3 ms·

That's the whole point, let me refine it further: the bad aspects that mentioned in the article are not unique to tech: the world is full of overboard marketing

by smsm42 9y ago

That's the whole point, let me refine it further: the bad aspects that mentioned in the article are not unique to tech: the world is full of overboard marketing, I see ads promising scantly-clad women flocking to me if I drink sugared water of $BRAND and muscular attractive men inviting me to the world of opportunities if I use shampoo $BRAND2 - btw, if you think tech world is sexist and pigeonholing try watching TV ads... And the other aspects are not bad but just a normal imperfect human behavior. "Toxic" is a very bad term because it's completely unclear what it means besides "it's something bad". So is the message of the article "bad things in tech were bad and that's why I left"? OK, it's nice to know, not exactly anything new but everybody has the right for one's own biography. Is there any insight there beyond that? One that pertains specifically to tech world? > Why does the small chain of bike repair shops in my area, also taking the stress and high risk of starting their own business, not exhort about how their bike repair shop will change the world of bikes forever? Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now? ;) Maybe not, who knows. The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever. And one day somebody might just do that. > Moreover, there's an argument to be made that a field that oft labels itself as "meritocratic" relies on these hyperbolic forms of marketing and mission statements to do business, rather than a more traditional, "stodgy" business. You can't really rely on mission statements and marketing to do business. At least not in any long term. And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do. Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would). But claiming it's a defining property of significant part of SV companies to be overblown marketing only is just false.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago
> btw, if you think tech world is sexist and pigeonholing try watching TV ads... And the other aspects are not bad but just a normal imperfect human behavior. I didn't claim this. However, there's no correlation between sexist marketing and sexist work culture. On top of this, writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules. Two wrongs don't make a right. > Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now? Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? If so, then we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye in this discussion. I do not think that hyperbolic marketing is a necessary condition to success. > The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever. Indeed, but there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world. If 500 intelligent, aware people are all convinced that they are going to change the world then, well I'm interested in whatever kool-aid they're drinking and how. Moreover, you seem to be implying that founders actually believe their mission statements. I'm going to rebut and say no, most founders use the mission statement as another form of marketing. > And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do. But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. > Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would) While this is a slightly different issue than the one discussed in the article, I'd like to reply to this. Behind each of these pure hype Silicon Valley companies are VCs who actually invested in them, who wrote them checks of $10,000+ that believed in the hype and marketing potential of these startups. This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". > Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. That requires certain mindset. Wanting to change the world highly correlates with such a mindset. Wanting to improve the cost of fidgelating type A sprockets by 0.1% does not. Of course, if humans were perfect robots, they'd always be exactly as much excited as it takes to be able to do a startup, and not one exciton over that. Imperfect humans frequently get more excited than that. > there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world There's million of traders believing they can make a profit (which is arithmetically impossible) and millions of people believing they all can win a lottery (which is even more impossible since lottery is a negative-sum game). Of course, vast majority of these people are wrong. And 499 of the 500 startup founders will be wrong too. So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. > But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? > This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion. High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way.
  - Karrot_Kream 9y ago
    > Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting sexism was under the domain of "normal imperfect human behavior" or not. If you weren't, then I apologize, I misread. > I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. I agree with this premise, but I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word and are using hyperbolic rhetoric to both appeal to a cultural standard in the industry and to convince their employees to work harder for less compensation and more uncertainty. If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Admirable attempts no doubt, but changing the world they are not. > So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. Because these people employ others who are convinced by their rhetoric. Gambling laws and Ponzi Scheme laws exist to stop greedy actors from exploiting human failings. My argument here is that joining a startup is akin to gambling, and giving them a free pass is akin to taking an amoral stance on gambling. > Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? Yeah apologies I wasn't super cogent here. > There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games and other such gambling because it's widely recognized that high risk gambling can be exploitative and ruinous. I don't see any such urge in tech.
adamsea 9y ago
> "That's the whole point, let me refine it further: the bad aspects that mentioned in the article are not unique to tech: the world is full of overboard marketing ..." I would rephrase this to "tech is not exempt from the bad aspects mentioned in the article." > So is the message of the article "bad things in tech were bad and that's why I left"? OK, it's nice to know, not exactly anything new but everybody has the right for one's own biography. Is there any insight there beyond that? One that pertains specifically to tech world? If my house and my neighbors house are on fire, should I still not get out of the house?

by smsm42 9y ago

Karrot_Kream 9y ago

> btw, if you think tech world is sexist and pigeonholing try watching TV ads... And the other aspects are not bad but just a normal imperfect human behavior. I didn't claim this. However, there's no correlation between sexist marketing and sexist work culture. On top of this, writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules. Two wrongs don't make a right. > Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now? Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? If so, then we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye in this discussion. I do not think that hyperbolic marketing is a necessary condition to success. > The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever. Indeed, but there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world. If 500 intelligent, aware people are all convinced that they are going to change the world then, well I'm interested in whatever kool-aid they're drinking and how. Moreover, you seem to be implying that founders actually believe their mission statements. I'm going to rebut and say no, most founders use the mission statement as another form of marketing. > And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do. But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. > Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would) While this is a slightly different issue than the one discussed in the article, I'd like to reply to this. Behind each of these pure hype Silicon Valley companies are VCs who actually invested in them, who wrote them checks of $10,000+ that believed in the hype and marketing potential of these startups. This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.

smsm42 9y ago
> writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". > Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. That requires certain mindset. Wanting to change the world highly correlates with such a mindset. Wanting to improve the cost of fidgelating type A sprockets by 0.1% does not. Of course, if humans were perfect robots, they'd always be exactly as much excited as it takes to be able to do a startup, and not one exciton over that. Imperfect humans frequently get more excited than that. > there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world There's million of traders believing they can make a profit (which is arithmetically impossible) and millions of people believing they all can win a lottery (which is even more impossible since lottery is a negative-sum game). Of course, vast majority of these people are wrong. And 499 of the 500 startup founders will be wrong too. So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. > But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? > This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion. High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  > Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting sexism was under the domain of "normal imperfect human behavior" or not. If you weren't, then I apologize, I misread. > I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. I agree with this premise, but I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word and are using hyperbolic rhetoric to both appeal to a cultural standard in the industry and to convince their employees to work harder for less compensation and more uncertainty. If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Admirable attempts no doubt, but changing the world they are not. > So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. Because these people employ others who are convinced by their rhetoric. Gambling laws and Ponzi Scheme laws exist to stop greedy actors from exploiting human failings. My argument here is that joining a startup is akin to gambling, and giving them a free pass is akin to taking an amoral stance on gambling. > Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? Yeah apologies I wasn't super cogent here. > There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games and other such gambling because it's widely recognized that high risk gambling can be exploitative and ruinous. I don't see any such urge in tech.

adamsea 9y ago

> "That's the whole point, let me refine it further: the bad aspects that mentioned in the article are not unique to tech: the world is full of overboard marketing ..." I would rephrase this to "tech is not exempt from the bad aspects mentioned in the article." > So is the message of the article "bad things in tech were bad and that's why I left"? OK, it's nice to know, not exactly anything new but everybody has the right for one's own biography. Is there any insight there beyond that? One that pertains specifically to tech world? If my house and my neighbors house are on fire, should I still not get out of the house?