Hacker News Reader

Comment by ktsmith | Hacker News Reader

Hustler both describes enterprising go getters and sleaze ball unscrupulous jerks. The problem is which meaning is more prevalent. I can't think of a single person I would describe with the word hustler and mean it in a positive way. I also wouldn't use the word hacker to refer to myself or any of my respected peers outside of technical circles due to its very negative connotations with non technical folk. While the premise of the hackers and hustlers essay was good the word choice may be poor for the average person. In my experience you end up spending as much time describing the intended use of the words hacker and hustler as you do making the point about determined and talented people. The end result is the point is lost in technicalities.

View on HN

I agree with the assessment that both terms come with such differing meanings, that they should probably be avoided in the mainstream for the fear of losing the point in the technicalities.

What I took issue with is that the post was in direct response to a piece that outlined exactly what the term hustler meant in the positive sense, then went on to say that they wouldn't want one based on the negative meaning, when in reality they just couldn't find a good one to work with.

As the original article from Micah said: A Hustler on the other other hand is a relationship builder. Someone who can build direct relationships with their customers. They arent really promoters, although they do a lot of promotion. They arent salespeople, although they do a lot of selling. They are passion people. They have the ability to articulate their passion clearly and in a way that gets other people equally passionate.

As a technical person who has worked on several projects with someone who I consider to be an "enterprising go getter" and in my mind a hustler, I think that they can often be greatly under appreciated - especially good ones, and this article didn't do anything to convey that respect.

I may not have been clear enough in explaining it, but my blog post isn't a direct response to Micah's, though I use his post for context. Mine is a response to the people who think they are hustlers (by Micah's definition), promote themselves as such, and are in actuality the type of people I describe. Unfortunately, they significantly outnumber hustlers who hew to the intended definition.

The post is also tinged with some additional dismay at my discovery that some of the hustlers held up in the valley as prime examples of the form have proven themselves to be sleazy as well. One of those people is who I refer to in the sentences about lies.

I think what Andrew ended his post with was really the point:

"I'd love to meet one who fits the intended description, but I imagine the real hustlers avoid the label. I certainly would - if only to avoid being associated with the rest."

I think, and I certainly hope, that Andrew wasn't trying to dismiss or detract from the value of hustlers as described by Micah. I think the entire post was about the choice of language.

From my own perspective, while I greatly appreciated the points Micah made in his essay I felt that the word hustler was being forced onto people for the sole purpose of having a convenient label like "hacker" for the business and pr side of things. That's certainly due to my own preconceived notions and experiences with "hustlers" in the negative sense. I don't think of those amazing business people I've worked with over the years as hustlers, and I'm not sure I have a label that would describe them. I do know that hustler isn't the word I'd use and if I was currently looking for someone like that right now that word wouldn't be used in my search.

A little from column A, a little from column B. ;p

Reply on news.ycombinator.com