FWIW, I disagree with a bit of what PG espouses (and have publicly done so a few times on Hacker News). People obviously attack every single one of Paul’s essays– this is the first (and only) time that I can remember actually being so surprised/confused by a response that I felt compelled to write about it.

And I’m in your camp that the writer’s intent doesn’t matter much if no one hears what he’s saying… What I found peculiar is that most people DID hear what he was trying to say. I talked to lots of people about that essay– and even ran it by a bunch of friends (coders) that I know who aren’t particularly familiar with PG. I showed it to my wife, who is in non-profit fundraising. Few seemed to get as grumpy as you did. So yaw– “it’s not what you say, it’s what they hear”. But everyone “hears” something different. If the hyperbolic way you restated Paul’s points is really what you heard, I think it was miles away from the middle of the bell curve, so to speak. It seemed like you had some ideas you wanted to attack and you squished Paul’s statements into a certain box so you could be justified in attacking them.

“As a writer, I find that if a significant percentage of the audience hears something different than I said, then I have failed as a writer.”

The question here is how significant is the percentage? I think it’s small and I think you’re in the minority, but I’m not sure (which is why I talked to a bunch of people who didn’t have an agenda before I wrote this post). You’re CERTAINLY not in a clear majority.

As a writer, I find that if a significant percentage of the audience hears something different than I said, then I have failed as a writer.

I’ve met Paul Graham, and he doesn’t agree. Like Bobby Brown, that’s his perogative, I suppose.

As you said in a recent blog post — it’s not what you say, it’s what they hear.

How on earth can anyone ever be so smart as to account for the poor reading comprehension of everyone who might read his article? Should that even be an issue for an author?

I read the article, and it read to me like someone saying “you can do it to”, not “you are lame because you haven’t”. IMHO, the people that ead it as the latter have a chip on their shoulder, and feel like losers compared to founders, hence the misreading. That says more about them than it does about teh author.

I think it is simply a reaction against being categorized. I posit that most people see themselves as complex animals; each with their own characteristics that make them feel unique.

This kind of reaction happens whenever someone passes judgment on a group of people, rather than individuals. Especially when the person doing the judging is not seen to be part of the group being judged.

Therefore, if any part of the article could be reasonably interpreted as stereotyping any other group of people, whether the stereotype is true, or even intended, then you should not be surprised at the emotional responses.

Great example: There’s a study out there that seems to indicate that NOT having children results in happier marriages and slightly more “life satisfaction” than the alternative (assuming it’s a choice– people who want to have kids but can’t tend to be miserable and regretful about it). Bring this up in a roomful of parents. Try to be as delicate and balanced as you can. Point out that the study could be flawed. Mention that it’s a generalization and there are certainly exceptions on both sides. Hedge your statement any way you can, and I’d wager you STILL get some of those parents frothing at the mouth and attacking the argument any and every way they can.

I can’t quite understand why this is, but I suspect it has to do with their being insecure about their choices.

My _guess_ is that he knew that the post was inflammatory. He just wanted the links, clicks and buzz that went with the reaction.