Side note: Almost everything by Paul Graham gets upvoted fairly quickly. Has anyone insights into what the key ingredients for this are?
I have always wondered what his objective was when writing these essays.
(I always have an objective, when I write, which is not narcissism, or seeking approval/support/vindication).
A.k.a driving sense into the (intellectual) peasants :). I hope he succeeds. My observation though is that crows are never whiter by washing.
But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-)
It is a very important question. ( and I would have answered it even if you had asked it in any other manner without being 'playful') ). You can see what I have put on my HN profile and also here: https://realminority.wordpress.com/about/
You see, approval/verbal support/vindication etc. are normal human emotions that most of have, but I personally make a conscious effort to minimize. Independent thinkers don't look for social approvals. I'd like to think of myself as a (relatively ofcourse) independent thinker. I have an nearly inactive account at Facebook and similar site, and spend almost never spend anytime on these sites.
If you look at my recent post history, I have started posting some presumably contentious posts, generally seeking similar minded people for long term alliances. The alliances will have to result in tangible material/health/survival benefits. I know for a fact that I'm not a wordsmith, so in isolation those post may convey an inaccurate image of me among those with whom there could be potential alliances. With these similar minded people, it indeed does matter to me what they think of me, from a long term perspective. I do want to convey a larger personality than what can be inferred from my contentious posts. So this reasoning is at the logical level not at the emotional level.
(ofcourse if you get into thinking along likes of evolutionary biology you will realize that all need to seek social approval was indeed ultimately intended for tangible benefits like survival, but often these emotions can be far removed from ground reality, as it happens with social media).
To summarize - there is an intended audience for my reply to you too. ( though I'm not sure if you may be one of them)
I know that, and the term banality should should not be confused with commonality with the the general populace. There is a relationship ofcourse between the two.
( I blame myself for being inaccurate, not a gifted writer ...)
> "I know this, so clearly everyone must"
The opposite actually is true for me.
You see, news that splashes at you is still annoyance( like the ads). It becomes hard to filter out noise from usefulness. It's an ongoing battle. Of course you might ask, as to why I even click a post like this. There is good reason for that - among the hysterical fanboys, there is often the occasional critic who is of value to me.
Subjective - I can agree that to _some_ extent. But there is a somewhat non subjective element to it also. Most of PGs essays are banal. He's actually a banal guy. ( though I still rate him very intelligent, and an astute businessman, and that is something not to be scoffed at). Contrast that to another well know figure in the tech world: Peter Thiel, who I personally feel is extremely well read, extremely reflective, quite articulate etc. Most people will either agree that he is far more of an original thinker that PG. Either that, or they do not understand him(PT), or they think he(PT) is nuts.
If you are an atheist, you will know what I'm talking about if you ever ever argued with religious people who will give their blanket dismissive opinion about the theory of evolution, without having made the slightest of attempts to understand it. It is not that they just have a subjectively different opinion on the subject, it is outright ignorance. Speaking about the theory of evolution I'm aware of one guy who i saw in a you tube video online who is indeed a critic/skeptic of the Darwinian theory of evolution, and has some arguments with substance to back it up. I will have no problem listening to him, but the former category are people who I do not even think is worth my time arguing with.
Fair enough, for someone who is 34. Just make sure to read/listen/see ( if you can ) the works of people who are may have made astute observations of human nature a very long time back, even generations back. I'm talking about the likes of Aristotle, or a Carl Sagan, or a George Orwell, or a Woody Allen ( a comedian) etc. They all offer significantly more insight into human nature much more than PG can.
Ofcourse your limit might be PG at your age. And nothing wrong with that. I too will be banal by some standards. We all got to fine tune to our level of stupidly to the 'thought' leaders we are think are our heroes.
To answer your other question:
>Would this article be banal to a 10 year old? A 20 year old? How many super surprising things might seem banal to an 80 year old?
This would be quite banal to a well read 'smart' 20 year old. ( 10 year old - extremely unlikely)
There’s a lot of selection bias in his upvoting: a large number of people know/knew about HN because they liked PG’s writing.