3 ms·

This is a huge part of "start up culture" though - like any religion (or lottery, or whatever), superstition plays a large part, and the most important supersti

This is a huge part of "start up culture" though - like any religion (or lottery, or whatever), superstition plays a large part, and the most important superstition is that those who have been successful before know how to do it again.

samatman 6y ago
It's not religious to observe that founders who made a successful exit are well-poised to do it again. They're swimming in money, they have a bunch of investors in their phone contacts, and they know all the ins and outs from the last time they put a startup through its life cycle. How could they not be in better shape than some kid slurping ramen in his first YC cohort? This does leave two big wildcards: the idea (specifically its product-market fit) and pure dumb luck. From what you wrote, I'm guessing that you think this isn't realized by the "cult of YC" as well as it should be, whereas I guess differently, but it doesn't matter that much. We all recognize that it's there, and without those two ingredients you can't succeed. As an aside, I've seen two different kinds of 'luck' come up in these kinds of conversations: the sort I'm referring to above, and the sundry genetic and social inheritances to which a person is heir. They're both valid uses of the word, I think the first is more obviously lucky than the latter. It is luck of a sort that someone is 2 meters tall, but I bet their parents were also taller than average, so saying that it's lucky that they were able to be a pro at basketball is going to confuse some people. There was no "them" before the peculiar genetic combination which conceived them, and after that, we're talking about some favorable circumstances (adequate time, a court, no crippling car accidents or stray bullets) and a great deal of hard work. Similarly, you can call it luck that Jeff Bezos was able to borrow a quarter million from his family, or that Elon Musk apparently can sleep for four hours and work for twenty, constantly, for decades (a genetic quirk no less special and rare than being two meters tall): but you can call it fate as well.
- ashtonbaker 6y ago
  No real argument with this! I think we're talking about different things. If I could put my difference in opinion in my own words, it would be that I believe many people play the startup game with the right "intrinsic" qualities - hard work, brilliance, etc - many more than the number who exit with a billion dollars. Hence, "lottery". Of course, some of that luck can carry forward in terms of experience, networking... That's not really my point either. If Paul Graham wants to join our startup, I wouldn't have to disavow my beliefs to welcome him with open arms. That would obviously be to our great benefit. The leadership team would tout his resume, and look forward to his insightful contributions. I, on the other hand, believe that his primary contribution would be to generate a bunch of "Paul Graham Joins X Startup" headlines, increasing our value in the eyes of VC. The religion is this: you can hire Developer X or Developer Y. "X" was an early employee at a successful startup, where "Y" seems much more technically proficient. I think many startups choose "X" and don't even consider whether they're doing that for status within the startup world (which is what I believe), or because they genuinely believe that having a successful startup under their belt means - even in the face of evidence to the contrary - that the company is more likely to achieve a billion-dollar valuation with "X" than with "Y". You could argue for either justification, honestly, but it's the failure to see a distinction that strikes me as religious. And also, Paul Graham's ability to found another successful company aside, the clinging to his every word is /definitely/ religious to me.
  - d110af5ccf 6y ago
    > even in the face of evidence to the contrary This is the problem though. There really isn't any clear evidence one way or the other in your example. Predicting how someone will perform in a particular context is incredibly difficult (see the frequent disagreements on HN surrounding the hiring process). More technical proficiency might or might not translate to better overall performance in your particular case. Meanwhile, the other candidate has already been in what was presumably a substantially similar situation. Given that the previous startup succeeded, I'd assign good odds (but no guarantee, of course!) of that candidate having performed well (all else being equal, a startup with dead weight seems statistically unlikely to succeed). > You could argue for either justification, honestly, but it's the failure to see a distinction that strikes me as religious. It might not be that someone else is failing to see a distinction (social status vs technical proficiency vs something else), but rather that they disagree with your estimates of how much various factors will contribute to the likelihood of success for a candidate in the first place. In other words, I think someone might reasonably disagree with you that there's a meaningful distinction to be made here. Such a view would of course be expected to lend their actions the appearance of religious dogma from your perspective.
    - ashtonbaker 6y ago
      The first part of your comment is arguing for the second justification. Which I agreed was logically fine to do, and I think you laid out the case well. The second part seems to reveal a difference in opinion unlikely to be resolved easily in this forum. Food for thought, though - thank you!
      - d110af5ccf 6y ago
        Whoops, I didn't mean it to read like that. I actually happen to agree with you (that social status is a likely factor in certain cases for VC, and that people often seem uncomfortable about acknowledging such things). I was just trying to illustrate that it's at least possible for someone's behavior to appear dogmatic when in reality their mental model is carefully reasoned but differs from yours.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I think there's another factor you've missed, which is the market. And I think the market is a pretty important factor in the success of a company.
- po8crg 5y ago
  > It is luck of a sort that someone is 2 meters tall, but I bet their parents were also taller than average, so saying that it's lucky that they were able to be a pro at basketball is going to confuse some people. There was no "them" before the peculiar genetic combination which conceived them, and after that, we're talking about some favorable circumstances (adequate time, a court, no crippling car accidents or stray bullets) and a great deal of hard work. Hmmmm, I think it's obviously lucky. Luck in this context means everything in life that is not under your control (most things are part luck part control, of course). Since you did not exist when you were conceived, your genetic inheritance is obviously not under your control at all. It's exactly equivalent to saying that someone with a genetic disorder is unlucky, which I think is a much more accepted valuation. Certainly, the hard work is absolutely a fair point - within the universe of people who are over two meters tall with high hand-eye coordination (as someone 1.98m tall with terrible hand-eye coordination, I'm very conscious of how that affects sporting ability) those who work hard at sport are more likely to be successful professionals than those that don't. There is a more subtle question about whether we should count the mental disposition to work hard, one that is likely in large part from genetic and social inheritance, as being luck. Some people are much better at it than others, and it does not seem to be the case that those who aren't can become much harder working purely through an effort of will (somewhat, by will and regular practice and it becoming habit? sure. Reaching the level of those who are doing so anyway? No). So is that disposition a matter of luck? If it is, what does that mean? What do we do differently as a result? Do we say that it doesn't matter how hard people work, they should be rewarded the same? Obviously not. So what does that actually mean?

samatman 6y ago

It's not religious to observe that founders who made a successful exit are well-poised to do it again. They're swimming in money, they have a bunch of investors in their phone contacts, and they know all the ins and outs from the last time they put a startup through its life cycle. How could they not be in better shape than some kid slurping ramen in his first YC cohort? This does leave two big wildcards: the idea (specifically its product-market fit) and pure dumb luck. From what you wrote, I'm guessing that you think this isn't realized by the "cult of YC" as well as it should be, whereas I guess differently, but it doesn't matter that much. We all recognize that it's there, and without those two ingredients you can't succeed. As an aside, I've seen two different kinds of 'luck' come up in these kinds of conversations: the sort I'm referring to above, and the sundry genetic and social inheritances to which a person is heir. They're both valid uses of the word, I think the first is more obviously lucky than the latter. It is luck of a sort that someone is 2 meters tall, but I bet their parents were also taller than average, so saying that it's lucky that they were able to be a pro at basketball is going to confuse some people. There was no "them" before the peculiar genetic combination which conceived them, and after that, we're talking about some favorable circumstances (adequate time, a court, no crippling car accidents or stray bullets) and a great deal of hard work. Similarly, you can call it luck that Jeff Bezos was able to borrow a quarter million from his family, or that Elon Musk apparently can sleep for four hours and work for twenty, constantly, for decades (a genetic quirk no less special and rare than being two meters tall): but you can call it fate as well.

