from Hacker News

See Randomness

by kunqiana on 8/24/09, 2:23 AM with 91 comments

  • by nreece on 8/24/09, 2:49 AM

      "You see this goblet?" asks Achaan Chaa, the Thai meditation master.

  "For me this glass is already broken. I enjoy it; I drink out of it.
  It holds my water admirably, sometimes even reflecting the sun in
  beautiful patterns. If I should tap it, it has a lovely ring to it.
  But when I put this glass on the shelf and the wind knocks it over
  or my elbow brushes it off the table and it falls to the ground and
  shatters, I say, ‘Of course.’

  When I understand that the glass is already broken,
  every moment with it is precious."

  • by look_lookatme on 8/24/09, 5:58 AM

    No offense to PG, but I really feel this is a better piece on, maybe not the same idea, but a similar sentiment:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html

  • by miked on 8/24/09, 7:11 AM

    Graham's Razor: If you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.. (With apologies to Mr. Occam.)

    BTW, I think the last line might be better phrased as "See indifference." The ubiquity of causation requires that much/most of the word isn't random. It just doesn't give a damn about us. "Seeing indifference", and how to get past it, is probably also a good starting point for new businesses pondering their marketing plan.

  • by projectileboy on 8/24/09, 3:45 AM

    It's probably not a coincidence that Mr. Graham revisited this essay after having his first child; there's nothing quite like parenthood for ejecting you from the center of your own universe.

  • by sovande on 8/24/09, 3:32 AM

    That article seemed full of purpose the first time I read it, the second time, not so much. More like a random selection of slogans and triviality.

  • by thunk on 8/24/09, 4:42 AM

    Even the concept of "me" turns out to be fuzzy around the edges if you examine it too closely.

    Try not to examine it too closely without proper guidance, though: it's a little more than just fuzzy.

  • by palsecam on 8/24/09, 1:29 PM

    > No one knows who said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"...

    It is said to be Napoléon Bonaparte.

    > ...but it is a powerful idea.

    Yes anyway, this is what matters and this is "true".

  • by amichail on 8/24/09, 2:44 AM

    I think people who pursue startups see the world as revolving around them.

    In any case, I would like to know about tech examples of this:

    So if you want to discover things that have been overlooked till now, one really good place to look is in our blind spot: in our natural, naive belief that it's all about us. And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do.

  • by prakash on 8/24/09, 8:31 AM

    No, it turns out, we're not even the protagonists: we're just the latest model vehicle our genes have constructed to travel around in.

    PG: Did you write this on etherpad? Can you share that link? I wanted to get a look at how this essay was shaped, specifically the above mentioned sentence. Thanks!

  • by kirubakaran on 8/24/09, 2:47 AM

    More recommendations of books that can change our thinking, please...

  • by cschep on 8/24/09, 3:07 AM

    So it has been proved we weren't created by (a) (g)God? Truly?

    I'm not convinced.

  • by col16 on 8/24/09, 5:32 AM

    The reality is quite the opposite. The history of ides is not a history of gradually discarding the assumption that it's all about us - rather, it's a history of building up and defending the assumption that it's all about us. Why? Because if there is no God, there is no ultimate being which we are accountable to. Although evolution doesn't have to lead to the conclusion that there is no God, we happily assume it does---because then we can all be our own gods, making up our own rules. Sure, we might not think the sun revolves around our world any more, but we are selfish in many many other (more subtle) ways.

  • by bluishgreen on 8/24/09, 5:09 AM

    When something bad happens most of the times its the situation/randomness that is the cause, when something good happens most of the time it is caused by a person.

    Humans are the vehicles of anti-randomness, we make patterns.

  • by davidmathers on 8/24/09, 6:42 AM

    Great little essay until the last line.

    Yay:

    Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.

    This is exactly my primary article of faith in life. (By faith I mean the stuff I fill the missing gaps in my knowledge with in order to make actionable decisions.)

    Nay:

    See randomness.

    1. I'm not sure what this even means. How does one learn to see randomness and just what are they seeing when they see it?

    2. It's not the positive version of "stop inserting yourself in the chain of causality". (Is there even a positive way to say "stop doing that thing you're doing"?)

    I say pick b.

    b is not random. It's just not about you.

  • by rgrieselhuber on 8/24/09, 3:15 AM

    "See randomness" has been a favorite proverb of mine ever since I read it. I also tend to use it when evaluating systems / situations from a risk management perspective (eg. raising kids).

  • by paulodeon on 8/24/09, 8:06 AM

    While this makes perfect sense from an intellectual standpoint, pragmatically speaking it won't help you much in day to day life.

    Self-centrism, while no doubt obstructive in the search for a cure to cancer can be quite useful when say, asking for a raise or deciding whether to ask that girl out.

    I find it quite useful, when unsure about something, to assume the option that is most beneficial to you.

    This positive self-centrism could also come in quite handy when starting a startup.

  • by mwerty on 8/24/09, 2:45 AM

    Read the chapter on sense making from The Black Swan for a possible reason for why we normally don't see randomness.

  • by arijo on 8/24/09, 10:01 PM

    So - if evolution does not have a purpose - let's make it our mission, as human beings, to seek for truth in life and for life in a world more resilient to the randomness of the universe.

  • by ibsulon on 8/24/09, 5:35 PM

  • by nopassrecover on 8/24/09, 2:52 AM

    I'd find it hard to make abstractions if I assumed everything was random coincidence.

  • by Create on 8/24/09, 10:36 AM

    Quite to the contrary, life/living is about fighting entropy (or second law of thermodynamics), "randomness".

    This leads to the most famous and one of the most controversial elements of the [a] play. Adam cannot understand what the purpose of his existence is if mankind's future is so bleak. The last line is spoken by God: "Mondottam, ember, küzdj és bízva bízzál!" ("I have told you, Man: fight on, and trust!") Depending on the interpretation, this can either be seen cynically as the words of a capricious deity, or else pointing to a "hope beyond all hope," that God has a purpose for all things which man may not necessarily comprehend. This is markedly different from Paradise Lost, where the Christian hope is explicitly spelled out.

    listen to the talk: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2641555....

  • by earle on 8/24/09, 3:21 AM

    If you can observe randomness, does that affect its randomness?

  • by enthalpyx on 8/24/09, 4:40 AM

    This article is random, I don't see any purpose