4 ms·

I am going to risk being downvoted to hell on this. Maybe Daniel isn't "persevering against crazy odds" and "willing himself to success". It's apparent from th

I am going to risk being downvoted to hell on this. Maybe Daniel isn't "persevering against crazy odds" and "willing himself to success". It's apparent from the story that he's a really fucking good coder. With a reasonably accurate estimation of his own abilities, and with all the support and inspiration around him at YC, it didn't take much perseverance and extraordinary will to put something together. He just had to continue doing what he loves and does best... writing code. I certainly can't speak for Daniel. I get tired of these descriptions of entrepreneurs that make them sound like cancer survivors. I think founders often have extraordinary skill, and that changes the required personal characteristics considerably.

answerly 16y ago
>I think founders often have extraordinary skill I think that was Aaron's point. Daniel is an extraordinary person. An ordinary person would probably have just given up given a similar set of circumstances.
- jganetsk 16y ago
  I certainly can't disagree with your viewpoint. A person with extraordinary characteristics is likely to have extraordinary accomplishments. That's a pretty safe argument. But, your classification of people into 2 simple categories is exactly the kind of discussion I like to avoid. From the story, I see a person with skill, confidence, and good odds of success. Aaron's description is one of people with willpower and perseverance in the face of almost impossible odds. These are two completely orthogonal issues. It may be that Daniel is all of the above. But, as a community, we should have more sophisticated dialog on what makes folks successful. If I were to ever start a company on my own, it would be with the knowledge that I have only half of the traits touted around here. I'm more interested, at this point, in the shortcomings of successful founders and how they compensated.
  - gentschev 16y ago
    To me, the most important point is that even extraordinary people face many times in the development of their companies where things look very dim. Being able to ignore that feeling and keep working and changing your assumptions and approaches is at least as rare as more definable talents. There are a lot of very talented people who are actually less resilient to hardship because they're not as used to being tested or failing as people with supposedly lesser abilities.
Harj 16y ago
Daniel's coding ability, or love of writing code, isn't the reason he's managed to get this far. I remember meeting with him regularly after demo day; no investors were interested, he had no co-founder and an idea that was all of a week old with a very buggy prototype (by very buggy, I mean didn't work). Things looked bleak. I still believed in Daniel's determination but even I was thinking in the back of my head, at least he'll be able to take these experiences with him on his next startup. "Extraordinary skill" or not, the fact is the majority of people would have given up at this point. Daniel instead kept doing back to back investor meetings during the day and coding at night. He's of course benefitted from being smart and part of YC but clearly those can't be sufficient conditions for success, if they were we'd have a 0% failure rate at YC.
- jganetsk 16y ago
  Well, this is the interesting part of the story I'd like to hear. Harj, I wish you the best in selecting people for the program. But, I don't know what the moral of the story is for the rest of us. Be determined? Never give up? That's not quite right... because that's not sufficient. I'm just tired of the heroic founder myth.
  - johnrob 16y ago
    There's a selection bias at work: we only hear about the success stories (whether success means raising money or an exit). It stands to reason there will be a heroic tone to it since succeeding is hard. If the press wrote about every founder, the myth would be less heroic and more foolhardy.
  - Harj 16y ago
    The only sufficient ingredient for success is luck. Luck is out of your control so the best you can do is to put yourself in a position that increases your chances of being lucky. That includes surrounding yourself with good people but fundamentally, the best way to be lucky is to keep going and not giving up. Perhaps that doesn't feel quite right because it's not sufficient, you're not guaranteed luck by being determined, but the alternative of saying "be lucky" isn't very meaningful.
StavrosK 16y ago
There's quite a bit of outcome bias here. For every founder who sticks with bad odds and succeeds there are ten who stick and fail. Who's to say that the decision with the largest reward wasn't giving up and trying to do something else? Not specifically in Daniel's case, mind you (he was already in YC with a good idea that's also rather easy to implement, so this made sense), but I will argue that it doesn't generally make sense to persevere when everything is against you.
- mlinsey 16y ago
  For every founder who sticks with bad odds and succeeds there are ten who stick and fail. Pretty much everyone will say "I stuck with it", and almost all of them will be right - they did stick with it, at least for a while. The thing is, could they have held on for even longer? Put another way, almost no startups fail because the founders go completely bankrupt and don't pay the server bill and the site is shut down by their hosts even has the founders still frantically keep working to stave off death. But most people give up at some point before then - after there's a launch but no traction and no investors for three or six or eighteen months, when they are not literally bankrupt or have not literally exhausted every last possibility, but it seems hopeless and that 100K/year Google offer starts looking a lot more rational.

