they know) who get no attention at all and toil in obscurity.
Of course luck is a sliding scale (there is always luck) but someone in theory would be less likely to hate someone who ran a race and was the fastest (low on the luck scale high on the skill scale) but more likely to hate a startup founder or a singer or actor who had fame but it didn't appear related as much to talent but to luck. Someone can imagine 'I could do that' but not 'I can beat that person in a marathon' (easy to quantify).
2) There are fanboys and that enhances the annoyance by the hater. So it's the constant attention (which they feel is undeserved and quite frankly it probably is) that drives the hater. Not the person themselves. The media attention the fawning articles the fawning comments.
3) They get attention for things that the same activity would not get attention by a non famous person. Example is PG wrote this essay and everyone here (including me) are feasting on it.
4) They are unapproachable. They wouldn't give you the time of day (because of course they don't have time to give everyone attention). If you wrote to them they might write back a quick reply but they would never engage in a discussion or invite you to go out or be their friend. They would give you some trivial brush off (if they replied at all). You are not important to them and they know that. That bugs people even if they know there is a legit reason for the brush off. People react negatively to lack of courtesy and to have it in their face that they are not important even if rationally they understand why it's happening to them.
So at the core it's not the actual famous person that is hated so much as the attention that is given to the famous person that drives the hate. The hater feels it's undeserved and over the top.
And it is 'over the top' when it just becomes to much in the mind of the hater.
Should also serves as a lesson illustrating it is not easy to point faults at other, even less so at whole classes of people, when yourself have your own elephant in the room ones...
I learned about it from the book "The Courage to be Disliked" that talks about these two things in a very approachable manner.
This essay, if it truly applies to Lambda School as many of the other commenters are suggesting, is a case in point. If this is really about Lambda School, then there's at least some plausible reasons to find it sketchy which one might want to address.
But it reminded me that Paul usually thanks people who review his essay drafts at the end.
This one was no exception, but I noticed a couple new names:
Peter Thiel, and Christine Ford.
From the Kavanaugh drama? It looks like yes.
Note also that not all who disagree with you are haters or trolls.
“How can you distinguish between x calling y a fraud because x is a hater, and because y is a fraud? ... Thoughtful people are rarely taken in by [frauds]“
The world is full of “thoughtful” people who have been taken in by frauds - Theranos is a recent example - and so I think this is pretty terrible advice in general - although I can see how it might work in certain contexts.
For example, frauds often seem to work on smart people who aren’t smart in the specific field in which the fraud operates.
Even more recently, "John Carmack and Amazon's $30 1TB thumb drives"
> For example, frauds often seem to work on smart people who aren’t smart in the specific field in which the fraud operates.
It also works where smart people are experts in the field the fraud operates. One of the greatest frauds in science was one where an archaeologist ( amateur ) duped the experts.
Sometimes, in banking, finance and fine art, the scammers scam the experts in banking, finance and fine art.
If there's better evidence that VCs think they're smarter than everyone else, I' don't know what it is.
The Waltons; Carlos Slim, Rupert Murdoch; Robert Kraft; George Shultz; Larry Ellison. Are these not "thoughtful people"? This is from ONE FRAUD.
Articles like this are how you get "haters".
Does that narrative not sound a little familiar?
Being a woman genius took it to another level.
It's possible Holmes actually sold the narrative to herself at least as much as she sold it to everyone else.
(But that's not an unfamiliar story either.)
The worrying thing is that Holmes blanked out legitimate criticism. Perhaps she even labelled legitimate critics as haters.
That's an overtly cult-like move. Outsiders who are not aligned with the goal of the cult - often powered by a cult of personality - are dismissed, when in fact their criticisms are realistic and appropriate.
In fact what makes fanboys and haters so annoying is obsessive irrationality. They're noisy, but worryingly content-free.
But not everyone is irrational, and both outsiders and insiders may have valid and considered non-obsessive opinions. Those opinions may be positive, or they may be critical - both for perfectly valid reasons.
But it's not?
I mean I guess there is some kind of relationship - ideologies usually have some kind of story that goes with them.
