4 ms·

http://paulgraham.com/founders.html http://paulgraham.com/founders.html What We Look for in Founders 4. Naughtiness Though the most successful founders are u

http://paulgraham.com/founders.html http://paulgraham.com/founders.html What We Look for in Founders 4. Naughtiness Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.

mercer 6y ago
Jesus. I imagine getting the 'big questions' right is so vague as to remove any culpability from both YC and those it funds. I mean, if I had a friend who openly claimed to be 'naughty' in this way, I'd start being very cautious around them.
- gmantg 6y ago
  YC is right, though. People who play by others rules rarely succeed. All these senior managers, vps, execs, business owners arent known for following the silly rules.
  - rapind 6y ago
    Basically our society rewards douchebaggery...
    - econcon 6y ago
      Nearly all products, markets and human interactions operate on specific model which makes some assumptions, those assumptions often end up as rule - so that the model stay predictable for the people governing it. By not following those assumptions (rules) you can make a new better model which might have better accuracy at representative real world problem than the existing model. It doesn't mean that it's unethical or morally wrong. It doesn't have to be.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
npunt 6y ago
This might be better framed as D&D's chaotic good alignment. I find it weird to say good founders should 'delight in breaking rules', as that is a really consumer tech biased (and frankly, privileged teenage male) point of view, where external stakes are relatively low. That attitude can be pretty counterproductive in a lot of important industries. It may be necessary to break certain rules to achieve a larger common good, but to bias toward breaking them (rather than to see it as simply sometimes necessary) represents one of tech's worse qualities, and probably does a lot to filter out a lot of potential founders. Also take issue with the idea that successful founders are 'usually good people'. At least in my experience most are in the chaotic neutral camp where they generally don't care much about externalities as long as they're not too bad or seriously affect them, and their ideas about 'changing the world' are generally indistinguishable from their own personal success.

mercer 6y ago

Jesus. I imagine getting the 'big questions' right is so vague as to remove any culpability from both YC and those it funds. I mean, if I had a friend who openly claimed to be 'naughty' in this way, I'd start being very cautious around them.

gmantg 6y ago
YC is right, though. People who play by others rules rarely succeed. All these senior managers, vps, execs, business owners arent known for following the silly rules.
- rapind 6y ago
  Basically our society rewards douchebaggery...
  - econcon 6y ago
    Nearly all products, markets and human interactions operate on specific model which makes some assumptions, those assumptions often end up as rule - so that the model stay predictable for the people governing it. By not following those assumptions (rules) you can make a new better model which might have better accuracy at representative real world problem than the existing model. It doesn't mean that it's unethical or morally wrong. It doesn't have to be.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

npunt 6y ago

This might be better framed as D&D's chaotic good alignment. I find it weird to say good founders should 'delight in breaking rules', as that is a really consumer tech biased (and frankly, privileged teenage male) point of view, where external stakes are relatively low. That attitude can be pretty counterproductive in a lot of important industries. It may be necessary to break certain rules to achieve a larger common good, but to bias toward breaking them (rather than to see it as simply sometimes necessary) represents one of tech's worse qualities, and probably does a lot to filter out a lot of potential founders. Also take issue with the idea that successful founders are 'usually good people'. At least in my experience most are in the chaotic neutral camp where they generally don't care much about externalities as long as they're not too bad or seriously affect them, and their ideas about 'changing the world' are generally indistinguishable from their own personal success.