Firstly, the framing of “heresy” as a near-inevitable response to novelty feels romanticized. While it is historically true that figures like Galileo and Darwin faced opposition, equating all resistance to new ideas as heresy overstates the case. In many instances, skepticism towards new ideas is not a prejudiced defense of “mistaken assumptions” but a necessary and rational filter to separate promising concepts from poor, unproven, or harmful ones. Innovation is not inherently virtuous merely because it is countercultural or challenges norms. Some ideas deserve to be rejected precisely because they are bad, misguided, or based on flawed reasoning—not just because they are unpopular.

Secondly, the essay assumes a binary worldview: ideas are either heretical but valuable or accepted but mistaken. The reality is far messier. Many so-called “heretical” ideas fail not because of institutional resistance but due to lack of empirical evidence, practical feasibility, or logical coherence. By romanticizing heresy, Graham risks encouraging contrarianism for its own sake, a mindset that can lead to chasing novelty without discipline or rigor.

Thirdly, the depiction of “dead zones” around cherished assumptions is intriguing but vague. The essay doesn’t sufficiently grapple with how organizations or societies can constructively distinguish between protecting valuable frameworks and dogmatically suppressing innovation. It overlooks the practical mechanisms—peer review, evidence-based debate, iterative testing—that help balance skepticism with openness. Without addressing how to navigate this balance, the essay offers little actionable insight.

Lastly, the essay could do more to acknowledge that innovation often requires more than just identifying heresy. It requires building credible evidence, persuading stakeholders, scaling solutions, and sometimes, patience. Discovering “hidden” ideas is only the starting point; the hard work lies in making them withstand scrutiny and deliver real value.

In summary, while Paul Graham’s essay captures an evocative narrative about challenging orthodoxies, it oversimplifies the complex dynamics of innovation, downplays the legitimate reasons for skepticism, and doesn’t provide a robust framework for how to discern and foster truly valuable new ideas. It risks glamorizing being “wrong” as an inherent part of being “right,” which is not necessarily a healthy or productive mindset for innovators or organizations.

---

Paul Graham’s essay "Novelty and Heresy" offers a familiar refrain: innovation often stems from challenging entrenched assumptions, and doing so invites accusations of heresy. While the core idea has merit, the piece feels more like a recycled platitude than a profound insight. Graham’s argument—that groundbreaking ideas are often hidden behind mistaken assumptions and that societies or organizations that suppress heresy stifle progress—reads as a surface-level observation dressed up with historical name-drops like Galileo and Darwin. These examples, while iconic, are overused to the point of cliché, and they fail to add depth to his point. Most readers already know that paradigm shifts face resistance; we don’t need another reminder.

The essay’s biggest flaw is its lack of specificity or actionable insight. Graham vaguely warns against cultures that “pounce on heresy” but doesn’t explore what that looks like in a modern context or how to navigate it. Are we talking about corporate groupthink, academic dogma, or social media cancel culture? He doesn’t say. His suggestion to “look for heresies” as a source of new ideas sounds clever but is ultimately hollow—how does one systematically identify a heresy without already knowing the mistaken assumption? It’s a circular problem he doesn’t address. And while he gestures at the “dead zones” of unexplored ideas around bad assumptions, he offers no framework for mapping or exploring them. It’s all abstract hand-waving.

Moreover, Graham’s tone carries a whiff of self-congratulation, as if merely pointing out the existence of heresy makes one a bold thinker. This feels particularly ironic coming from someone embedded in the tech startup ecosystem, where “disruption” is practically a religion. If anything, the modern equivalent of heresy isn’t always suppressed—it’s often fetishized, with every wannabe innovator claiming to challenge the status quo while chasing VC dollars. Graham ignores how the pendulum can swing too far the other way, where contrarianism for its own sake becomes a lazy shortcut to seeming innovative, often producing more noise than value.

Finally, the essay feels dated even for 2019, let alone 2023. The dynamics of ideas, assumptions, and resistance have evolved with the internet’s amplification of echo chambers and misinformation. Heresy today isn’t just about challenging scientific or cultural dogma—it’s often about navigating a landscape where “mistaken assumptions” are weaponized for political or economic gain. Graham’s piece doesn’t engage with this complexity, sticking to a sanitized, almost academic view of intellectual rebellion.

In short, while the essay isn’t wrong, it’s shallow and uninspired. It’s the kind of thing you nod along to before forgetting it entirely. If Y Combinator is resharing this now, I hope it’s to spark discussion rather than to suggest it’s a timeless gem. We need sharper, more contextual thinking about innovation and resistance in today’s world—not reheated truisms.

---

This critique aims to be direct and honest, focusing on the essay’s lack of depth, relevance, and actionable insight while acknowledging the basic validity of its premise. Let me know if you'd like me to adjust the tone or focus!

Core Argument: Graham argues that new ideas often face resistance because they challenge cherished, but mistaken, assumptions. He suggests that organizations which suppress "heresies" stifle innovation and that exploring these "heresies" is a fertile ground for new ideas.

Critique:

Oversimplification of Resistance: The essay paints a picture where resistance to new ideas solely* stems from attachments to mistaken assumptions. This is a convenient, but ultimately naive, perspective. Resistance also arises from:
* Inherent Risk Aversion: People and organizations are often incentivized to maintain the status quo. New ideas, even good ones, represent risk, disruption, and the potential for failure.
* Resource Constraints: Implementing new ideas requires resources (time, money, effort). Even if an idea is recognized as valuable, there might not be the capacity to pursue it.
* Political Considerations: New ideas can threaten existing power structures or vested interests within an organization. Resistance can be a deliberate tactic to protect those interests.
* Genuine Disagreement: Not every "heresy" is a brilliant insight. Some ideas are simply bad, impractical, or based on flawed reasoning. Dismissing all resistance as stemming from "mistaken assumptions" is intellectually lazy.
* Elitism and the "Lone Genius" Trope: The essay subtly reinforces the idea of the lone genius battling against the ignorant masses. While it's true that groundbreaking thinkers often face opposition, the essay doesn't acknowledge the collaborative and iterative nature of innovation. New ideas are rarely born in a vacuum; they build upon existing knowledge and require feedback and refinement.
Lack of Practical Application: While the essay identifies a potential source of new ideas (challenging assumptions), it offers little in the way of how* to do this effectively. How do you distinguish between a valuable "heresy" and a crackpot theory? How do you navigate the inevitable resistance? The essay remains at a high level of abstraction, making it difficult to translate into concrete action.
* Potential for Justifying Bad Ideas: The framing could be misused to justify poorly thought-out or even harmful ideas. Someone could claim their idea is being unfairly suppressed due to "heresy," even if it lacks merit.
* Ignoring the Importance of Incremental Innovation: The focus on radical "heresies" undervalues the importance of incremental improvements and optimizations within existing paradigms. Not all valuable innovation requires overturning established assumptions.

In Conclusion:

Graham's essay has a kernel of truth: challenging assumptions can lead to new insights. However, it presents an oversimplified view of innovation and resistance, neglecting the complex interplay of risk aversion, resource constraints, political considerations, and the collaborative nature of progress. It risks being interpreted as a justification for contrarianism for its own sake, rather than a call for rigorous and well-supported challenges to existing ideas. It is an interesting thought piece, but lacks practical applicability and ignores crucial aspects of how innovation actually works.

To find some external opinions about the Paul Graham's essay, I will search for: