Comment by kemiller
15 years ago
This is probably the single most discouraging thing I've ever read about startups, but at least it's honest. Entitlement? "Naughtiness"? I think after Google, the idea got out there that it's possible to succeed by just being good. Technically and morally. This sounds like a return to status quo. Not saying he's wrong. He's almost certainly right, it's just depressing.
You may find it helps clarify matters to read the article Charlie is referring to:
http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html
and also this:
http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
Combined, the message is: focus on the high bits of good. If someone establishes a clinic in a poor country and saves people's lives, I'm not going to hold it against them if they do it with supplies that fell off a truck.
Thanks for the reply.
I actually have read those. I admit, part of my reaction was purely personal. I want to found a company so much it hurts. I'm smart, resourceful, creative, and determined. But I wouldn't say I'm used to getting my way, and breaking rules -- even in service of a higher goal -- makes me very nervous. (Think Hermione Granger.) So reading this was like getting hit in the gut. Not that it will stop me, but it highlighted how important the emotional aspects to founderhood are and how far I still have to go.
I've seen this trap with a lot of people who did well in school. For 12 formative years you're rewarded for performing tasks to spec and following rules, and you grow up and find that the things you really want to do involve transcending all the traits that got you where you are. That's the element of Google I'm referring to, I suppose. They make almost a cult of academic success, and for some people that was a kind of shining hope. And you, frankly, fit right into that. So to hear you say that guts might matter more in the end than brains hurts, even though I know you're right.
Google makes a cult of academic success in hiring but they are not immune to the general principle that it often takes naughty people to do revolutionary things in a largely rule driven system. If you look at the actual 'rainmakers' at Google, they all seem to be rule-breakers. Here are some actual things Googlers who changed the world did (all from "In the Plex"):
Andy Rubin (Android): "That's the way Google works, don't ask for permission for an idea, just go and do it. And then, when you are way beyond the point of no return, you're like, 'I need $200 million'"
Wesley Chan (Google Toolbar, Google Analytics): After Larry Page told him the Toolbar/Popup blocker was the "dumbest thing I've ever heard", Chan, a 'lowly' Associate Product Manager at the time, surreptitiously installed it on Page's computer and waited for him to mention how much faster his browser was running.
Paul Buchheit (Gmail, Later Friendfeed, Facebook, YC): IIRC he was the one who pushed for putting ads in Gmail based on the content of emails. When Google deployed this, it generated significant controversy and almost everyone considered it 'naughty' to say the least. Today, Gmail is the only place other than a search engine where I (and likely many others) click on any ads. The ads were important because providing Gigabytes of storage to millions of users for free is not scalable without generating revenue.
Google even tried to formalize naughtiness by making 20% projects, usually done as naughty skunkworks projects, part of the rules.
If you're smart, resourceful, creative and determined (and you have a cofounder), you should be fine.
I think you cannot create something of Great value without being naughty and breaking rules. You are just understanding it wrong. Someone at Google, Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox and other cos had to say "F the portals and the homepage filled with links", "F ads that aren't relevant to the user", "F proprietary software, we are going to make it open source", "F Myspace, I am going to make something clean and no user will be allowed to change the background", "F FTPing, emailing files, and copying files in my USB, I am going to make a box where you can just drop things", "F mile-long blog posts, we are going to limit it to 140 char. Want more? Though luck"... That's naughty, that's breaking the rules, and guess what? It's all good.
Google is at least a little naughty. Remember, at the dawn of the Internet, there was quite a bit of ambiguity with regards to IP rights. Many newspapers sent out Cease and Desists just for deep-linking to their articles. There was still quite a bit of presumption about how much control of use copyright gave you.
Google walks into this minefield and says "You know, we're going to crawl and cache everything, then exploit the data in it for our own selfish commercial purposes." And it worked!
I think you give too much credence to this "ambiguity".The idea that copyright could forbid deep linking was always absurd.
Also, don't forget about Google Books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_A...
Yeah, Google and the other 20 search companies at the time. I don't think this became an issue before search became reasonably good, when they didn't have a choice but follow through.
I also think Google broke and still breaks rules, just your example is not very good. Interesting that this reply of yours is upvoted over paul, pg and tlb in this thread.
Following all the rules does not make you a good person. In fact, rule following and obedience to authority is what enables large scale evil. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment for a famous demonstration.
The thing I've never understood about philosophy is that why are ethics and good/evil considered to be properties of people as opposed to systems? It seems like all the social science research points to the conclusion that the intrinsic nature of a person, if such a thing even exists, has almost nothing to do with their behavior.
So you would think that there would be dozens of papers that analyzed the trolley problem from the point of view of what makes an algorithm ethical or unethical, but this doesn't seem to be the case. (E.g. why not imagine a universe where the people on each track had to somehow bid via differing auction mechanisms as to which direction the train went, why even imagine a person at the switch at all?)
I think you're looking for decision theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory
4 replies →
Great point. Although the YC universe has plenty of obedience-to-authority elements as well -- think of how many times people on HN invoke "the rules" to shut down discussions about the TSA.
