5 ms·

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 thi

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"
- emodendroket 5y ago
  You ever read jwz’s “Watch a VC Use My Name to Sell a Con”? > I did make a bunch of money by winning the Netscape Startup Lottery, it's true. So did most of the early engineers. But the people who made 100x as much as the engineers did? I can tell you for a fact that none of them slept under their desk. If you look at a list of financially successful people from the software industry, I'll bet you get a very different view of what kind of sleep habits and office hours are successful than the one presented here. > So if your goal is to enrich the Arringtons of the world while maybe, if you win the lottery, scooping some of the groundscore that they overlooked, then by all means, bust your ass while the bankers and speculators cheer you on. The controversy is that while it technically increases your chances, increasing infinitesimal chances to slightly less infinitesimal chances isn’t necessarily worth your health. But if you have a stake in tons of companies hey, one of them will probably pay off if everyone is sacrificing everything for them.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    I still don't understand what is so difficult about this. If you work hard, you're more likely to succeed. Not guaranteed to succeed. Luck still matters, although a lot less than people think. Whether or not VCs are justified in earning their returns is a completely different issue. This has nothing to do with hard work and everything to do with investment and dilution. The "controversy" is this online meme that everything is just "random" and "luck" and no one, anywhere, can ever do anything to be successful. The entire world is nothing but a Vegas casino. It's just rationalization for laziness and frankly, it's completely uninteresting. No one who has actual business experience thinks this.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      It is as though you are not reading what I'm saying. Let's try analogy. If you work really hard at it you're more likely to become an NFL quarterback. Does that mean it's a good idea to neglect everything else to chase that dream or that Roger Goodell would suggest that to you out of careful consideration of your welfare?
    - jodrellblank 5y ago

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"
emodendroket 5y ago
You ever read jwz’s “Watch a VC Use My Name to Sell a Con”? > I did make a bunch of money by winning the Netscape Startup Lottery, it's true. So did most of the early engineers. But the people who made 100x as much as the engineers did? I can tell you for a fact that none of them slept under their desk. If you look at a list of financially successful people from the software industry, I'll bet you get a very different view of what kind of sleep habits and office hours are successful than the one presented here. > So if your goal is to enrich the Arringtons of the world while maybe, if you win the lottery, scooping some of the groundscore that they overlooked, then by all means, bust your ass while the bankers and speculators cheer you on. The controversy is that while it technically increases your chances, increasing infinitesimal chances to slightly less infinitesimal chances isn’t necessarily worth your health. But if you have a stake in tons of companies hey, one of them will probably pay off if everyone is sacrificing everything for them.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  I still don't understand what is so difficult about this. If you work hard, you're more likely to succeed. Not guaranteed to succeed. Luck still matters, although a lot less than people think. Whether or not VCs are justified in earning their returns is a completely different issue. This has nothing to do with hard work and everything to do with investment and dilution. The "controversy" is this online meme that everything is just "random" and "luck" and no one, anywhere, can ever do anything to be successful. The entire world is nothing but a Vegas casino. It's just rationalization for laziness and frankly, it's completely uninteresting. No one who has actual business experience thinks this.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    It is as though you are not reading what I'm saying. Let's try analogy. If you work really hard at it you're more likely to become an NFL quarterback. Does that mean it's a good idea to neglect everything else to chase that dream or that Roger Goodell would suggest that to you out of careful consideration of your welfare?
  - jodrellblank 5y ago