[hexhex]

My two cents on why his writings are popular: - He uses anecdotal evidence which appears to be sound at first. Looking at the top 100 billionaires seems to give a good idea on how wealth is created and distributed, but really it is only a glimpse at a much bigger phenomenon (especially since the data only comes from two years). - His style of writing is very accessible and natural. He wrote an article on his style (http://www.paulgraham.com/simply.html), and it seems to strike a chord with technicians who prefer this over more complicated prose.

I feel these are the same reasons for why effective altruism is so popular among technicians. It offers clear cut answers, and avoids uncomfortable questions.

[jrochkind1]

Also his conclusions are what some people want to hear, that confirms their worldview.

This is not at all unique to PG, you and I and everyone does the same thing, at least to some extent, in choosing what argument/opinion pieces (now the dominant form of textual media?) we are tickled by.

[milesskorpen]

Same reason Malcolm Gladwell is popular — it's pop science/economics/whatever, made to be readable and digestible, but over simplifies (and sometimes falsifies) in the process.

[jonny_eh]

At least Gladwell's writings are not so obviously self-serving.

[tommyderami]

Could you expand on the last sentence a bit more regarding effective altruism? Are the uncomfortable questions related to the utilitarian nature of how the movement racks and stacks the causes they choose to support or not?

[hexhex]

I was more referring to the fact that EA promotes philanthropy instead of asking why we have inequalities in the first place. So it evades questions of redistribution or fairness in a similar fashion as PG.

I'm not quite sure how strong the analogy is though.