Comment by bootload | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bootload | Hacker News Reader

"... We can imagine wild wolves scavenging on a rubbish tip on the edge of a village. Most of them, fearful of men throwing stones and spears, have a very long flight distance. They sprint for the safety of the forest as soon as a human appears in the distance. But a few individuals, by genetic chance, happen to have a slightly shorter flight distance than the average. Their readiness to take slight risks — they are brave, shall we say, but not foolhardy — gains them more food than their more risk-averse rivals. ..."

I see flight distance every day outside with birds but have never seen it explained well.

There are some birds like Coots (Purple Swamphen, Pukeko ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pukeko or Porphyrio porphyrio) who's flight distance is about 20m. I cannot take an photo from the front ~http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/492391687/in/set-72157... The same with the little Corella (Cactua Gymnopis) ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3594879014/in/set-7215... No matter how careful the approach they always fly away at a set distance. Now compare this to the common everyday Magpie (Cracticus tibicen ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Magpie) who even a young age ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3046710061/in/set-7215... don't seem too concerned how close I get ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3993808413/in/set-7215... The Sulphur Crested Cockatoos (Cacatua galerita ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur-crested_Cockatoo) also seem to have evolved a shortened flight distance ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/490365274/in/set-72157...

Now the question I'd really be interested in is, "could ideas like 'flight distance' be explained in Startups with respect to risk?", "Can you think of Startups in business evolutionary terms? where founders take more risks to obtain more personal reward?", "What are the 'pleiotropy' traits associated with Startups? and are they close to what's described in 'Startups in 13 sentences'?" ~ http://paulgraham.com/13sentences.html

The most obvious pleiotrope that I can think of associated with startups (possibly all businesses) is that CEOs tend to be, putting it bluntly, jerks.

The same qualities that make for a successful CEO -- ruthlessness, tenacity, the ability to play fast-and-loose with the facts when necessary -- also make for the kind of person you don't want to hang around with much. The better CEOs I've seen are able to compartmentalize this ability: they can be likeable, loyal friends, and restrict their ruthlessness to their business relationships. In the close-knit startup world, where the lines between business partners and friends blur, this is less practical.

I'm not saying I would change this -- I need a CEO who is ruthless -- but the side-effects are unfortunate.

I disagree. There are those people out there, and some of them are successful, but I dont believe that being a jerk makes you successful, and while I dont have any hard data on this, I do know a number of highly successful business owners who are also decent human beings.

It turns out, if your model makes sense, you are selling things to people that they want, and they like you for it. There is no need to be ruthless in these types of scenarios, just effective. Look at Zappos.

It may be true that 'Jerks' get ahead many times because they are willing to cut throats to do so, but that doesnt mean that you need to be a jerk to succeed, especially if you learn to define success a little differently.

> The better CEOs I've seen are able to compartmentalize this ability: they can be likeable, loyal friends, and restrict their ruthlessness to their business relationships.

I've been thinking about an idea in this vein a lot recently due to a less than ideal business transaction. It seems to me that the idea of a ruthless CEO is a myth constructed and put up on a pedestal by a largely male business community (combative/competitive instincts, right?). A successful business person need not be ruthless in the strict dictionary definition. What they need to be is persistent in pursuing their own economic goals or those of their organization. From the outside, this might look like ruthlessness, especially in a transaction between friends, but experience has shown me that applying social norms to a situation where market norms should rule can end badly.

I've got an other question: Might that shying away from humans be kind of a folk tale amongst species? Which new/remote species don't know about? Like Galápagos?

Not a folk tale, just a visible representation of the local competitive environment. Animals in the Galapagos are generally less flighty because the entire ecosystem is not very competitive: everyone lives off the bounty of the sea. The booby birds, the iguanas, the tortoises... are not intimidated by us because there are no land or air predators to eat them -- not in their risk profiles. Like any other security measure, you optimize for the challenges you expect.

In other environments, apex predators still have a flight response because they still have predatory competition (e.g., wolves against other wolves, or other dangerous situations). The flight response increases based on individual vulnerability - e.g., a well-fed pride of lions will barely observe nearby vehicles on safari (they are some of the most self-confident animals you may encounter) but hungrier singles take more notice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com