Paul Graham “Ideas for Startups”で気になった部分についてコメントしています。

In theory you could stick together ideas at random and see what you came up with. What if you built a peer-to-peer dating site? Would it be useful to have an automatic book? Could you turn theorems into a commodity? When you assemble ideas at random like this, they may not be just stupid, but semantically ill-formed. What would it even mean to make theorems a commodity? You got me. I didn’t think of that idea, just its name.

　この部分ではアイディアを考える際に、これまで正当とされてきた考えをまとめる方法を否定しているということが面白いのではないかと思います。さらにこのように続けています。

You might come up with something useful this way, but I never have. It’s like knowing a fabulous sculpture is hidden inside a block of marble, and all you have to do is remove the marble that isn’t part of it. It’s an encouraging thought, because it reminds you there is an answer, but it’s not much use in practice because the search space is too big.

「私はこの方法で役に立つ考えを思いついたことは一度もない」などと一刀両断しています。しかし、正当と考えられてきた方法だと考えがランダムでありすぎて、まとめることが困難であるという問題点を指摘しだします。

I find that to have good ideas I need to be working on some problem. You can’t start with randomness. You have to start with a problem, then let your mind wander just far enough for new ideas to form.

ランダムな問いかけから始めるのではなく、問いから始めることを推奨しています。

In a way, it’s harder to see problems than their solutions. Most people prefer to remain in denial about problems. It’s obvious why: problems are irritating. They’re problems! Imagine if people in 1700 saw their lives the way we’d see them. It would have been unbearable. This denial is such a powerful force that, even when presented with possible solutions, people often prefer to believe they wouldn’t work.