Comment by jasonwatkinspdx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonwatkinspdx | Hacker News Reader

jasonwatkinspdx

For years I've labeled this nonsense the Midas Delusion: people get dramatically unusual success with their startup, and then conclude that they somehow have superior insight into every banal topic they choose to opine on. They fail to properly understand the path dependency and sheer luck that played a roll in their success, nor that the biggest lesson their success should teach them is humility in the socratic ignorance sense.

This is a very large number of words to essentially say "when I was a jerk in the past it was actually virtue." If you don't see that plainly and transparently I'm not sure what to say to you.

PG deserves credit for creating YC, but from the narrative in this essay it's clear he does not even understand how that happened or his own role in it (assuming he's not being straight up dishonest in his writing). He's a deal making power player, nearly a king maker, not a technocratic nerd. No amount of essay writing will erase that reality.

I am so very weary of this nonsense being taken seriously as sage advice.

We already have too many reductive stereotypes in tech. Let's not lionize them.

> I am so very weary of this nonsense being taken seriously as sage advice.

Agreed.

In fact, in the featured article, the author makes reference to the hard science achievement of Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA as follows.

> And moreover it's clear from the story that Crick and Watson's fierce nerdiness was integral to their success. Their independent-mindedness caused them to consider approaches that most others ignored, their overconfidence allowed them to work on problems they only half understood (they were literally described as "clowns" by one eminent insider), and their impatience and competitiveness got them to the answer ahead of two other groups that would otherwise have found it within the next year, if not the next several months.

Pointing to this as an example of fierceness producing contrarian success completely ignores the sheer amount of luck that contributed to the timing of Watson and Crick's discovery. Given a different roll of the experimental dice, Watson and Crick's method might have had temporary setbacks that resulted in their names being relegated to footnotes.

As luck and effort would have it, two of the most ornery scientists of the twentieth century will figure as pioneers in the annals of science history.

Also ignores the fact that the "discovery" of the helical structure of DNA was based on the unpublished work of Rosalind Franklin and others

This. The example is particularly galling when you know that part of the story.

I interpret this pretty differently, and PG seems pretty well positioned to make claims about something like this. I don't think this is so much about PG's journey as a founder.

PG has personally mentored hundreds, perhaps thousands of founders – whatever it is, a sufficiently huge sample size to identify some traits that correlate with founder success and happiness.

Sure, the truth is probably more nebulous than presented here, but archetypes can be useful.

> PG has personally mentored hundreds, perhaps thousands of founders – whatever it is, a sufficiently huge sample size to identify some traits that correlate with founder success and happiness.

However, in this article the correlation only goes one way: He's not saying that most successful founders have these traits; he's saying that people with these traits can become successful founders. And the traits he talks about happen to perfectly match his own traits?

I'm sorry, but this reads very much like someone looking at their own past, not the result of an extensive, unbiased review of successful startup founders.

> I'm sorry, but this reads very much like someone looking at their own past

What makes you say that?

I'm just so tired about people like PG and Scott Aaronson (who I otherwise respect) talking about nerds all the time. Why is everything framed in this black-and-white nerds vs. the world narrative? I'm just going to accept that this essay and others incessantly talking about "nerds vs jocks"(or the more modern Gen-Z framing, "chads vs virgins") just isn't for me.

Sorry for speaking out against The Messiah.

PG is not particularly "fierce" in the way he's describing. He's talking about what he's observed in other people more than in himself. He's more laid-back and encouraging and positive than aggressive and competitive.

> If you don't see that plainly and transparently I'm not sure what to say to you.

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Or, to say it differently, sometimes people might disagree with you, not because they're stupid, but because they know something you don't, or because you've made an error.

I have less problems with stereotyping than with the hum of a million managers patronizing remarks, like this article from PG.

I've grown accustomed to negs' (microaggressions) like these, but they do a greater injustice to actual genius. Mutual respect in a team will never be achieved when people treat others in this manner.

> but from the narrative in this essay it's clear he does not even understand how that happened

I find this accusation very ironic, considering that it started with writing essays a lot like this one.

I agree that even PG at times falls prey to the Midas Delusion. However, I don't understand this attack on his technical competence given PG's history of starting starting a successful startup, introducing modern spam filtering, and deep-diving into lisp.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com