The Anatomy of Determination
paulgraham.com
paulgraham.com
Easy way to become better at controlling will power is controlling your diet. Yep - glucose increases will power. http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/11/4/303
2.
"Environment trumps discipline"
I'd read an article that said that for most people - their income will be very close to the average income of their 5 closest friends. Create the environment - and discipline will come on its own.
3.
Ambition either comes from having kickass heroes or from facing strong problems. England started becoming a super power only when King Henry read the book of King Arthur and his Knights of the round table. (King Arthur's story was a false story written by Thomas Malory - while in prison. A convict changed the fortunes of England which was until then a land of misfits and barbarians - by giving them a hero!)
When there is a lack of heroes, you need strong problems to build that burning ambition. Eg: how Chandragupta and Chanakya went on to unite India 2300 years ago - because Alexander threatened their existence. Up until Alexander showed up in India - no one even dreamt of uniting India...
4.
I think what is missing is luck - which can also be hacked somewhat. Book: The Luck Factor: The 4 Essential Principles: http://www.amazon.com/Luck-Factor-Four-Essential-Principles/...
I think it would also be interesting to ask religious folks how they get willpower to fast.
Fasting means lack of glucose in your body. Yet fasting is a showcase of willpower.
So maybe some interesting answers may come from them...
It is all in the mind not in the stomach. Once you know you can't do something you don't consider it as an option. I didn't have to mentally or physically prepare I just got on with it. In the two weeks of fasting I have lost weight, I end up gorging in the evenings and find that I can pretty much eat what I want and not worry about it. For the non-religious it would be a good way to lose weight and discipline yourself (just don't call it a diet).
I do know though that if I break one of my fasts because I got hungry it will be very easy for me to break the next.
That's how I quit smoking :)
I have lots of will power in general but limited self-control. Yet fasting is a piece of cake. It wasn't always like it. I remember when I initially started around the age of 9 I would fast till noon instead of sunset. Then gradually by the time I was 11 I could fast till sunset.
I've read in several places about monks and their years of meditating literally changes the circuits in the brain giving them hyper self-control. Check out the book Evolve Your Brain.
IMO this aids as opposed to random unpredictable nature where I pick up something, drop it then try to come back to it one day.
Additionally, I'd argue that every time I pray I am somewhat reaffirming my faith and thus fasting that is to come later in the year. Premise here that fasting becomes easy because your body is mentally prepared from years of programming and the constant reenforcing of my religious values when I'm not fasting. Remove those two elements(faith + practice) and fasting will be very difficult.
I don't know much English history, but this is surely nonsense. Malory was a late compiler of the Arthurian legends, in no way their originator, and Henry V (whom I assume you have in mind?) was a generation earlier. Besides, history doesn't work this (fairy-tale) way.
Thomas Malory got the legend of King Arthur from Geoffrey of Monmouth - a Welsh monk who lived in the early 12th century. Good 200+ years before Malory.
But Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was largely unknown until Thomas Malory revived it.
Thomas Malory's book Le Morte D'Arthur became a bestseller because of the right timing - Guttenberg invented his printing press at just about that time.
In either case - the Arthurian legend is entirely made up. Geoffrey of Monmouth weaved the story out of his imagination - which was later picked and spruced up by Thomas Malory.
About the King - I may have to check up on it - may have made a mistake.
Update: did some checking. Thomas Malory: 1405 - 1471. King Henry VII: 1457 to 1509.
King Henry VII was so influenced by Thomas Malory's work that he also named his first son Arthur (but who didn't live long enough to become the next King...)
Heroes creating history vs history creating heroes is debatable. But this is awesome reading: http://www.invisibleheroes.com/hero.asp?issue=116
184 - Lucius Artorius Castus, commander of a detachment of Sarmatian conscripts stationed in Britain, led his troops to Gaul to quell a rebellion. This is the first appearance of the name, Artorius, in history and some believe that this Roman military man is the original, or basis, for the Arthurian legend. The theory says that Castus' exploits in Gaul, at the head of a contingent of mounted troops, are the basis for later, similar traditions about "King Arthur," and, further, that the name "Artorius" became a title, or honorific, which was ascribed to a famous warrior in the fifth century.