But a narrative in itself isn't an ideology.
But I do agree that Holmes was able to project a "reality distortion field" in the same way Jobs could. I think that's different to ideology though.
"A Plan For Haters And Fanboys".
I will try to apply to it to myself
Well I am clearly an hater, because I think that Paul Graham says a lot of stupid shit on subjects where he lacks the ability to empathize with the real victims, like many people who are male, white, powerful, well-connected and who can basically accomplish whatever the fuck they want to accomplish. Why don't all those poor victims just do the same, right?
This inflated ego leads him to be a jerk more often than necessary, and write things that are obviously wrong (but not for him) on some subjects where he is a like a snowflake who thinks he is the real victim being attacked. A bit like all those Trump voters who think that the problem with racism in the USA is that white people like them are being unfairly critized as being a racist.
At that point, the Paul Grahan classifier has all the necessary signals to classify me as an hater.
On the other hand...
I am obviously a fanboy because I genuinely believe that Paul Graham is a very generous, bright mind who has worked a lot and helped thousands of people.
I know for a fact that he has helped me a lot, I've read pretty much everything he wrote and was nodding furiously all of the time. I can tell you my ten favorites articles from him.
Well actually, let's do it. I really liked
- "Lisp for web-based applications"
- "A plan for span"
- "If Lisp is So Great"
- "What You Can't Say"
- "The Python Paradox"
- "The Age of the Essay"
- "How to Start a Startup"
- "What I did this summer?"
- "You weren't meant to have a boss"
- "Ramen Profitable"
- "Startup = Growth""H
- "Do Things That Don't Scale"
- "Default Alive Or Default Dead?"
Oops, I told 13 instead of 10, and I had to force myself to stop here.
That's what fanboys do.
In summary, I understand the tentation to have "A Plan For Fanboys/Haters" like he had a "Plan For Spam".
Frankly that would be nice if that was possible, I would buy it, just say your price.
But I'm starting to think that real human beings are more complex than this nice dichotomy.
I think Paul Graham is like a normal human being, with wonderful parts and deep flaws, pretty much like all of us.
That leads him to be right and helpful on a lot of subjects, and also to be wrong and a jerk on other topics.
Since he is a bright guy, he would have no problems to discover why he was wrong, if he applied his own principles to those topics.
And he would apply his own principles if he was interested.
His output being deeply wrong shows that he is not interested right now by those topics.
That said, on Quora, many years ago there was an article summed up by: If you're not pissing someone off, you're doing it all wrong.
I think these's truth to that. So if you want to do it not all wrong, then you have to expect there's gonna be some friction
But there is also a class of fanboys who gradually became disillusioned, for they have come to realize that the emperor has no clothes. For these people it's often the case that the same ones who lifted the star to the top will also cause its downfall. Peter Thiel has written about this in his book, and history is littered with such examples.
Malcolm Gladwell did a good job exploring this type of social behavior in his book.
My hypothesis is that it's a very American concept, as in I don't remember ever anyone outside the US/Canada use that word (same with "winner"). Like in Europe or South America for ex people would say somebody is a deadbeat or terrible at their job or lazy but not a loser (this may be just in my head).
Generally, when someone is labeled a loser ("he's a f'in loser"), it's more an attack on their moral and ethical character.
If you lie and cheat, you're a loser. If you beat up your wife / girlfriend, you're a loser. If you're an all-around asshole that can't function around people, you're a loser.
I mean, sure, if you're a NEET on welfare, who blows his welfare money on booze, cigs and video games, while chasing 16 year olds, and with no ambition of improving - then you're too going to get labeled a loser, but that's more because of the apparent laziness and dodgy ethical choices.
But lazy or unambitious employed people? No, they're just regular workers. We all pay our taxes, and contribute to our society.
http://paulgraham.com/speak.html (counter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3720459)
http://paulgraham.com/essay.html (counter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3306364)
http://paulgraham.com/talk.html (counter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10448643)
This is entirely wrong. History is full of people with spectacular achievements whom pg would classify as "haters".
