3 ms·

While it's likely true that people who sacrifice everything are rarely successful, I think that the people at the top of their fields almost always have. There

by wheels 16y ago

While it's likely true that people who sacrifice everything are rarely successful, I think that the people at the top of their fields almost always have. There's almost, but not quite, the subtext here that over the top dedication doesn't matter. But it does affect one's potential, it just doesn't guarantee success. So rationally, since you probably won't get to the top of your field, it's folly to burn yourself out trying. But then, by that same logic, starting a startup is altogether irrational since it'll probably be a lot of work for little money and ultimate failure. There's a function from commitment to potential, and the area between that line and the plot of a rational career choice is the place founders live. It's really a matter of how far of a departure overbearing self-confidence allows you to justify. But the biggest winners are the ones that start among the most self-deluded. ;-)

swombat 16y ago
That's a good way to put it for those who see startups (and perhaps business in general) as a lottery ticket. I have a very strong suspicion (though not substantiated by evidence at this point) that the chances of success (where success is defined in the typical startup way as "fuck-you-money") are much higher if one goes about deliberately and sustainably becoming a fantastic entrepreneur, rather than betting everything on a single startup. The question is, really, what affects potential more? Over the top dedication, or marathon-like persistence? I'm betting on the latter. If two equally bright and ambitious young kids come up and say "I want to succeed in the startup world", and one of them continues "I've building this one startup and throwing everything I've got in it, my entire existence rides on it", while the other one says "I'm planning to spend the next 20 years doing it and I'll probably start 20 businesses at least in that time, each one better than the previous", I'd bet on the latter. I suspect the only person who has any solid evidence that could weigh this debate one way or another is pg, though.
- wheels 16y ago
  The major difference in what we're saying is that you're defining success as a step function, I'm defining it as a continuum. If we're talking about a step function, sure, you're more likely to get over the threshold with calculated risks and diligence. But out at the end of the continuum, where the Bill Gates and Michael Jordans of the world live, in that league, I believe you need over the top dedication and marathon like persistence.
  - swombat 16y ago
    Most people that I meet who run startups do so because a) they enjoy the challenge of building something cool and useful and making money from it, and b) they would like to make enough money to not have to worry about money. Even if you're trying to build a Gatesian empire, I'd argue that taking it in steps could be a better approach, more likely to get somewhere. See Richard Branson as a counterpoint to Gates/Jobs/etc. And the advantage of taking it in steps is that if you don't have what it takes in both personal qualities and incredible luck to make it to the top, you're still left with something. I don't think anything you or I can say on a website will divert a Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan from their intentions, in any case. :-) But, certainly, both philosophies exist and have their pros and cons. Which one do you think is right for most people?
    - wheels 16y ago
      Which one do you think is right for most people? Neither. And that's the essence of what I'm getting at. I don't think there's a singular this is what people (or entrepreneurs) should do. It's widely variable upon the person, their constitution and tolerances, and for most people, probably altogether a bad idea. It's also a false dichotomy; in practice successful people, for either definition, do not choose between either or, but varying degrees of both.
      - swombat 16y ago
        I like it. "Founders! Do what makes sense! Use your brains, dammit!" Good advice for all :-) Worth noting that I explicitly did not judge whether it made sense for the SocialCam team to do it this way - I'm only criticising the general stereotype that "you have to sacrifice everything in order to make it". Imho that method works in a very small number of cases and is dangerous in most.
seigenblues 16y ago
"While it's likely true that people who sacrifice everything are rarely successful, I think that the people at the top of their fields almost always have." Not to harp on my favorite old saw about randomness, but drawing generalizations like this -- by only looking at the successful end results and searching for common patterns after the fact -- doesn't really help. For example, say there are 10,000,000 who sacrifice everything, and of them, there are 1,000 who are at the top of their field. The other 99,990,000 are "silent evidence". ("silent evidence" is worth googling) Moreover, the actual importance of "sacrificing everything" becomes further masked unless you realize the actual total size of your cohort. What are the odds that someone could become the top of their field without sacrificing everything? e.g., is there a one-in-a-million chance that someone can both be the best and sleep 8 hours a night every night? If so, for some handful of people in your sample, you'd expect them to have succeeded anyway (assuming you could estimate that prior, which is laughable :) This argument can also be used when people applaud "genius investors" with a 100% success rate for any arbitrary finite timespan -- given a large enough population, it'd be expected that someone would pick right N times in a row, and nobody hears or cares about the failures. Similarly, folks argue from the anecdote of a few rags-to-riches stories and say look, income inequality is nothing to worry about! But actually, given the number of people in the bottom 95%, you'd expect some number of them to be able to make it to the top 5% -- and a better metric might be to look at that rate across other developed nations. One in a million times x million = x bestsellers about "how my drive and ambition took me out of the gutter bla bla bla..." Anyway, just pointing out that causation is a very, very difficult nut. (Likewise, starting a startup is hardly irrational -- the host of 'intangibles', plus greater exposure to positive black swans, make it kind of a no brainer :)