To not let my lack of knowledge take away from the point of the comment - let me reiterate:
The point is not how Arthurian legends started. The point is King Henry VII got a hero from Thomas Malory's book. And this hero gave him the ambition to change England.
Anyway, your broader point of having heroes is still valid.
So it's not like having wealthier friends will make you earn more money, but rather earning more money will probably lead you to have wealthier friends.
If you're in a good mood - you'll smile more. And if you are in a bad mood - but you make a conscious effort to smile - your mood will change to become better.
Good mood leads to smiling. And smiling leads to good mood. Its circular.
Similarly - rich friends will lead you to become richer. And once you're rich you'll make more wealthier friends. It goes both ways.
With that said, Nico had an excellent point. For most people their friends will include a peer group that almost certainly makes similar incomes to theirs, and for most people you will only really start making a lot of friends at a higher socio-economic point on the ladder when you move up to (or are in the process of moving up to) that same higher point yourself.
Getting into land wars with Russia with winter approaching.
Not sure where I'm going with this, I guess I just like to play devil's advocate a bit:-)
It's a good essay, but perhaps what I don't care for in general terms is the vagueness that surrounds the whole issue. Some people are smart because they push on in the face of great opposition. Others win plaudits for "knowing when to quit" and changing direction. It's all a bit wishy washy, although I think that PG's elements for success are, in a generic way, about right. Just that that vagueness sort of precludes one from applying them to specific situations until after the fact.
That was my sentiment as well, after reading. Much of what is said is difficult to argue with on an ideological level; it's just that it's rather abstract.
Its not that its wishy washy, its that one of the great keys to success is knowing the difference between the two. On the one hand, if you are on the right track you probably need to be ready to persevere in the face of enormous opposition, but if you are on the wrong track, no matter how far you have gone, change directions. Telling the difference can be quite challenging though, at least in some cases.
Both vary so much between even similar situations, that there is no way of knowing which side of the line cases fall on, unless they are extremely good or bad, except try it and see.
Now I don't know where this guy is working or what he's doing, but I have no doubt he will achieve whatever he sets himself to accomplish. For me, he is an incredible example of how will and discipline got him to achieve the things he wanted.
2 other stories about this guy:
1. Until he was around 12 he was fat. Then one day, after summer vacation he came back to school thin. He stayed like that at least until he finished engineering.
2. Junior year in highschool he had the best average in the advanced math class. There was a math competition and he was not chosen to go. When he asked the teacher about this, the teacher said: "for this competition we need talent, not effort"
His elder brother was a total slacker, cared only about smoking dope, doing yoga and getting laid. So there's some nature vs nurture there.
Not necessarily. Particularly if there was a couple years between them, there might have been an element of, "I'd better study hard - I want to accomplish stuff, not just goof off like my brother". I've seen the reverse a couple times, where a younger sibling grows up in the shadow of an older sibling widely considered to be really smart, so they try to compete by being really artistic or something instead.
That's a dead giveaway for a "fixed mindset" about intelligence. Studies show that people that think that effort is an indication of lack of ability will avoid effort to not look stupid, leading them to perform less well over time than those that don't have this mindset. See research by Carol Dweck et al.
This is a non-sequitur. The hidden assumption seems to be that siblings in the observed families are treated exactly the same and have exactly the same environment, in every way, which is blatantly false.
In a family, nature and nurture are mixed together. The only way to separate the two components are with twin studies where the twins are raised separately.
Another important thing is strong principles. That is, you have to have clear, logical reasons for making the sacrifices necessary to achieve your goals. Every time you're tempted to do something other than pursue your goal you're going to have to argue with yourself. If you aren't completely convinced that what you're doing is truly worthwhile, temptation is eventually going to win.
