Hacker News Reader

The reason one should be careful of who they listen to (even when listening with a critical mind) is groupthink. Here's what happens when you listen to someone:

- You agree with the things you have reason to agree with

- You disagree with the things you have reason to disagree with

- Everything else they say gets an uptick of social proof

There a bunch of stuff that you're totally ignorant about, and you have just absorbed a tiny bit of this guy's opinions about it. The stuff you know is safe, but the stuff you don't know is polluted.

I try to pretty actively prune the communities I pay attention to. I have serious misgivings about spending so much time on Hacker News. I'm relatively ignorant about business: there are things I don't even know that I don't know about. And on Hacker News I'm getting a bunch of brainwashing on those topics without being able to critically evaluate it. With respect to those things I'd be better off hashing stuff out on my own like a pre-school toddler, building up lived experience with which I can evaluate what people are saying.

But on the other hand, I learn lots of cool tricks here, so I've decided it's worth the risk.

And personally, I decided it was worth the risk to look at what Barr has to say. But I think the risk is clear and present.

Yes, that's a valid point.

Whenever you get someone's good attitudes you also get a little (or a lot if you aren't careful) of the not-so-good attitudes.

Great to know you are willing to take the risk to learn something new.

I tend to ignore advice from people who I consider unethical because I generally find that their advice runs counter to my personal goals, my approach to work, and (obviously) my ethics.

Take your advice, for example:

One of my sites got closed down by a hosting company. Some stupid reason. I was thinking about closing down the other site hosted by that hosting company too - Didn't, Stuck with it and that site has ended up making me $440K over the last two years.

I've never had a site closed down by a hosting company. I don't even know why I would have a site closed down by a hosting company. I also don't know why I'd walk away from a product I'd developed if it was shut down by a hosting company.

To me, it appears that you (and Bob Parsons) have VERY different ideas about personal fulfillment, and as such, your advice (and his) don't really seem to apply to me, outside of the fortune cookies style generalisms ("don't quit", "push yourself").

It was shut down by the hosting company for nothing illegal. It was just one of those - we had something very specific in our terms which you didn't read - type of things.

Nothing like gambling or illegal or porn or anything. Just a minor technicality.

I find it interesting that you would attack me or to be precise assume that I'm supporting Bob Parsons' ethical or moral fiber.

All I'm saying is -> Good strategy is good strategy.

It seems to you like a platitude. It seems to this billionaire like reality.

Perhaps you should try it before you write it off.

Besides, the stuff he writes aren't fortune cooke type generalisms. When you most want to quit is usually when you are closest to success - that's a remarkably accurate statement.

Look back at your own life and if you've mastered any skills you'll see the truth in it.

Seriously, try to imagine what you would think of the points if they were written by someone who fell into your 'good person' bucket and think about whether they hold true or not.

"the stuff he writes aren't fortune cooke type generalisms. When you most want to quit is usually when you are closest to success - that's a remarkably accurate statement."

Accurate or not it would still fit admirably in to a fortune cookie.

Back when there were such things as used book stores, you could get yourself a stack of books chock full of cliches like this for a couple of bucks.

>When you most want to quit is usually when you are closest to success - that's a remarkably accurate statement.

Accurate in the sense that a broken clock is right twice a day. As you accumulate failures, your motivation flags and your desire to quit increases. Now, this might meant that you're about to make a breakthrough that will turn your business into the next Google. It also might mean that you're bashing your head into a brick wall and you need to pivot in order to become successful. Your desire to quit gives you no information as to what your strategy should be, and, therefore, is totally useless as a decision-making strategy.

tl;dr; Your desire to quit is also greatest right before you go totally bankrupt and wreck your life.

quanticle, This is the thing that I think people don't realize. Even the most successful people failed a ton before they got big success.

Big Failures = some people who let failure become bigger than them and destroy them + some people who learn from it and succeed big down the line.

When you write:

tl;dr; Your desire to quit is also greatest right before you go totally bankrupt and wreck your life.

*

You're exaggerating the consequences.

There's the type of failure where you take on bank loans and have to go bankrupt and there's the type of failure where you run out of your own money and have to start from scratch - perhaps with a new venture, or perhaps take up a job and then come back to entrepreneurship after a while.

The former is what you're assuming. The latter is reality - provided you don't go overboard in where you get money.

Just out of curisoity - what would the Color guys qualify as. It looks like they might fail. Would that be 'wrecking their lives'?

Here's the interesting part:

1) If you always give up right when you feel things are bleakest -> You'll never go bankrupt or to be more precise never experience total failure.

2) At the same time - you'll never experience the best possible success you could have. Because if everything is easy and guaranteed that probably means you never did the maximum you could and never pushed yourself.

*

Again, the first point he says - Stay outside of your comfort zone.

Is it a bit of a cliche? Yes.

However, lots of people who you would probably quantify as 'not evil like Bob Parsons' succeeded precisely for this reason. They pushed out of their comfort zone.

I think entreprenuership pretty much means getting out of your comfort zone, getting other people out of their comfort zone and changing things - for the better, or, if you are not inclined that way, for money.

>Even the most successful people failed a ton before they got big success.

That's just survivorship bias[1]. Yes, the big successes failed a lot. But so did the big failures. When all you see are Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., its easy to ignore all the little companies that failed and bankrupted all who were involved. For an example of the downside, see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOOw2yWMSfk. Can you really, honestly say that Mark Griffin hasn't ruined his life?

You ask about the founders of Color. The cannot be failures. Why not? They've already succeeded at least once. The entire reason Color is as hyped as it is right now is because of its "supergroup" status. The only thing distinguishing it is the fact that it was designed and built by programmers and designers that were extremely successfull at other companies. Without that cachet, its simply just another photo-sharing app.

>If you always give up right when you feel things are bleakest -> You'll never go bankrupt or to be more precise never experience total failure.

>At the same time - you'll never experience the best possible success you could have. Because if everything is easy and guaranteed that probably means you never did the maximum you could and never pushed yourself.

That's true. But, before you go all-in, you should ask yourself, "Can I afford this?" Yes, its easy to say yes if you're a 25 year-old with no family, no mortgage, and no debt. But, if you're a 40 year-old with obligations? Do you really want to put your dependents through the stress and hardship of a default? Before you attempt to beat the odds, make sure you can survive the odds beating you [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[2] http://www.despair.com/overconfidence.html

The advantage of listening to people you dislike is you are more critical of their advice. Blindly following people's advice, just because you admire their public persona, can be dangerous.

But the site that got nuked could have been the next Broadcast.com.