Is Paul Graham‘s version of a hacker compatible with Steven Levy‘s description? Do his arguments for and description of the modern hacker change your mind about what it means to be a hacker or the desirability of being one?

Overall I think Paul Graham’s version of a hacker is compatible with Steven Levy’s description of a hacker. Graham’s version does not overly emphasize such things like a lack of social competency or obsession with computers like Levy talks about, but I believe that both of their views embody the overall nature of a hacker.

In both cases it appears to be that curiosity and passion drives each idea of a hacker. This passion has been seen in Levy’s accounts as well as Grahams accounts on how hacking is almost like an obsessive hobby. The hackers in Levy’s account love to make things better and draw enjoyment in merely using a computer. Graham would agree with this idea, he states that, “you can’t do anything really well unless you love it, and if you love to hack you’ll inevitably be working on projects of your own.” Levy would agree with this and cite examples of hackers that revolutionized computers through their passion for hacking and the time they spent on these personal projects.

One of the big concepts of the hacker ethic seem to play a part in how Graham views hackers as well. Graham says that “It is by poking about inside current technology that hackers get ideas for the next generation.” Graham like Levy believe that the freedom of information serves as a catalyst for technological innovation. Both would agree that hackers dislike the idea of copyright and intellectual property as both would hinder a hackers creative process.

It isn’t clear if Graham equates hackers as being nerds, but if he did, these nerd hackers, much like the hackers that Levy describe value merit above all, “Out in the real world, nerds collect in certain places and form their own societies where intelligence is the most important thing.” This collection of nerds and creation of societies Levy might state were seen in the MIT hacker groups and the Homebrew club in the Bay Area.

The main difference I see in the depiction of hackers between these two authors is their compatibility with the professional world.  Whereas Levy sees the true hackers as being a bit socially awkward and obsessive with computers and hacking, Graham sees them as sort of artists who follow unconventional means (different from scientist and engineers) to achieve desired results.  Specifically, Graham brings up the idea of empathy for users when it comes to hackers, something that the true hackers would have cared less for as they though they were superior and knew best, “hackers, like painters, must have empathy to do really great work. You have to be able to see things from the user’s point of view.” I believe that this distinction is what makes Graham’s idea of a hacker one that is more appealing and realistic in the modern age. He understands that in order to be successful a hacker must have ability to connect with those who will ultimately be the end user. They could not be simply disconnected from the outside world and be fully emerged in the computer. This is seen in his idea that a hacker should have a “day job” and work on his creative urges on the side.

Overall I do not believe that the authors views on hackers conflict with each other, I believe that the true nature of a hacker, one fueled by curiosity and innovation is present in both. I do believe that Graham’s view of  a hacker is more sustainable in the modern world and has changed my desirability to be associated as a “hacker”.