I agree that among siblings in the same family, one often observes a wide range of willfulness. However, the same family may not be as homogeneous an environment as Paul assumes. It's been shown that elite universities disproportionately admit eldest children and only children. It would seem that the differential upbringing that only and eldest children receive (in undivided parental time and attention, etc.) does result in increased willfulness, discipline, and/or intelligence.
Ambitious people often hope that their children will exceed their own levels of achievement. Empirically, it seems that there is a strong regression-toward-the-mean effect among the children of parents who have done great things. I wonder how much of this is nature versus nurture - could there be a negative effect of growing up in too rich of an environment that diminishes one's chances of becoming a Steve Jobs or Paul Graham? How do you train willfulness and ambition in a child?
Now, PG argues that discipline is an important component of determination. For startups, determination is called "the most important predictor of success."
In the earlier essay, these comments were made:
Now I know a number of people who do great work, and it's the same with all of them. They have little discipline. They're all terrible procrastinators and find it almost impossible to make themselves do anything they're not interested in. One still hasn't sent out his half of the thank-you notes from his wedding, four years ago. Another has 26,000 emails in her inbox. I'm not saying you can get away with zero self-discipline. You probably need about the amount you need to go running.
PG, does this difference in opinion represent increased wisdom due to the experience gained from doing YC rounds? Or is it simply a nuanced or superficial difference?
Surely determination plus the right mnemonics can help anyone memorise long sequences of digits. I would have thought that reasoning creatively, carefully, and abstractly - i.e., mathematics - requires more natural talent, or at least a predisposition, than wanting to memorise digits.
As for creativity, reasoning, abstract mathematics, I don't think those have innate factors. If anything, the only thing stopping people from becoming exceptional in those fields is the belief that they cannot improve (== lack of determination).
How does that manifest for you? What do you consider those abilities to be?
I think in maths everybody is kind of stupid. Meaning, nobody is really good at maths.
The basic research referenced in the Globe article was done at Penn: http://www.gritstudy.com/
I wonder what the original researcher, Angela Duckworth, would have to say about PG's ideas.
So here in sum is how determination seems to work: it consists of willfulness balanced with discipline, aimed by ambition.
The essay is probably meant to help investors pick good investments. But I say that founders can use it to help pick good co-founders, as well as improve themselves. I would love to read more on things/characteristics about a person that might give evidence of a person's willfulness, discipline and ambition, or lack thereof.
Whatever qualities the rich may have, they can be acquired by anyone with the tenacity to become rich. The key, I think, is confidence. Confidence and an unshakable belief it can be done and that you are the one to do it.
I think that last part is key. Determined people feel an obligation to succeed. Most feel like the opportunity is theirs to lose and not gain. Here are some behaviours I've noticed when speaking to technical people that I think are determined:
1. They speak calmly -- almost without emotion -- about their plans, even while responding to criticism. I think this is because they've worked out all possible scenarios in their head so many times before that spouting off about them one more time is just rote exercise. It's almost like they're an objective third person describing the plan.
2. They confide in others about their vulnerabilities and weaknesses. I think determined people are just confident enough that they aren't over-confident. Over-confidence is what differentiates a determined winner from a stubborn loser.
3. They never settle when it matters. We all went to school with the guy or girl that scored an A on a test and threw a fit because they wanted an A+. You never get the sense that they're satisfied until the goal is reached. Most people think this is all a show, and that these determined types are rubbing their noses in the average folks faces. That is not the case at all. The average folks don't matter to these people. They never enter the equation.
Other than these 3 things, I'm hard pressed to think of other characteristics. I've seen quiet determined people, loud mouth cocky ones, and everything in between.
