Hacker News Reader

Comment by entangld | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's that much of a stretch. When you're poor and you're around other poor people there is no one there to recognize your potential and bring you into the fold (job, connections, inform you of opportunities available). You're just a clever person other poor people know.

There's a big difference between knowing small business owners in the neighborhood and knowing friends of wealthy and or well connected people. When you're poor you are isolated. You have to do everything from scratch and it takes a LONG time to figure out by yourself, what generations of people have already figured out.

The Harvard example could easily be a proxy for other institutions frequented by the elite.

View on HN

Networks expand returns on ability. They allow people to find better places for their skills, better access to employees and capital and expertise. But they do very little for people who lack ability in the first place. An "in" with a hedge fund or VC or a big law firm won't get anyone anywhere without the ability to deliver the goods. Networks work by filtering. That country club golf partner doesn't think to mention his buddy in your field if he doesn't think that buddy will find you impressive. And if he did, his buddy wouldn't be very interested in his introductions.

I think you're logic is a little too strict.

Beginner positions, almost by definition, are lower responsibility and offer some leeway. Networks may expand returns on ability, but they can only guess at the real ability of a new person. Resumes anyone? Many startups right now say they are looking for "cultural fit" first and foremost, so even ability has limits. It would be convenient to assume that there are so many high skilled and irreplaceable people, but they're probably at the top of organizations, not the entry-level.

We're talking about people getting first chances which requires the networks to take a chance as well. No one knows how good anyone is until they're actually working.

" a little too strict" -- I'm trying to be more concise, but my precision hasn't caught up yet.

First, my point was that people don't succeed simply on network entry. I hope this is understood but I don't see it much reflected in the comments.

Second, the point of networks is to reduce the guesswork. The network knows if Joe carried his college workgroups but sucked at tests, or if he aces tests but flakes out. It knows how his sense of commitments and responsibilities matches up against network norms. A lot of people "in the Harvard network" have been _rejected_ by that network b/c it knows them and doesn't like what it sees.

In the Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell said most people are referred by acquaintances, not close ties. Networks give you access to these people and their information is not perfect.

I'm only arguing your first point that networks expand returns on ability. This is just like VC's in the startup world. There are some very good startups that get few meetings with big investors because they have no connections. Even if you have a good product (or are smart), you can go unnoticed. Network expands ability, but the network's vision is limited to the acquaintances of the few people who are in it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com