Paul Graham's Mixergy interview - How YC helped 172 startups take off | Hacker News Reader

Paul Graham's Mixergy interview - How YC helped 172 startups take off

mixergy.com

152 pointscovercash50 comments

I know I'm not the only poker player on here that loved that Matt Maroon was the first person PG thought of when singling out characteristics of founders. And even better - now it makes our biweekly YC poker game actually feel productive.

I'm only half-joking. I definitely don't think it's a coincidence that I started playing the game over the same period of years that I grew the itch to join and launch startups. It can be just a fun way to blow off steam but as someone born to very non-entrepreneurial parents, it also taught me a whole bunch of lessons that I never got from school or other jobs:

* how to read people and situations

* combine gut instincts with rational analysis

* understand other people's motivations

* do it all quickly, with money on the line and while keeping the fun party atmosphere going by not being a hypercompetitive dick.

I totally agree.

Poker players have to be able to do math in their heads while under stress. Or consider psychology with a bunch of money on the line.

Grace under pressure seems like a pretty decent quality for a founder to have.

i thought he mentioned matt as somebody easily capable of duping him in the interview

He mentioned Matt in that context but also said that he was so impressed with how tough he thought Matt was and was glad to see it was true.

I agree. He seemed to think better of it as it came out and went on a riff about poker players.

Is it all hold-em all the time, round robin, dealer's choice, or what?

No limit holdem, the only game worth playing :)

Worth the hour of your time. One of many interesting tidbits was what personality traits predict success in YC founders (positive: determination, raw intelligence, and ability to sell $30,000 of Obama-branded cereal boxes, negative: meek body language).

not to mention that the reddits won jessica over by being "cute"

I wanted to read these comments before watching the interview... big mistake.

OK, I'm listening to the interview. And confirming that everyone now knows about "the muffins."

Andrew, I love what you're doing at Mixergy, but you weren't giving enough credit to Steve. I hope I didn't say in our interview that there was something in me that made YC call us back or something in me that they saw. If I did (sorry, it's late here and I'm too lazy to relisten to our interview) I'm taking this comment field to correct myself and stress that for whatever reason we got called back (evidently it's a muffin-ness thing, that is, who we were - not our idea) was at the very least because of Steve and me and at most because of Steve alone.

Keep in mind, I was the only non-technical co-founder during that first round of YC. If only I (or me and my clone) had applied to YC, I can guarantee I/we wouldn't have even gotten invited for an interview.

edit for clarity:

>[...] was either because of Steve and me OR because of Steve alone.

The muffins!

Wimps need not apply.

That's a terrific interview, but now I'd want an interview of Jessica Livingstone as she appears to have the nag to spot what makes great founders.

the knack ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knack ) , not the nag ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nag ).

They mean very different things.

Thanks for the english, always good to know

"And, like, who gives a fuck about China? When did [google] make the decision to make their search engine work on a whole bunch of crappy cheap computers? That's important!" I loved that.

Damn Right. That for me was the high of the interview.

I have a hetero man-crush on PG because of this interview.

Be sure to check out PG's q&a in the live announcement discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1112617

Andrew: I love your "Home of the ambitious Upstart" along with a great deal of praise for your interviewing style. I look forward to being a success and doing an interview with you.

Paul: Thanks for taking the time to do this interview. I really enjoyed meeting you in video form and hope that we can chat sometime. I love HN and thanks for investing your time in this "time sink" (as you described it). I for one spend a lot of time thinking about YC, even though I am way too busy making Gridspy work to come out and do a YC round.

Moral of the story: If you get an interview, be really nice to Jessica.

As an aside, I cannot stand people being rude to people that they perceive as the receptionist or somehow lesser in stature to them. Take someone out to lunch and watch how they interact with the waiter and that will tell you a lot about their character.

Did anyone see the show with Richard Branson, "Quest for the best" or something. He almost sent somebody home for failing to assist the taxi driver with the suitcases, after the taxi got stuck. Nobody realized until later that the taxi driver was actually Richard Branson himself.

The Rebel Billionaire: Branson's Quest for the Best (2004)

Couldn't agree more. Its amazing how entitled some people feel.

Restaurants are probably the best example, especially when people are outrageous to the waiter, hostess, or barback when problems are clearly outside of their control (kitchen issues, staffing issues). Other good places to judge this characteristic: Taxi Cabs and customer-support calls (you dont need to be on the call, simply listening to the person will tell you enough).

Also, to be clear, that doesnt mean that people have to be doormats - just not a complete asshole. Empathy goes a long way.

I try to avoid doing business with people who fail this test - is usually means they are highly emotional / rash about decisions, or that they don't mind badgering other people to get their way. Both are bad.

True story: recently, I was having dinner with a young lady and she discovered a hair in her food. She said "Call the waiter over and chew him out for me." If dates could be awarded Darwin Awards, that line won two.