answerly 16y ago

>I think founders often have extraordinary skill I think that was Aaron's point. Daniel is an extraordinary person. An ordinary person would probably have just given up given a similar set of circumstances.

jganetsk 16y ago
I certainly can't disagree with your viewpoint. A person with extraordinary characteristics is likely to have extraordinary accomplishments. That's a pretty safe argument. But, your classification of people into 2 simple categories is exactly the kind of discussion I like to avoid. From the story, I see a person with skill, confidence, and good odds of success. Aaron's description is one of people with willpower and perseverance in the face of almost impossible odds. These are two completely orthogonal issues. It may be that Daniel is all of the above. But, as a community, we should have more sophisticated dialog on what makes folks successful. If I were to ever start a company on my own, it would be with the knowledge that I have only half of the traits touted around here. I'm more interested, at this point, in the shortcomings of successful founders and how they compensated.
- gentschev 16y ago
  To me, the most important point is that even extraordinary people face many times in the development of their companies where things look very dim. Being able to ignore that feeling and keep working and changing your assumptions and approaches is at least as rare as more definable talents. There are a lot of very talented people who are actually less resilient to hardship because they're not as used to being tested or failing as people with supposedly lesser abilities.

Harj 16y ago

Daniel's coding ability, or love of writing code, isn't the reason he's managed to get this far. I remember meeting with him regularly after demo day; no investors were interested, he had no co-founder and an idea that was all of a week old with a very buggy prototype (by very buggy, I mean didn't work). Things looked bleak. I still believed in Daniel's determination but even I was thinking in the back of my head, at least he'll be able to take these experiences with him on his next startup. "Extraordinary skill" or not, the fact is the majority of people would have given up at this point. Daniel instead kept doing back to back investor meetings during the day and coding at night. He's of course benefitted from being smart and part of YC but clearly those can't be sufficient conditions for success, if they were we'd have a 0% failure rate at YC.

jganetsk 16y ago
Well, this is the interesting part of the story I'd like to hear. Harj, I wish you the best in selecting people for the program. But, I don't know what the moral of the story is for the rest of us. Be determined? Never give up? That's not quite right... because that's not sufficient. I'm just tired of the heroic founder myth.
- johnrob 16y ago
  There's a selection bias at work: we only hear about the success stories (whether success means raising money or an exit). It stands to reason there will be a heroic tone to it since succeeding is hard. If the press wrote about every founder, the myth would be less heroic and more foolhardy.
- Harj 16y ago
  The only sufficient ingredient for success is luck. Luck is out of your control so the best you can do is to put yourself in a position that increases your chances of being lucky. That includes surrounding yourself with good people but fundamentally, the best way to be lucky is to keep going and not giving up. Perhaps that doesn't feel quite right because it's not sufficient, you're not guaranteed luck by being determined, but the alternative of saying "be lucky" isn't very meaningful.

StavrosK 16y ago

There's quite a bit of outcome bias here. For every founder who sticks with bad odds and succeeds there are ten who stick and fail. Who's to say that the decision with the largest reward wasn't giving up and trying to do something else? Not specifically in Daniel's case, mind you (he was already in YC with a good idea that's also rather easy to implement, so this made sense), but I will argue that it doesn't generally make sense to persevere when everything is against you.

mlinsey 16y ago
For every founder who sticks with bad odds and succeeds there are ten who stick and fail. Pretty much everyone will say "I stuck with it", and almost all of them will be right - they did stick with it, at least for a while. The thing is, could they have held on for even longer? Put another way, almost no startups fail because the founders go completely bankrupt and don't pay the server bill and the site is shut down by their hosts even has the founders still frantically keep working to stave off death. But most people give up at some point before then - after there's a launch but no traction and no investors for three or six or eighteen months, when they are not literally bankrupt or have not literally exhausted every last possibility, but it seems hopeless and that 100K/year Google offer starts looking a lot more rational.