Hacker News Reader

Comment by amiune | Hacker News Reader

Why to discourage people to try things with low probability of success? It's hard to find these guys, let them be happy at least for a while

View on HN

I received an email from someone I met recently:

> I inted to start doing a project on what causes Parkinson's Desease using Python , Big Data, , Data analyt and Nvidia Supercomputing. You have a skillset that can hel sovle this problem and I coul use your help. If we are successful then we can do the same for other medical deseases.

He was middle-aged and had learned to code a few months ago. He did not seem interested when I told him that the field was called 'bioinformatics' and that there were many people working on these problems already. This is not a "low probability of success", this is a zero chance of success.

In these cases, I'm not sure what the right course of action is. I don't think discouragement even does anything; for a particular kind of person (who has the arrogance to think they could cure a major disease as though it were a blue ocean problem), active discouragement just solidifies their resolve. I like to think that if they could redirect their ambition to a small and tractable problem, they might actually be able to make a contribution (even Terry Davis of TempleOS fame was able to produce something inspiring, which he wouldn't have done if he had been trying to Solve a Big Problem).

But then I think you're probably right, that there is no real hope, and the best course is to ignore them so I'm not wasting my time, but also to let them have a dream and feel like they're doing something.

"He was middle-aged and had learned to code a few months ago."

I don't like the idea that older beginners are necessarily worthy of contempt.

I do like the idea of suggesting that he take some courses in bioinformatics.

I don't know who Terry Davis is, but does he deserve the "even" qualifier before his name?

Those are fair critiques. I brought up his age as evidence that it was not simply the arrogance of youth; if it were, education and exposure to a wider world would be the proper prescription. But his blank stare after I gave him a keyword and gently nudged him towards reality, along with the subsequently quoted followup message, confirmed that this was not youthful inexperience and naivete.

As to Terry Davis, I debated whether to include the 'even' qualifier, and decided to include it. I don't know if he deserves it either. You should look him up and decide for yourself. He was a complicated figure (just passed away recently) and I'm sure people would argue both ways.

Many similar cases approach anyone who is viewed as capable in tech, from app ideas to game ideas to buzzword mashups. They usually come from people who have spent minimal time trying to build their own capability or researching prior work done in the domain. They are only focused on making their own dream a reality and latch on to the one they perceive as able to realize it.

What they need is a mentor. Which is fine, of course. Mentorship is one of the best thing to look for when you're starting out. The issue is that mentorship cannot begin without humility from the mentee. Even if the mentee presented a legitimately great idea, an idea is still not an equal contribution, because they will need to be guided through the whole process.

So I think the disdain is warranted. Not because of age or inexperience. But because they're engaging a mentor with an offer of partnership. It's very arrogant.

Ok I understand the point here. We are not concerned about a guy who believes he can date with a supermodel but with the guy who becomes a stalker.

You're welcome to try all you want. But after the hundredth crackpot paper someone receives, expect them to be a wee bit less welcoming, open, and excited than they were the first couple of times.

I think a lot of people commenting on this topic to this effect are obviously not receiving a huge deluge of crackpot papers. I've never received them myself, but I've seen a couple of instances of people and companies who do, each of them themselves small instances of the problem, and it would have been plenty to try my patience if I had to spend any time at all on each of them.

They have the freedom to speak, but there's no obligation for anyone to ever listen. The time of the person being asked for is significantly more valuable than the person presenting something. If you want to be heard, you generally need to put in a good amount of time, often by contributing to smaller problems and earning a reputation. This stuff is earned, not given out, that includes even listening to someone's ideas. Time is limited, a random person's ideas are no more valuable than anyone else's, this is why we rely on reputation, intuition, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com