[lilactown]

I don't see any point in the article where the author says that PG is a _bad person_. Just that perhaps we shouldn't take him seriously as an intellectual, which is perfectly okay. You can be a good person and but "unserious" w.r.t. being an intellectual - I mostly am!

The only way this is can be seen as a personal attack is if PG (and his followers) identify with being a "serious intellectual." At that point it makes sense that it would seem like an attack to point out that no, he is not a "serious intellectual." Someone's character is only tarred if they insist that they are while being demonstrably not.

[wellpast]

I don’t understand the motivation for categorizing someone like PG as a un/serious intellectual.

Are we to ‘believe’ all ‘serious intellectuals’ and disregard the ‘unserious’ ones. There’s a clear attempt at this weird kind of classification here—at best it’s a weird kind of paternalized way of thinking about people with ideas; at worst, its a poor rhetoric for classifying PG into the category of ‘wrongthinker’.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

I think you're projecting a lot onto this. All the author of the OP is pointing out is that PG's political writing is often very naive, in a way that makes it clear he doesn't do even the most basic research on the topic before pontificating. This is something worth calling out because PG is offering himself as an authority on these subjects. He's also a skillful writer, so his plausible off the cuff impressions sound reasonably smart if you don't do any research yourself.

None of these observations on PG's blogging are particularly new, and I've had the same criticism of much of his startup specific advice as it essentially attributed success to nebulous concepts like "pattern matching skill."

[lilactown]

It feels like you're the one trying classify what the essay's saying in a weird way. Someone can critique a person without condemning them. One can say that PG's opinions shouldn't be taken seriously without saying that he's a 'wrongthinker.'

The internet gives a mouthpiece to many, many people; not everyone's opinion should be considered with equal weight. The essay's author uses the example, "EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE." It is content that someone put a lot of time and effort into. How should I use the ideas and world view found in the timecube website to forge my own?

Probably not much. That's what I equivalate with "taking seriously," and a "serious public intellectual" is someone whose opinions I would probably consider when forming my own.

I don't think the author is tearing PG down to try and oust him from his material wealth; just saying, maybe what he writes in his essays shouldn't be taken as seriously as some of us thought.

[wellpast]

I'd be more inclined to take your point if the lede wasn't PG's current political essays, and the meat wasn't an extensive berate of his naive ideas about programming from 20 years ago.

Anyone that needs to be 'told' that EARTH HAS 4 CORNERS is silly thinking isn't going to hear you - so that's a terrible analogy right there.

When it comes to politics and essays like this that so indirectly (by 20 years! and subject matters miles apart!) try to make their case against a whole person's intellectual status - we are in weird territory.

[ashtonkem]

> Anyone that needs to be 'told' that EARTH HAS 4 CORNERS is silly thinking isn't going to hear you - so that's a terrible analogy right there.

Maybe you just didn't understand the analogy?

The point was that valuing being "aggressively independent-minded" above trying to be right can lead you to being a crank. One should value a process and rigor that leads you in the right direction, rather than valuing thinking different for the sake of thinking different.