4 ms·

Your comment about VCs makes no sense. If a VC wants you to work hard because that’s how a VC gets rich, that means that working hard leads to building a succes

Your comment about VCs makes no sense. If a VC wants you to work hard because that’s how a VC gets rich, that means that working hard leads to building a successful company. If it were purely luck, why would the VC care if you worked hard or not?

luffapi 5y ago
If VCs knew what made companies great, they wouldn’t fail 9 out of 10 times. More than any profession I can think of, VC is almost pure luck + how much wealth you already have, which attracts deal flow, which increases your odds to get lucky. PG blogs because he thinks it increases his deal flow (or he wants attention). Just because he’s saying it, it doesn’t make it true, even if he believes his own story.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  That still doesn't answer my question. If hard work had no effect, why would VCs encourage it?
  - luffapi 5y ago
    Because they’re ignorant and think it matters.
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      So they encourage hard work because it makes them money, but not really, because they are only ignorant in thinking that it does, and it's actually entirely luck? Yeah, this attitude is a mental pretzel more akin to ideology than fact.
      - luffapi 5y ago
        They make money through luck. They speak authoritatively out of ignorance. Monkeys rolling dice could do an equally good job, that doesn’t mean you should take advice from a monkey with a gambling problem.
        CyanBird 5y ago
        Why delete the reply? It is an accurate angle, albeit inflamatory, after all that was the outcome of the Buffet bet vs HedgeFunds regarding the ROI of index funds But yeah, not sure if id say that they make money through luck "alone", more like they make money through "the aggregate of luck" and very deep pockets which themselves are financed through suprasecular low interest rates, or in the same manner that a Casino will always win in the aggregate
        luffapi 5y ago
        I didn’t delete my reply, but I totally agree with you.
      - CyanBird 5y ago
        > this attitude is a mental pretzel more akin to ideology than fact. Of course that's the case, because you are baking your own misleading slant into questions and then wondering why the output of the questioning process is not satisfactory Slant such as: >"...If hard work had no effect..." Which is not something that's being argued for. It is just a strawman of your own making to the points raised Id recommend you to do introspection on manicheist type thinking, and the difference between aggregate results of "Luck+Hard Work" vs the "Luck"/"Hard Work" work binary thinking. I can't solve your errors of thinking, you'll have to work hard to understand the problem, or maybe you'll be one of the lucky few to understand it with ease :)
        ceilingcorner 5y ago
        The condescending, passive aggressive reply, filled with “you must look within” tropes and topped off with a smiley face. Is there anything more irritating?
        CyanBird 5y ago
        Just dont add the slant to the questions next time, it is just ...... not even unnecessary, it is counterproductive for you and everyone, to the other person is just as irritating as what I did to you with the previous reply + smiley Or alternatively go watch that veritasium video that's being shared over the thread, it is very good
fogetti 5y ago
Because most VC founded companies are not about results. They are about virtue signaling to attract even more capital. Profitability has been thrown out of the window long time ago. Success is measured in the stupidest KPIs you can imagine. That's why 9 out of 10 VC founded companies fail. So you need to indoctrinate your minions to make them act accordingly.
- nagydictator 5y ago
  Hi fogetti, It’s been a long time. You are only saying this because you got fired from our start up for power harassing our engineers while in a managerial position and getting a little “touchy & creepy” with some of the female staff. The KPIs we had implemented were not stupid. You just refused to do them. Also calling our CEO an idiot using your HN profile was probably not a great idea. We have also spoke with your previous employers and the feedback was very consistent. Narcissistic and lazy. Please don’t blame our company that you ruined your entire career in Japan.
emodendroket 5y ago
I think the criticism is not so illogical. Let's just assume your company has a 5% chance of wild success and you can double it by working insanely hard (I think these numbers are likely generous, but easier to take round numbers for the sake of argument). It is in this case simultaneously true that it's in VCs' interest to convince you to work very hard and also that it's probably not in your interest. It only makes sense for them to promote because the one or two lucky groups will make up for all the duds.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  Then hard work increases your chances. What is controversial about this?
  - ookdatnog 5y ago
    I don't think the point is "hard work has no effect on outcome", but rather "for nearly all people who end up successful, luck played a very significant role which is often minimized", and as a corollary "hard work is not a sufficient condition for success, but successful people tend to portray it as such". For a good summary of this argument, I recommend the (fairly short) Veritasium video that has been posted several times already in this discussion: https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      "hard work is not a sufficient condition for success, but successful people tend to portray it as such". I don't agree with that at all. Most successful people say that some degree of luck was involved.
      - ookdatnog 5y ago
        Perhaps this point is a bit too anecdotal, but I've certainly encountered the "just work hard and you'll make it" attitude a lot. And its inverse, people assuming that unsuccessful people must be unsuccessful because of their personal flaws. In any case, that's the corollary, not the main point. Which is: > I don't think the point is "hard work has no effect on outcome", but rather "for nearly all people who end up successful, luck played a very significant role which is often minimized"

