[throwaway2474]

Writing a piece called “Beyond Smart” where you literally equate yourself with Einstein in the first paragraph is a special level of arrogance. His essays used to quirky, interesting and surprising. They have increasingly become predictable rants about how he’s uniquely great, and (ironically) contain less and less actual new ideas.

[defen]

> Writing a piece called “Beyond Smart” where you literally equate yourself with Einstein in the first paragraph is a special level of arrogance.

He didn't equate himself with Einstein, in either the first paragraph or the rest of the essay. Furthermore, I interpreted the "Beyond" in the title in the sense of Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" - "Beyond Smart" doesn't mean "extra-super-duper smart, above and beyond smart". It means, we cannot ascribe such things to a simplistic concept of "smart", such as the kind that would be measured on IQ tests.

[evgen]

I am assuming either you are joking or you are failing to see the ham-handed self-congratulation pg gives himself through this entire piece of shit.

Paragraph 1: Einstein was smart, but he also had 'new ideas'

Paragraphs 2-15 : Reasons why I am smart and also have new ideas and you should remember to think of me like the Einstein of VCs. Just in case you missed this repeated point I am going to title this little think-piece 'Beyond Smart.'

I would trot out metaphors about Fonzie and water skis, but when it comes to pg that ship sailed years ago.

[defen]

One way to test out your theory would be to pretend that someone else wrote the essay. If the essay no longer makes sense, or if it still comes across as self-congratulatory, I would agree with you. However if you perform this thought experiment I think you'll find that neither is true, so I think you're just reacting to identity of the author and not his actual point.

[auntienomen]

At least you still got a nautical metaphor in!

[philosopher1234]

Whats the use in this comment? Is the earth flat because I can't see all the way around it? Can't we tolerate a little bit of interpretation, and not require that we only take texts literally? And, why the double standard? You interpreted OPs comment, so why can't he interpret PGs?