ashtonbaker 6y ago
No real argument with this! I think we're talking about different things. If I could put my difference in opinion in my own words, it would be that I believe many people play the startup game with the right "intrinsic" qualities - hard work, brilliance, etc - many more than the number who exit with a billion dollars. Hence, "lottery". Of course, some of that luck can carry forward in terms of experience, networking... That's not really my point either. If Paul Graham wants to join our startup, I wouldn't have to disavow my beliefs to welcome him with open arms. That would obviously be to our great benefit. The leadership team would tout his resume, and look forward to his insightful contributions. I, on the other hand, believe that his primary contribution would be to generate a bunch of "Paul Graham Joins X Startup" headlines, increasing our value in the eyes of VC. The religion is this: you can hire Developer X or Developer Y. "X" was an early employee at a successful startup, where "Y" seems much more technically proficient. I think many startups choose "X" and don't even consider whether they're doing that for status within the startup world (which is what I believe), or because they genuinely believe that having a successful startup under their belt means - even in the face of evidence to the contrary - that the company is more likely to achieve a billion-dollar valuation with "X" than with "Y". You could argue for either justification, honestly, but it's the failure to see a distinction that strikes me as religious. And also, Paul Graham's ability to found another successful company aside, the clinging to his every word is /definitely/ religious to me.
- d110af5ccf 6y ago
  > even in the face of evidence to the contrary This is the problem though. There really isn't any clear evidence one way or the other in your example. Predicting how someone will perform in a particular context is incredibly difficult (see the frequent disagreements on HN surrounding the hiring process). More technical proficiency might or might not translate to better overall performance in your particular case. Meanwhile, the other candidate has already been in what was presumably a substantially similar situation. Given that the previous startup succeeded, I'd assign good odds (but no guarantee, of course!) of that candidate having performed well (all else being equal, a startup with dead weight seems statistically unlikely to succeed). > You could argue for either justification, honestly, but it's the failure to see a distinction that strikes me as religious. It might not be that someone else is failing to see a distinction (social status vs technical proficiency vs something else), but rather that they disagree with your estimates of how much various factors will contribute to the likelihood of success for a candidate in the first place. In other words, I think someone might reasonably disagree with you that there's a meaningful distinction to be made here. Such a view would of course be expected to lend their actions the appearance of religious dogma from your perspective.
  - ashtonbaker 6y ago
    The first part of your comment is arguing for the second justification. Which I agreed was logically fine to do, and I think you laid out the case well. The second part seems to reveal a difference in opinion unlikely to be resolved easily in this forum. Food for thought, though - thank you!
    - d110af5ccf 6y ago
      Whoops, I didn't mean it to read like that. I actually happen to agree with you (that social status is a likely factor in certain cases for VC, and that people often seem uncomfortable about acknowledging such things). I was just trying to illustrate that it's at least possible for someone's behavior to appear dogmatic when in reality their mental model is carefully reasoned but differs from yours.
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I think there's another factor you've missed, which is the market. And I think the market is a pretty important factor in the success of a company.
po8crg 5y ago
> It is luck of a sort that someone is 2 meters tall, but I bet their parents were also taller than average, so saying that it's lucky that they were able to be a pro at basketball is going to confuse some people. There was no "them" before the peculiar genetic combination which conceived them, and after that, we're talking about some favorable circumstances (adequate time, a court, no crippling car accidents or stray bullets) and a great deal of hard work. Hmmmm, I think it's obviously lucky. Luck in this context means everything in life that is not under your control (most things are part luck part control, of course). Since you did not exist when you were conceived, your genetic inheritance is obviously not under your control at all. It's exactly equivalent to saying that someone with a genetic disorder is unlucky, which I think is a much more accepted valuation. Certainly, the hard work is absolutely a fair point - within the universe of people who are over two meters tall with high hand-eye coordination (as someone 1.98m tall with terrible hand-eye coordination, I'm very conscious of how that affects sporting ability) those who work hard at sport are more likely to be successful professionals than those that don't. There is a more subtle question about whether we should count the mental disposition to work hard, one that is likely in large part from genetic and social inheritance, as being luck. Some people are much better at it than others, and it does not seem to be the case that those who aren't can become much harder working purely through an effort of will (somewhat, by will and regular practice and it becoming habit? sure. Reaching the level of those who are doing so anyway? No). So is that disposition a matter of luck? If it is, what does that mean? What do we do differently as a result? Do we say that it doesn't matter how hard people work, they should be rewarded the same? Obviously not. So what does that actually mean?