The whole essay is really poor (and yes, I've also achieved more than flipping a web-shop to friends at Yahoo during the bubble.).
Personally, I can’t imagine calling somebody a loser, but in my head I have a very clear idea of what a loser is. To me a loser is anybody that, in spite of the opportunity to do so, doesn’t take any control over their own life, doesn’t take responsibility for themselves, and blames others for their failure/lack of success. Such people can become marginally successful, but they’ll always be losers, because they’ll never get what they want from life. To me, this idea seems very similar to what he was getting at.
> in spite of the opportunity to do so
I am talking about people who have opportunities they don’t take, so the spiel about circumstances is pretty off topic. In my comment I also made no reference to outcomes. I was specifically describing an approach to life. Anybody, even the most low agency circumstances, can choose how they approach life.
That is a very common ideology around these parts (and also in the US), but it is simply not true. We are constrained by our mental health in how we can choose to approach life, and our mental health is partly due to genetic lottery and partly due to environmental circumstances outside of our control. This is not my opinion, scientific studies are massively (as you would say) in agreement with what I claim here.
The American obsession with "winner" and "losers" is just an excuse to be selfish and cruel. Its fruits are extreme economic equality, school shootings and people dying of easily curable diseases because they don't have money for the treatment (or even the ambulance to the hospital).
I also like Elon, but the source of the hate probably comes from two sources. The first is the audaciousness of his general proposal: that we give up technology that worked for a century (oil) and try to build something entirely different. It's based on a bias towards the status quo.
The second is probably more legitimate. No question Tesla has done amazing things, but is it really worth more than established players that sell 10X number of cars? The stock price doesn't make sense based on any traditional valuation, it can only be explained by popular enthusiasm and exuberance towards the vision that Elon provides. It feels to many that Elon is getting away with things that would doom any other company because of this perception. It feels unfair, hence the haters.
Personally, I do love Elon, SpaceX, Tesla, etc, but I don't want to get involved in the stock market casino. I support what he does because of his vision, but Tesla's stock price makes no sense to me. Instead, I'll cheer from the sidelines, and invest my money in boring ETFs.
What about the fact that as the world wakes up to atrocities in China, he went there hat in hand, selling out to the CCP?
There are legit reasons he could be disliked.
Yes, there are many legitimate complaints about Elon, some disputed, some not. But the legitimate complaints you describe don't create the haters. What hedge-fund short-seller, or random internet troll, really cares about Hong Kong's civil rights? The same folks that are crying fowl on Elon support far more ruthless enterprises, their complaints aren't coming from a morally sound platform.
The vast majority of hatred towards Elon is what I described: (1) his audaciousness; (2) inflated valuations that don't conform to traditional valuation models.
Sadly, any legitimate criticism is lost in this noise.
Hah! PG is a Wodehouse fan. Makes sense.
Think about team-sports, the English soccer hooligans. They succumb to terrible violence because they are fanboys of their own team and haters of the other team, including the followers of the other team.
Sort of like borderline painting black and white.
First - his example of the 'hater of the pop singer' I think is wrong.
Someone likely 'hates' the pop singer because their popularity is not justified, i.e. lacking talent or authenticity.
They don't 'hate' an obscure pop singer, because there's no point.
This is not arbitrary disdain.
I think a better example would be the comments section in HuffPo or Breitbart on politics. It's just pure political identity and nothing else: all actions of the opponent must be bad.
Second - I think his characterisation of 'loser' might be very wrong as well. A lot of very rich dudes got that way by being obsessively competitive, sometimes full of arbitrary rage at 'the other guy'. 'Vendetta' is not a word we usually associate with losers, I think it comes from the same place.
It just might be that anger is a little stickier and motivating than other things?
I don't actually think this is a better example. People have a lot on their plate, they can't be expected to investigate every issue to extreme depth. They rely on institutions. Many people join Breitbart politics because they trust Breitbart, even if they know little about it's underlying reasoning. Similarly, many people trust the national academy of sciences, even if they know little about the underlying science.
Even a critical reader can't know everything, and so they must trust people and institutions to represent them.