The problem with both Ravikant and Graham is that they're pontificating in a space where the ideas seem superficially trite but become powerful when applied.
I think of Dale Carnegie's book 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' as a good illustration of this. People around here especially love to hate on it, but that's because they don't quite understand the point of it. The point of that book (and of the musings of people like Ravikant and Graham) is to explain to people that success is a product of attitude and behavior as much as it is a product of intellect. That simple ideas, routinely applied, can yield wondrous outcomes. And, perhaps most importantly, that the ingredient for success absent in most STEM-inclined minds is the capacity to restrain analytical/cynical impulses in just the right way.
Neither Ravikant nor Graham is an intellectual slouch. They have noteworthy backgrounds in STEM that categorically refute any possible accusation of dimwittedness. When they decide to discuss 'soft' ideas, it's because their experience in the real world, pattern matching against countless observations made in the trenches of the tech industry, has taught them that these ideas are crucial.
Wow. That's beyond being uncharitable.
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere down below at length, I think bogus is too kind a word for that kind of crap masquerading as an academic discipline.
But to get back to the actual content, I think he's got a point. There is no substitute for genuine passion and interest - otherwise known as eagerness. Little surprise it should be a signal of success.
But hey what would one of the world's most successful venture capitalists know about it - you're the real expert on the subject.
Also studying society/people is an academic discipline. There is plenty of hard science which is equally "bogus". What about bad neural network papers, or bad physics papers?
Regardless, these things are not new ideas, or something people don't know about. Yes being eager/earnest can help. Yes bad papers exist. The issue is why choose that particular example? Why are all of PG's blog posts exactly the same -- none of them have anything particularly deep or offer new insight -- but there always seems to be controversial content mixed into the supposedly honest discussion.
If they are not doing it deliberately and its somehow internalised then people should at least call them out.
> What about bad neural network papers, or bad physics papers?
That is a logical fallacy. It's called false equivalence. Just because there are some bad hard science papers does not mean gender studies is on the same level.
If anyone needs to be called out here on their behavior it is the humanities in academia and the insanity they are harboring and encouraging. I find no fault with PGs reference.