Paul Graham's essays are the most frequent source of the quotes I feature in my monthly 'talking shits' posts. If the quote refers to a start-up or computer programming, it is a safe bet that it comes from him. My one recommendation to anyone seeking to think more clearly is to go his essay archive and read one essay per day. (Here is a link to the archive.) (1)
There are currently about one hundred and sixty pieces. This works out to exactly half a year of daily essays (because you will skip Sundays). Most of the essays are between three and five minutes of reading, which I think is optimal. Read one, then go outside. (2) (3)
His focus on two main areas suggests his essays will not appeal to a broad audience. But I think there is a strong intersection of his expertise and the average reader's interests.
A 'start-up' is business-talk for 'trying a new way of solving a problem'. Someone who develops a conversational fluency with how start-ups work will find it easier to apply principles like 'launch fast and iterate' to new ideas in their own lives. Like anyone trying to make a change, a start-up must try a new idea (launch a product), adjust according to feedback (release updated versions), and know when it is appropriate to ask someone for help (raise money).
Computer programmers constantly grapple with the question of how to best use a tool or develop a skill to solve a problem. Again, at a general level the concept is relatable. Programmers and everyday people fall victim to the same problem-solving ruts: becoming attached to their favorite methods, preferring to tweak an existing solution rather than starting over, or
I like Graham's writing because it cuts right to the core. There is no news in his essays. His writing looks at a situation, cuts away all the distractions, and builds on the remaining truth.
One example is an essay about the death penalty. In this essay, he concedes that a debate about morality is important- is it OK to kill a killer? But he writes that this point is trivial until everyone on death row definitely committed the crime for which they were convicted. Based on the Time Magazine article he cites which estimates that 120 of the current 3,000 inmates on death row are innocent, he concludes that the death penalty must be banned.
Another great essay talks about how immigration policy affects the pool of programming talent in the USA. Graham concludes that great programmers are rarely taught. Rather, they seem to possess a set of characteristics that make them exceptional. If the distribution of these traits is even throughout the world, then the share of exceptional programmers that are American is equal to America's share of world population- 5%. Thus, if American tech companies want to maintain their global advantage, they must either hire immigrants or figure out how to compete with just 5% of the world's talent.
I enjoy reading about start-ups and programming. So, I must admit that my recommendation is biased. But the more I read Graham's writing, the more I find his clear logic disrupting my thought process.
So, I think it's worth trying his essays even if you do not have those interests. The potential rewards for anyone's thinking process are simply too significant to dismiss.
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. But of course!
Well, my first recommendation is to subscribe to the TOA email service. Then, read those essays!
2. Which you should!
There are a lot of good reasons for skipping Sundays. The best one I can come up with starts with one of Graham's insights about internet usage.
He compares browsing the internet to walking into a town square. Each is a good mental break from the more pressing problems that require focused attention.
But unlike a walk through downtown, web surfing often closely resembles real work (particularly if web surfing = reading his essays). Better to limit internet consumption so that you are not seduced into thinking you are 'working' when you are actually Wasting Time. And Sunday tends to invite sitting around and reading blogs- so best to avoid starting up altogether.
3. What about the rest of the year?
Read them again?
Reading one of these essays a second time is a safer use of five minutes on the internet than any other 'idea' you might accidentally cook up. But if the impact on thinking is as significant as I suggest, perhaps in a half year's time you will be capable of coming up with your own good alternative.
