3 ms·
Yes, because prestige runs behind what is actually valuable. Prestige is what other people think is valuable. If everyone thinks it's valuable, then there's i
by chubot 9y ago
Yes, because prestige runs behind what is actually valuable. Prestige is what other people think is valuable.
If everyone thinks it's valuable, then there's insane competition, and you're unlikely to get meaningfully ahead (unless you're simply smarter and work harder than everyone else).
PG wrote several paragraphs about prestige here which still ring true to me:
http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html
It might be a good rule simply to avoid any prestigious task. If it didn't suck, they wouldn't have had to make it prestigious.
(Corrolary: it was best to join YC when it wasn't prestigious, e.g. when Reddit or Dropbox did. Now that it's prestigious, it's probably less valuable. Although it could still be valuable compared to the alternatives.)
- grepthisab 9y agoWhen looking at something like joining yc, wouldn't the prestige make it more valuable, because of the extended network and the increased reverence shown to it by outsiders?
- chubot 9y agoI'm sure the network is valuable compared to alternatives, but it's probably diluted now, compared to joining when YC had no prestige. Your peers then would have been the current leaders of YC. Customers don't give you money because you joined a good accelerator, so in that sense the "reverence" is useless. It's also a double-edged sword, because you'll attract people who are looking to ride your coattails, as opposed to doing useful work. Apparently this phenomenon is common enough that PG has a word for it: "playing house". People join YC and play house rather than start companies.