This is basically my biggest critique of PG and various other YC leaders. Many of the conclusions, while likely be probably being more "right" than "wrong" in virtue, are derived from intuition and observations, not evidence based. It's even more ironic, given how much emphasis the firm places on evidence based thinking of its portfolio founders versus anecdotally thinking.
Great example:
"One quality that’s a really bad indication is a CEO with a strong foreign accent"[0]
The danger is that I think pg has been "right" about so many things that every time he pontificates about something it's treated as dogma. So when he's "wrong", it'll be ignored. Impressionable people (which likely fits the characteristic of many young tech entrepreneurs) will therefore be lead astray.
Probably not very. I get the distinct feeling that the last few essays were very light on content/interesting insights, and did well on name value alone.
Would be interesting to actually test that to be honest. Get Paul Graham to set up another site under a fake identity, post the next say, three essays there, then submit 'em to HN under the same identity and see the stats.
In some cases it’s because the territory is mostly mapped by his previous work. “Novelty and Heresy” was a belated sequel to “What You Can’t Say”, for instance.
OTOH, seeing pg write essays again pleases me in much the same way that one might be pleased if their favorite long-defunct rock band started recording a new album.
Great example:
"One quality that’s a really bad indication is a CEO with a strong foreign accent"[0]
The danger is that I think pg has been "right" about so many things that every time he pontificates about something it's treated as dogma. So when he's "wrong", it'll be ignored. Impressionable people (which likely fits the characteristic of many young tech entrepreneurs) will therefore be lead astray.
[0] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/knowledgewharton/2013/12/19/292...