by wheels 16y ago

swombat 16y ago

That's a good way to put it for those who see startups (and perhaps business in general) as a lottery ticket. I have a very strong suspicion (though not substantiated by evidence at this point) that the chances of success (where success is defined in the typical startup way as "fuck-you-money") are much higher if one goes about deliberately and sustainably becoming a fantastic entrepreneur, rather than betting everything on a single startup. The question is, really, what affects potential more? Over the top dedication, or marathon-like persistence? I'm betting on the latter. If two equally bright and ambitious young kids come up and say "I want to succeed in the startup world", and one of them continues "I've building this one startup and throwing everything I've got in it, my entire existence rides on it", while the other one says "I'm planning to spend the next 20 years doing it and I'll probably start 20 businesses at least in that time, each one better than the previous", I'd bet on the latter. I suspect the only person who has any solid evidence that could weigh this debate one way or another is pg, though.

wheels 16y ago
The major difference in what we're saying is that you're defining success as a step function, I'm defining it as a continuum. If we're talking about a step function, sure, you're more likely to get over the threshold with calculated risks and diligence. But out at the end of the continuum, where the Bill Gates and Michael Jordans of the world live, in that league, I believe you need over the top dedication and marathon like persistence.
- swombat 16y ago
  Most people that I meet who run startups do so because a) they enjoy the challenge of building something cool and useful and making money from it, and b) they would like to make enough money to not have to worry about money. Even if you're trying to build a Gatesian empire, I'd argue that taking it in steps could be a better approach, more likely to get somewhere. See Richard Branson as a counterpoint to Gates/Jobs/etc. And the advantage of taking it in steps is that if you don't have what it takes in both personal qualities and incredible luck to make it to the top, you're still left with something. I don't think anything you or I can say on a website will divert a Steve Jobs or Michael Jordan from their intentions, in any case. :-) But, certainly, both philosophies exist and have their pros and cons. Which one do you think is right for most people?
  - wheels 16y ago
    Which one do you think is right for most people? Neither. And that's the essence of what I'm getting at. I don't think there's a singular this is what people (or entrepreneurs) should do. It's widely variable upon the person, their constitution and tolerances, and for most people, probably altogether a bad idea. It's also a false dichotomy; in practice successful people, for either definition, do not choose between either or, but varying degrees of both.
    - swombat 16y ago
      I like it. "Founders! Do what makes sense! Use your brains, dammit!" Good advice for all :-) Worth noting that I explicitly did not judge whether it made sense for the SocialCam team to do it this way - I'm only criticising the general stereotype that "you have to sacrifice everything in order to make it". Imho that method works in a very small number of cases and is dangerous in most.

seigenblues 16y ago

"While it's likely true that people who sacrifice everything are rarely successful, I think that the people at the top of their fields almost always have." Not to harp on my favorite old saw about randomness, but drawing generalizations like this -- by only looking at the successful end results and searching for common patterns after the fact -- doesn't really help. For example, say there are 10,000,000 who sacrifice everything, and of them, there are 1,000 who are at the top of their field. The other 99,990,000 are "silent evidence". ("silent evidence" is worth googling) Moreover, the actual importance of "sacrificing everything" becomes further masked unless you realize the actual total size of your cohort. What are the odds that someone could become the top of their field without sacrificing everything? e.g., is there a one-in-a-million chance that someone can both be the best and sleep 8 hours a night every night? If so, for some handful of people in your sample, you'd expect them to have succeeded anyway (assuming you could estimate that prior, which is laughable :) This argument can also be used when people applaud "genius investors" with a 100% success rate for any arbitrary finite timespan -- given a large enough population, it'd be expected that someone would pick right N times in a row, and nobody hears or cares about the failures. Similarly, folks argue from the anecdote of a few rags-to-riches stories and say look, income inequality is nothing to worry about! But actually, given the number of people in the bottom 95%, you'd expect some number of them to be able to make it to the top 5% -- and a better metric might be to look at that rate across other developed nations. One in a million times x million = x bestsellers about "how my drive and ambition took me out of the gutter bla bla bla..." Anyway, just pointing out that causation is a very, very difficult nut. (Likewise, starting a startup is hardly irrational -- the host of 'intangibles', plus greater exposure to positive black swans, make it kind of a no brainer :)