[dongle]

Ignoring Paul Graham is a bad idea because PG is extremely sharp, reasonable, and has a keen grasp of where his expertise lies. If he says something I disagree with, I'll happily engage in a discussion until we've laid out all our facts and ideas and found an optimal path. Provided a reasonable argument, PG will readily take your word. If you can't provide a reasonable argument to contradict PG, well, that's a good sign that you at least need to think about the problem some more.

I co-founded a games studio. Paul doesn't have experience in the games space. The "worst" outcome of a meeting with PG has been that he's given me an important new perspective, even if he isn't able to come up with specific prescriptive advice. His ideas and perspectives are hugely valuable. Not once has he stepped on our toes.

The key here is that startups receive tons of conflicting advice from all angles and discovering how to process this advice is crucial. Paul trusts that founders can decide for themselves whether his advice is, at face-value, good.