4 ms·

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 m

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.
    - ashtonbaker 5y ago
      For sure, point well taken. There is a question of differing goals and values there between me and the "startup" or "get rich" people, I think, but I suppose we all have our own dogma in the end.

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.
  - ashtonbaker 5y ago
    For sure, point well taken. There is a question of differing goals and values there between me and the "startup" or "get rich" people, I think, but I suppose we all have our own dogma in the end.