Any component of your formula could be very large/small resulting in large values of Determination.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that burn-out and flip-out become more problematic; also in some proportion to both wilfulness, ambition and the difficulty of the challenges.
great discussion though. there is probably a 'language' of determination. and more efficient ways of being determined than others. i mean determination etymologically is related to a terminus or boundary. it is literally the ability or quality of getting to a boundary.
so if we infuse the meaning of determination with the idea of getting to a successful terminus -- we're referring to the ability to get the transaction done. in the case of startup space, one has to analyze what are the common set of obstacles that prevent getting the transaction done.
well (1) the manner in which the final terminus needs to be renegotiated as the project changes and competing views about the desired end result are brought into view -- so negotiation of the final result is key. (2) taking advantage of previous solutions, not reinventing the wheel but (3) not using any wheels which are limited or limiting and (4) spending maximum time and energy on the specific product.
but i think the most important thing is to regularly analyze whether or not one is on the optimal path to one's goal (first-round funding, e.g.) and also whether one can make the process of the development so bloody fun that one wants to spend as much time on the project as literally possible.
the most undervalued link in the whole network of the problem space is between the founders and their problem space. i.e., figuring out how to spend as much time as possible in your REPL, with your design diagrams, or otherwise amongst your code.
and now, i am just going to press 'add comment'. but yeah, nice article.
An interesting second-derivation of this is with co-founders. Two (or more) people who share a goal can spur each other on via internal competitiveness & a symbiotic pattern of compensating for dips in the other's discipline or willpower. For example I'm sure neither Lennon or McCartney would have achieved half of their combined output.
On a separate note, I think there's a typo in the 14th paragraph, second sentence: "There seem to be plenty of examples <of> confirm that."
A company needs to eventually have an idea that's both unique and compelling. It should optimize on having a sustainable competitive advantage. Determination is incredibly important because few companies start out with the right mix and usually have to experiment to get it right, but let's not over-idealize it. All the determination in the world won't let you make a cake with sand and olive oil. A founder has to know "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em."
"When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water. Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they'd get from ambitious peers, whatever their age."
Ambitious people are almost always more granular and more preoccupied control freaks than people who are less ambitious. That can be a problem unless they are also diplomatic, pragmatic and wise.
I think if you read the article again with categorizing all things into symptoms and cause, you'll get better understanding. Most people confuse between two and try to instill symptoms into themselves and mostly end-up at wrong end. You cannot simply say that from tomorrow I'll be more determined on my goals. There has to be passion, love and solid drive for what you do, as mentioned at the end of article. I think veterans and people who have been constantly successful at what they are doing would agree that love for what you do is an important component to success otherwise you will simply run out of your breathe by constant push without any passion.
You have to try and minimise the need for determination by finding something you love to do.
But to find what you love in the first place, you need determination, mainly in the form of discipline else there's the danger of wasting away from lack of willingness or being too willful for one's own good.
There's some recursion going on here. Need to think this through to get my head around it.
There is a lot of weight in this statement. My mantra has been "love what you do and do what you love". It has definitely served me very well and has been a catalyst for my determination. The other important aspect is your company to which PG alluded via "ambitious peers". Positive and intellectual energy around you is a great fuel for determination.
All in all it's an unhelpful essay.
Offtopic: my surgeon dad always says medicine is over 50% determination. And in fact if you are too smart, you will probably quit and opt for a supposedly more rewarding, less painful profession.
Then depending on your concentration you can make between 150-300K.
Both my dad and my brother(who is in med school) chose medicine because of the medicial needs in the family than the monetary compensation.
in that I'd include the internet and things like social media sites
How would you go about that?
Loved it when you said "Ambitious people are rare, ... When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water. Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they'd get from ambitious peers, whatever their age."
IMO, Ambitious people are like power engine or say running water - its a old saying that running water never stops at any hurdles, no mater what - they pass thru huge mountains and forests - if a ambitious person loves what he/she is doing then nothing can stop him/her - you can see the fire in their eyes to succeed, the ambition and love for their work itself becomes determination ...
Ambition 1, multiplying with partners: jettisoned. Uh oh. Ambition 2, outlook: had it, then found the Buddha.
Fuck!