The naughtiness stuff works on HN despite this, probably since you can't downvote articles and an article eventually getting flagged into deep space doesn't negate the upvotes it received beforehand. The system relies on humans not rewarding intensely but shallowly interesting articles, but perversely these remain a quick route to points.
Nb. I think that recent discussions have put a moderate damper on this, and perhaps the newer ranking algo (in which flagging has greater weight I think?) has played a part, but the problem remains.
On the other hand, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, broke a few rules too. So I am not sure that championing rule breaking is going to help improve society.
More likely, what's actually needed is a balance. And, interestingly, the kind of person that makes a good entrepreneur is probably on the psycopathic side of normal. A very nice article in the Guardian made this point at the weekend - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/may/21/jon-ronson-how-t...
Did you honestly understand my comment as implying that rule breaking automatically makes you a good person? (regardless of which rules are broken)
3 replies →
Conversely, breaking all the rules almost always makes you a bad person.
Nobody can ever break all the rules - the laws of physics might have something to say about it.
If you limit your statement to "all the rules of the society in which you live", I'm not sure your statement is true. What do you think of Oskar Schindler? Womanizer, cheat, Nazi, fraud, and traitor. Yet he saved the lives of hundreds of Jews during the holocaust, and ended up as the hero of a movie.
The way I work this out is to consider that there are rules, and principles. Breaking some rules is ok, as long as principles are solid behind. Moral principles tell me I should not betray my friends or my family, for example. If the issue is whether or not I should game SEO, lie to my boss or scan competitor servers for vulnerabilities, it is more on the "rules" side.
If I break a rule, I still can stare at myself in the mirror, and I will even be able to tell this to my children when they will be grown-ups. If I happen to break one of my moral principles, it will be another story.
This is nothing new, Confucius taught this long time ago already.
You're confusing naughtiness with evil. Naughtiness has to do with breaking conventions, evil with hurting others.
If you followed PG's record, you'd know how strong an advocate he is that startups be good.
In a morally-flexible environment, it's easy to confuse the two.
For example - Zynga selling offers (for credits) with very fine print that signs you up for paid services. And the fine print is so convoluted/tiny most people don't read it. Helping or hurting consumers?
- Facebook hiring a PR firm to highlight questionable privacy practices by Google. Helping users or hurting Google?
- Subprime mortgages. Helping or hurting homeowners?
In a morally-flexible environment
You're assuming your conclusion. Punctiliously following convention doesn't make you good. It just safely ensconces you near the mean. Not a promising place for startup founders to reside.
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes is naughty. He's not evil or even "morally-flexible".
2 replies →
Dropbox lying about their security guarantees ....
2 replies →
As G. K. Chesterton said, "break the conventions and keep the commandments" -- http://www.chesterton.org/wordpress/?page_id=8
It's the whole circle-jerk that tech and web have become. Why on earth is Techcrunch hosting a business conference where hosts can fellate big Silicon Valley success stories. On TWiT, they used to talk about tech; now all they talk about is VCs and angel investors.
Tech is so hopeless ingrained with the speculative investment market, they've adopted the worst biproducts of it.
I think you are confusing TWit with Twist..
Twit is Leo's tech shows..which are still tech focused. Twist is Jason Calacanis' shows which have a VC/Angel 50% focus.
I understand the positive qualities of being Kirk-esque and creating one's own rules (see Kobayashi Maru). I also understand the qualities of being single-minded in purpose, determination and the will to succeed. These are qualities needed to survive in the uncertain, risky and scary environment of an entrepreneur.
However, I wonder when we begin to cross the fine-line between naughtiness, white-lies, small-rule breaking and moral flexibility to privacy-violating, scamming, propaganda spreading and even law-breaking actions.
In a world where one will do anything to win, it seems all too easy to fall by the wayside towards morally-questionable deeds.
I think that you're zooming into this too much and missing the point.
Think about the difference between success in the military versus success in a small business. In the Army, a protocol faux pas or a single ill-considered statement can implode your career path. Understanding of and adherence to the rules is job 1.
In a startup mode, you can ignore conventions/rules, because those things are often not relevant to a tiny company. That doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to rob a liquor store -- but it does mean that you don't need approval from a VP to fill out a 4 page expense report to buy a bottle of booze for a client.
Actually I think you misunderstand and misinterpret my point. I'll try to clarify.
I think much of what's excepted in today's business environment can be summarized by the following statement:
"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission."
This logic has been used to justify all sorts of questionable actions. It's what Pincus was speaking to when he said, "we broke every rule in the book" or when Facebook unilaterally changes a once private profile to a public one. Heck, I'd even characterize Google's Buzz in this category.
Businesses do this all the time. I don't necessarily blame them. Most times it's easier and quicker to simply execute on an idea and see if there's any backlash. Much of innovation comes about this way so I do see the value in it.
But I also see the negative consequences of it.
>Understanding of and adherence to the rules is job 1.
I have to disagree. Some Armed Forces employ quite different type of organization, called Auftragstaktik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics
You are talking about a peace time military. A war time military is much more focused on results. It's an important distinction.