luffapi 5y ago

If VCs knew what made companies great, they wouldn’t fail 9 out of 10 times. More than any profession I can think of, VC is almost pure luck + how much wealth you already have, which attracts deal flow, which increases your odds to get lucky. PG blogs because he thinks it increases his deal flow (or he wants attention). Just because he’s saying it, it doesn’t make it true, even if he believes his own story.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
That still doesn't answer my question. If hard work had no effect, why would VCs encourage it?
- luffapi 5y ago
  Because they’re ignorant and think it matters.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    So they encourage hard work because it makes them money, but not really, because they are only ignorant in thinking that it does, and it's actually entirely luck? Yeah, this attitude is a mental pretzel more akin to ideology than fact.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      They make money through luck. They speak authoritatively out of ignorance. Monkeys rolling dice could do an equally good job, that doesn’t mean you should take advice from a monkey with a gambling problem.
      - CyanBird 5y ago
        Why delete the reply? It is an accurate angle, albeit inflamatory, after all that was the outcome of the Buffet bet vs HedgeFunds regarding the ROI of index funds But yeah, not sure if id say that they make money through luck "alone", more like they make money through "the aggregate of luck" and very deep pockets which themselves are financed through suprasecular low interest rates, or in the same manner that a Casino will always win in the aggregate
        luffapi 5y ago
        I didn’t delete my reply, but I totally agree with you.
    - CyanBird 5y ago
      > this attitude is a mental pretzel more akin to ideology than fact. Of course that's the case, because you are baking your own misleading slant into questions and then wondering why the output of the questioning process is not satisfactory Slant such as: >"...If hard work had no effect..." Which is not something that's being argued for. It is just a strawman of your own making to the points raised Id recommend you to do introspection on manicheist type thinking, and the difference between aggregate results of "Luck+Hard Work" vs the "Luck"/"Hard Work" work binary thinking. I can't solve your errors of thinking, you'll have to work hard to understand the problem, or maybe you'll be one of the lucky few to understand it with ease :)
      - ceilingcorner 5y ago
        The condescending, passive aggressive reply, filled with “you must look within” tropes and topped off with a smiley face. Is there anything more irritating?
        CyanBird 5y ago
        Just dont add the slant to the questions next time, it is just ...... not even unnecessary, it is counterproductive for you and everyone, to the other person is just as irritating as what I did to you with the previous reply + smiley Or alternatively go watch that veritasium video that's being shared over the thread, it is very good

fogetti 5y ago

Because most VC founded companies are not about results. They are about virtue signaling to attract even more capital. Profitability has been thrown out of the window long time ago. Success is measured in the stupidest KPIs you can imagine. That's why 9 out of 10 VC founded companies fail. So you need to indoctrinate your minions to make them act accordingly.

nagydictator 5y ago
Hi fogetti, It’s been a long time. You are only saying this because you got fired from our start up for power harassing our engineers while in a managerial position and getting a little “touchy & creepy” with some of the female staff. The KPIs we had implemented were not stupid. You just refused to do them. Also calling our CEO an idiot using your HN profile was probably not a great idea. We have also spoke with your previous employers and the feedback was very consistent. Narcissistic and lazy. Please don’t blame our company that you ruined your entire career in Japan.

emodendroket 5y ago

I think the criticism is not so illogical. Let's just assume your company has a 5% chance of wild success and you can double it by working insanely hard (I think these numbers are likely generous, but easier to take round numbers for the sake of argument). It is in this case simultaneously true that it's in VCs' interest to convince you to work very hard and also that it's probably not in your interest. It only makes sense for them to promote because the one or two lucky groups will make up for all the duds.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
Then hard work increases your chances. What is controversial about this?
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  I don't think the point is "hard work has no effect on outcome", but rather "for nearly all people who end up successful, luck played a very significant role which is often minimized", and as a corollary "hard work is not a sufficient condition for success, but successful people tend to portray it as such". For a good summary of this argument, I recommend the (fairly short) Veritasium video that has been posted several times already in this discussion: https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    "hard work is not a sufficient condition for success, but successful people tend to portray it as such". I don't agree with that at all. Most successful people say that some degree of luck was involved.
    - ookdatnog 5y ago
      Perhaps this point is a bit too anecdotal, but I've certainly encountered the "just work hard and you'll make it" attitude a lot. And its inverse, people assuming that unsuccessful people must be unsuccessful because of their personal flaws. In any case, that's the corollary, not the main point. Which is: > I don't think the point is "hard work has no effect on outcome", but rather "for nearly all people who end up successful, luck played a very significant role which is often minimized"