Top
Best
New

Posted by tyre 3 hours ago

I should have loved biology (2020)(jsomers.net)
128 points | 55 commentspage 2
alpn 2 hours ago|
[2020]

previous discussions:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25136422

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32035054

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40103590

dang 45 minutes ago|
Thanks! Macroexpanded:

I should have loved biology (2020) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40103590 - April 2024 (253 comments)

I should have loved biology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32035054 - July 2022 (271 comments)

I should have loved biology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25136422 - Nov 2020 (298 comments)

jhbadger 2 hours ago||
>How come we memorized chemical formulas but didn’t talk about that [exciting stuff about developmental biology]

You can argue that about any subject. People want to take physics and learn stuff about black holes but instead the intro courses are about balls rolling down inclined planes and other such "boring" things. But you have to know the basics before you can understand the "cool" stuff!

drc500free 1 hour ago||
This is why I loved biology; I must have had better high school teachers than the OP, because basically all of what he writes was conveyed.
randomImmigrant 1 hour ago||
Yes, you should have. While I can understand that not all high school biology teachers will drag you by the nose and make you see the wonder of biology, and textbooks are often awful, I’m confused why this means the author couldn’t go read on their own (as they eventually did).

I could write a similar screed, as a biologist, that I should have loved computer science, but find it a zoo of names that somehow manage to make even less sense than biology.

Yet natural curiousity kept me interested enough in comouters, and the day to day need to interact with them meant I had to have some understanding of these systems.

What is sad is, as a society, we don’t think of biology as being similarly useful in our daily interactions with the environment and other people.

But I urge anyone who’s annoyed by the biology text book and the list of names: please put in effort to look below. Neither biology nor the brain is a complete black box, and what we have learned over the past few decades is thick with beautiful structure and organization.

But also accept that biology is different. You can’t compact all of it to a few equations because unlike physics and basic elemental chemistry, biochemistry is still finding new rules and new efficiencies.

The rules of biology will never neatly compact to the point where individual molecules and cells and their identities are meaningless. That is the price of complexity that is under constant evolutionary pressure.

But we don’t need to remember every name, thankfully. At some point, you learn to classify by composition and function sufficiently that a wholly new protein just slots in, updates your mental model, and you move on better informed.

zabzonk 1 hour ago||
As an ex-microbiologist, the thing I can't stand is how smelly life is. Be in the same room as gangrenous flesh and your intestinal fortitude will be severely tested.

Other than that, I don't mind it, but I still prefer silicon.

loourr 2 hours ago||
This resonated strongly. I hated biology as a kid but have been blown away at the wonder of it all as I've started to study it as an adult. I wish more of the magnificence and wonder of it all was conveyed vs the rote memorization that is so commonly taught.
RivieraKid 2 hours ago||
One of the threads like this one has prompted me to start reading the book Molecular Biology of the Cell several years ago. I need to get back to it.
yipinwong 2 hours ago||
If i had access to articles/blogs/YT/TT/AI like this, I'd have had become Leornardo Da Vinci.

I used to be inquisitive but coming from a poor neighborhood, I had no access in the olden days.

This type of article should persist.

jedbrooke 2 hours ago|
maybe a stupid question, but, don’t you have access to all those things now? What’s stopping you from becoming Da Vinci now?
owebmaster 47 minutes ago||
He probably thinks his vibecoded things are in some genius level
Nicholas_C 3 hours ago||
>It was only in college, when I read Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach

I see this book referenced all the time (HN, tech CEOs, misc. articles, etc), especially from folks who got into AI early. Is it really that amazing? Or is this some kind of signaling folks like to do to prove their smarts? Or both?

GPerson 2 hours ago||
The author prefers people read his newer book I am a strange loop since it more directly represents his views. He’s apparently frustrated that nobody gets the point of GEB (which is to discuss consciousness).
ThrowawayR2 2 hours ago|||
If you like the mathematical aspects of computer science and computability theory, cranking out proofs using lambda calculus and Turing machines fascinates you, and you think Lisp is an elegant language, you may like it. For the average developer, it's unlikely to be interesting.
intrasight 3 hours ago|||
I read it shortly after it came out when I was in high school and it was sort of a mind blow - perhaps just because in the early 80s we didn't really get exposed to so many interesting ideas.
stevenwoo 20 minutes ago||
Back then I got most of my books used from Half Price Books (prior to being able to do a quick internet search for a review) so bought both this and Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of… mostly off the title and cover blurbs and once I was able to grok both was happy to have made it through and kind of underwhelmed probably due to the hype building my expectations too high.
marssaxman 2 hours ago|||
It is unique; you've certainly never read anything else quite like it. Hofstadter is a deep and careful thinker who loves language and wordplay. He writes in order to communicate something he has spent a long time thinking about, not merely for the sake of cranking out a book. I've read a number of his other books, and some of his ways of thinking have stuck with me for years and shaped the way I see the world.
zem 2 hours ago|||
I wasn't a huge fan, to be honest. some good ideas, but overall the book felt self-indulgent. "metamagical themas" is a far better book if you want to read one thing by hofstadter, and "le ton beau de marot" if you want a deep dive into something.
sublinear 2 hours ago|||
It's definitely signaling for the majority of people still talking about it today. Though, that's not saying much that you didn't already know about the groups you mentioned.

Being that it's more of a Gen Xer pop-sci book, it's not to "prove smarts", but to share a vibe. It belongs on someone's shelf next to their copies of The Naked Lunch and Aja. Maybe even a signed copy of A New Kind of Science?

I'm not trying to be dismissive. It's just true. Nobody is even ashamed of it, nor should be. It's an interesting and still relevant perspective, but because there's no resolution to this line of thinking, many find it underwhelming. There's no "aha" moment to be found in any of this. Just lots of introspection.

You gotta take the good with the bad though. The tall grass is an easy place to hide.

soulofmischief 2 hours ago||
It's a good book, despite its flaws. It offers a lot of deep insights and I think it really inspired a lot of people, myself included.
baist0 1 hour ago|
OMG! it's true! I have skipped so much!
More comments...