[seri]

And IMO isn't nearly as good as the earlier one. "I Am Nothing" has a self-help tone that puts me off, and the number of sentences per substance is too low for my liking.

Paul Graham did end up with a similar conclusion, but on the process of leading to it, he kept exploring possibilities. What social behaviors could be objectively explained by the excess of identity? Although he did end up telling his readers what to do, that was just a coincidence. He looked out for the truths and they happen to lead to something that could be applied in real life.

But it all comes down to a matter of taste, and I do greatly admire Paul Buchheit as a person.

[gbog]

> But it all comes down to a matter of taste

Sorry, but here you just klll in the egg your interesting point above. If you think pg's article is better than pb's, why hide your opinion, which I happen to share, behind this pudic relativist curtain?

It's like doing a solid dissertation on why Python is more x and x and x than, say, Java, and then, in the conclusion, retract every statement behind a shy "matter of taste".

[seri]

You caught me. In the past, I used to express my opinions, which are often strong and controversial, aggressively, but over time, I learnt that it's in my interest to make a consolation point toward people with opposite opinions in public places. "So this is my opinion and that is yours. We differ a bit but we are still friends, right?" I don't do that in my own writings, however.

[saturn]

> I learnt that it's in my interest to make a consolation point toward people with opposite opinions in public places

Well, you've just been shown the opposite. By dismissing your own argument - by claiming it is just a matter of random, arbitrary preference - you kind of write yourself out of the conversation. I guess you are less likely to offend, but you're less likely for anyone to listen at all. You may as well have not spoken in the first place.