13 comments of 69

[ 16.2 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] thread
You can listen to this on youtube with pg's own voice which I find a pretty neat use of AI.
There’s something cringey about having a zillion dollars and then using your cash soapbox to bloviate to everyone about how to be great-like-me.
The people qualified to do great work probably don't need the advice. They most likely lack resources (like money or free time), not guidance.

The people who would benefit from the advice (resourceful people full of free time that are doing nothing meaningful) will likely ignore it anyway.

Genuine question, what work has Paul Graham done that can be classified as 'great'?
(comment deleted)
When Paul Graham uses a phrase like "great work" I can't help but only consider it as being synonymous to "work that generates a big return for the investor" in his context of Y Combinator
It's a nice post, with a lot of valuable insights. There is one that I disagree with though: "Never abandon the root node".

There are plenty of instances that show that in reality this is not what happens, and in fact this is often a necessary step of reinventing yourself if things really aren't working for you. The mid-life crisis is a famous example of this, or even the quarter-life crisis. In some specific psychological circles this is referred to as "disintegration". Sometimes carefully backtracking is simply not enough, and growth needs this kind large shock to the system.

> At 7 it may seem excitingly ambitious to build huge things out of Lego, then at 14 to teach yourself calculus, till at 21 you're starting to explore unanswered questions in physics.

Is this supposed to be relatable?

In work, once you remove all that is unnecessary, wrong, and bad. Then what you are left with must be greatness.
PG could really work on style to shorten those walls of text (yes he refers to it near the end)

That's actually my own problem too - I often use AI to summarize / shorten my own texts. (Opposite of what most who seem to use it for generation?)

I generally dislike PG's articles as very tone-deaf and billionaire-having-all-the-time-in-the-world centric, but this one was okay. Figured I'll give it a chance and I don't regret it (this time; a pleasant exception, usually I feel like I wasted my time reading his essays).

Things I do appreciate that are good-ish nuggets:

- Don't try to work on something "prestigious". I agree with that; a lot of people became poor out of ego, myself included a few times in the past.

- Working on something that interests you deeply is a great way to become a super specialist which is honestly a coin toss; it can make you a highly-sought-after expert commanding serious rates... or yet another burned out nerd who knows something very deeply that nobody wants to pay for. I mean OK, I love being satisfied and fulfilled but I can't be like that if I can't pay bills. So that passion is never the #1 priority and that's a fact of life for 99.9999%+ of humanity.

- Investing in something on the side a few hours a week sounds great until you wake up 10 years later _still_ not having the side hustle doing you $2000 a month. As above: coin toss. But I agree that's the right and the pragmatic strategy for working people. Success is not guaranteed and that's of course not a reason NOT to try. Still: work-life balance!

- Getting to the frontier and then filling the gaps is a solid strategy, yep. As per above: make sure you work on something people would pay for, though.

- When to be earnest and when to be [faux] sophisticated is generally not clear and cut. There are events during which you have to be a bit posh or nobody would take you seriously, and sadly those are often the events that might be life or death sentence for your new business idea. I think us the tech nerds are earnest way too much and too often, and don't know when to be "sophisticated". Me putting a formal shirt and pants and pretending to know more about a field than I really did, did net me money that my impostor syndrome screamed that I didn't deserve (but years later, with the objectivity that a brutal hindsight can give you, I absolutely did).

- Ownership of one's work is a great advice, probably the best one in the article... until you realize most startup CEOs understand this and will give you +30% more salary than everyone else because they love having somebody on a stable wage who does 80% of their work and does not ask for percentages of the Series A/B/C/D tranches. Nah, thanks. As we say on the Balkans (butchered translation): "The quality of the music depends on the quantity of the tip". I'm done taking your cause so seriously that I don't have time for my wife. Dangle $25k+ a month in front of my face and we'll talk.

---

So my TL;DR is: yes, compound knowledge and work on what you like and try to make it a side hustle, absolutely. Put on some suit when you get to events. Don't always be super humble, that by itself can be a turn off and no you cannot afford to gamble your future on this so yes, sometimes be posh and sophisticated. It frakkin helps with some people! And I don't care if you don't want to be associated with them; many of them are gatekeepers of wealth so, deal with it.

I'll agree: passion shines through and wins people over. It's not enough, though. "Making it" requires making good decisions on multiple lanes.

People opposing this are secretly or subconsciously peddling a folk version of Labour Theory of Value. Great work doesn’t exist. All work is work and the only dimension is time. You should get paid according to your socially necessary hours and be valued according to it.