Nice story, I hope you said 'sorry love that's mine' and poked your fingers in her food to take it out:)

I have to say I have an equal dislike for people who assume that any female who dares to enter the big bad world of technology must have some sort of clerical role.

A receptionist is in lesser stature to you, though—you're trying to deal with the receptionist's boss as an equal, so when you get the boss's subordinate, they are then logically your subordinate as well (assuming transitivity of classism.) To put it another way—no matter how old you are, your friend's little brother has less stature than you. I'm not saying this is right or proper—but this is how the math works, when, for example, figuring out how polite to cast your speech as in Japanese.

Separately, though, I do think that the very concept of being made to deal with someone's personal secretary instead of the person themselves is a rude gesture by that person, because usually a personal secretary has no authority to help you with your problems. It's the same sort of rudeness implied by redirecting you five times to different departments on a support call, but immediately and in person. (Note that a receptionist in, e.g. a company lobby is a totally separate and useful thing; it is only when the receptionist has a one-to-one relationship with the number of people they route information to that it becomes a snub.)

"Don't be yourself--be someone a little nicer." Mignon McLaughlin

At US companies--I can't speak to how things work in Japan--departmental admins/secretaries often wield an enormous amount of influence and can absolutely help or hurt you. A personal secretary almost always has the ability to help you if they choose to. Your attitude toward them can make a difference.

Niceness is not the same thing as determination. Also, trying to flatter someone described as a good judge of character doesn't seem like a good idea to me. /serious

"... Moral of the story: If you get an interview, be really nice to Jessica ..."

Bad idea.

I can't tell for sure, but what Jessica is most likely interpreting is sub-conscious gestural leakage. A fancy term meaning you exhibit both facial and gestural signs that can be read. For example if you are be probed to check for flexibility, a necessity in "fog of war" situations in Startups, and you exhibit a "fearful" or "sad" facial micro-expression ~ http://face.paulekman.com/aboutmett2.aspx this could be how Jessica is determining a flake. You can tell a person maybe showing certain emotions but you cannot be sure if they are "conscious" (lying) or "unconscious". Judgment is required. Conscious lying can also be masked by certain types of pharmaceuticals which can mask these feelings.

YCombinator could improve themselves in the selection process by getting better at recognising the fundamentals of faces, emotion and deception ~ http://www.paulekman.com/micros/ Naturals such as Jessica interpret but not fully understand the science of it meaning you can get false positives.

The biggest surprise for me is that Paul claims he personally has to look the Y-combinator pattern up on Wikipedia. Though I suspect some false modesty here because he didn't want to side track the interview.

As for the rest, lots of interesting details in the general theme that I've come to expect from him. The phrase I like that sums it up is Ready! Fire! Aim! (Add appropriate discussion of tracer bullets.)

I'm not sure he actually said he looked it up on Wikipedia. Just that he always had to look it up. (I'd have to re-watch it to be sure.)

The interviewer was the one who said he had read the definition on Wikipedia. Unless pg was also implying that.

The automated transcript said that Paul said it.

I did not listen to the presentation, so I don't know whether the automated transcript was wrong.

Interesting interview, nice to hear from PG, how Y Combinator evolved. Look forward to have something like Y Combinator in India.

There is something like YCombinator in India:

http://iaccelerator.org/

Nobody has heard of this Indian version and more than that: 1)What are the credentials of the guy/organization who started it? Well IIM, the parent behind this clone produces managers and in Tech World, Managers are not good at anything. As Jason Fried said in that bigthink interview, the managers just interrupt and don't let the real doers do their job. 2)How many companies they have invested in? Well, not many. 3)Look at the portfolio and tell me if you have heard of any company. I live in India and I have not heard of single one myself. let alone someone far away in US.

Just like PG himself mentioned in the interview that you can go to The Valley and pitch for your idea. Many people from other countries go to the camp.

I for one, won't waste my time with any Indian or Asian version. I want real stuff else I am OK without it.

you don't have to be so harsh. At least they are trying. Better than nothing.

And it drew a lot of flak for trying to compare itself to YC [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=842882]

Andrew, thanks for the shout out. I like your interview style because it is you, especially because you're always trying to improve your interviewing skills.

I loved the way Paul seems to concentrate on his strengths and works with other people who have strengths where he doesn't. He can concentrate on turning a startup into a winner, knowing he's got good legal advice and someone to judge people in 10 minutes flat.

I think that is an important strength in any successful entrepreneur, leader or manager.

I love the whole "hire experts and get out of the way" approach to team building.

here's the docs page he mentioned: http://ycombinator.com/seriesaa.html

I really enjoy Mixergy interviews. Andrew is doing an incredible job--this was no exception. I'm also enjoying The Changelog, which is similar, though they interview people who contribute to OOS.

I think my favorite quote has to be: "You're in Beunos Aires? That's the Internet for you."

Paul, if you're here and have the time, can you define what you mean by "wimps"?

People who give up too early, for any reason.

That's pretty good. Basically, people who are prone to give up when they encounter resistance; people who are the opposite of tough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com