Here's the link to my blog post: http://blog.myadversity.com/2014/04/my-personal-response-and-continuation.html
The link to the essay by Paul Graham is at: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
It's a lot to read, so here's the tl;dr version of my blog post: In his essay, "Why Nerds Are Unpopular," Paul Graham explains that the hierarchy of popularity in high school works well for jocks, but not for nerds. Nerds choose to be intelligent rather than popular. He offers some relief to young nerds by informing them that, in the real life hierarchy of success, nerds have the advantage and jocks don't.
In my response, I argue that a nerd who deviates from the status quo still meets relentless opposition to real world success; perhaps even more so than a nerdy jock who deviates from the status quo path to popularity.
I've noticed that PG in his essays solves a difficult question by transforming it, e.g see http://paulgraham.com/hubs.html (3rd paragraph) and http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html (6th paragraph). So transforming questions yields much better answers. Any advice on how to develop this skill? Can you point to some principles or recommend some books?
http://blog.myadversity.com/2014/04/my-personal-response-and-continuation.html
The link to the essay by Paul Graham is at:
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
It's a lot to read, so here's the tl;dr version of my blog post:
In his essay, "Why Nerds Are Unpopular," Paul Graham explains that the hierarchy of popularity in high school works well for jocks, but not for nerds. Nerds choose to be intelligent rather than popular. He offers some relief to young nerds by informing them that, in the real life hierarchy of success, nerds have the advantage and jocks don't.
In my response, I argue that a nerd who deviates from the status quo still meets relentless opposition to real world success; perhaps even more so than a nerdy jock who deviates from the status quo path to popularity.