I feel 'naughtiness' represents disregard for the status quo, rather than a commitment to immorality. The obedient drone regards law-breaking as immoral, whereas the independent thinker would ask why the law exists.
The thing is that both the status quo and immorality often come down to judgment calls.
Is it immoral to gather personal data and then share it on the internet? (Facebook personal profiles going public.)
Is it immoral to pay a PR firm to portray a competitor in a negative light if it means highlighting their questionable practices? (Facebook hiring a PR firm to highlight Google Social.)
Is it immoral to characterize a service you offer one way while leaving important details to fine print or convoluted text? (Zynga's lead gen offers, DropBox security.)
1 reply →
The Google founders were more than simply good. They were determined to be #1. Most people aren't.
They are now, but were they at the start? I remember a PG essay where the google guys were held up as an example of how even those developers with amazing potential can still be hesitant at the beginning, unsure of whether they want to or even can run a company.
<edit>
I think this is the quote I remember...:
from http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html
"There's nothing wrong with being unsure. If you're a hacker thinking about starting a startup and hesitating before taking the leap, you're part of a grand tradition. Larry and Sergey seem to have felt the same before they started Google, and so did Jerry and Filo before they started Yahoo. In fact, I'd guess the most successful startups are the ones started by uncertain hackers rather than gung-ho business guys."
They initially tried to sell the company for < $1M because it was "taking time away from their graduate studies". It was only because nobody would buy that they became a multi-billion-$ company.
I guess I'm not sure how that jives with:
“There are some people who just get what they want in the world. If you want to start a startup you have to be one of those people. You can’t be passive and wishy-washy.”
Does wishy-washy mean something other than unsure?
I guess I'm not sure how that jives with:
“There are some people who just get what they want in the world. If you want to start a startup you have to be one of those people. You can’t be passive and wishy-washy.”
Does wishy-washy mean something other than unsure?
You're saying it like faith is involved. Success is a combination of many factors, including but not limited to talent, luck, education, environment, persistence, social skills and ability to adapt.
Some people are born with some of these factors, but the truth of the matter is that persistence matters most and if you are persistent most other things can fall into place or be balanced by other factors.
Lots of people are as smart as the Google founders, lots of people have similar educational background. Superstar co-founders, much as athletes, are people too. The major difference between them and you is that they continuously try to do the best they can do and do not quit when the going gets tough.
Those words don't have quite the right connotations, try the following edits:
"There are some people who just get what they want in the world. If you want to start a startup you have to be one of those people."
Think of it this way. As children we all needed to compete for the attention and resources of our parents, otherwise we would have starved. So typically the oldest child uses the strategy of being charismatic, in order to manipulate the parents into paying attention to it. The the second child comes along, but by this point there is no way it's ever going to out compete the oldest child on the axis of charisma, because the oldest child just has too much of a head start. So the second child often acts kind of sickly and pathetic, again as a different strategy for manipulating the parents into providing attention and resources.
The point is that in order to succeed in a startup, you need to be well versed in a variety of these strategies in order to get other people to help you. Otherwise you're not going to get any of the resources you need, because you're way too small and pathetic to be worth caring about based on any intrinsic measure of worth.
The people that Paul is describing when he says 'People that get what they want...' and the 'Naughtiness', are people that win in things that they try. the naughtiness implies that they do whatever it takes to get their, even if they ride the edge of moral good.
They want these types of people because they have the highest chance at success when failure is the norm.
I'm not sure what the concern about "naughtiness" here is. There's a difference between being somewhat devious and being evil. I think what Paul is getting at is that you need to be willing to pounce on any opportunity to capitalize for your startup. It is a competition after all. Great article overall.
Google is "good"?
http://www.schneier.com/essay-306.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/
https://www.recordedfuture.com/ ( Google and In-Q-Tel both major investors )
http://thestockmarketwatch.com/stock-market-news/recent-even...
http://xsreviews.co.uk/2011/05/google-to-lose-500m-to-antitr...
Could keep going for a while. My point is simple: It is easy to forget the "bad" when everyone focuses on the "good"
Which of them is evil?
The closest the is the anti-trust settlement, but the reporting around that is kind of murky. I've never seen a proper report of exactly what it related to.
The others are arguably good. For example, the Schneier article is about how Google has a interface to Gmail to allow it to retrieve data when it receives a warrant. That was what got hacked, but I think saying that makes it evil is a pretty long stretch.
Google got their first investment before they existed - they couldn't cash the cheque because the company it was made out to, Google, didn't exist at the time.
Intelligence and strong entitlement don't match. Show me a real genius who has strong sense of entitlement. Salesmen have it. Certainly PG doesn't have it.
Has YC had the time to see the results of their naughtiness though? Scribd seems like a poor product based on my run-in with it this morning and the comments of a few people saying how bad it was. But personally I haven't really used it. And Dropbox had a lot of hype at first until it was realized that their security wasn't so secure after all. I see these types of things as being naughty because its somewhat underhanded, cutting corners, etc. Could the naughtiness cost them in the end? Perhaps. I guess we will see.