7 ms·

I always like to poke fun at the “How to deal with being the smartest person in the room/industry/world”-style blog posts that make for common front-page schloc

I always like to poke fun at the “How to deal with being the smartest person in the room/industry/world”-style blog posts that make for common front-page schlock here, but this is a fascinating and relatively rare sub-species of “You ARE the smartest person in the room/industry/world. Anyone that suggests otherwise is ‘considered harmful’” I love that the extension of this is “making friends considered harmful”, “trusting others considered harmful”, “forming professional relationships considered harmful (unless they’re subservient to your supreme vision, intellect and command)” This reads like a very angry breakup letter.

_xnmw 4y ago
False dichotomy. Going out on your own doesn't mean you think you are the smartest person in the room. It's often about freedom. If I decide I want to go biking alone, doesn't mean I think I am the best biker. I decided to keep going the solo-founder route precisely so that my social circle could be enlarged and enriched. Now I don't have to spend most of my time around tech bros and cofounders whose main interest in business. Instead, I cultivate my social relationships in completely unrelated domains: the arts, community outreach, my physical neighbourhood, religion/philosophy and other hobbies. That gives me both the motivation and the space to think and keep going at the business, because my work fuels something other than itself.
- braingenious 4y ago
  I’m glad that worked out for you professionally and socially, but what exactly are you saying here? If you had a co-founder you wouldn’t have time for friends that are into art, philosophy, religion, neighborhoods, hobbies? edit: To clarify, if I had a business partner that cost me that much, I would definitely sever from that relationship. I would consider that a failure of a single relationship rather than waxing poetic about how everybody would cost that much. To do so would be for me to put myself above theoretical individuals because of a single event. That probably wouldn’t be the sort of error that I would see as reasonable when thinking about anybody I’d maybe do business with…
- kossTKR 4y ago
  Interesting, what kind of business are you running that is successful enough to go solo? I've been thinking about the same thing, but most solo founders or "digital nomads" i've met are actually working in marketing, affiliate or social media, not really coding, or SAAS. I wonder if it's feasible.
Aeolun 4y ago
I think the idea is that you are the only person (not paid by you) that thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.
stingraycharles 4y ago
While I agree with the sentiment, it does need to be said that trying to find a cofounder can be incredibly difficult, and doing it solo should definitely be a consideration.
baxtr 4y ago
There is a great blog post by Mark Suster on that topic. He basically argues that you should hire your co-founder. https://bothsidesofthetable.com/the-co-founder-mythology-7919a32e17c8 https://bothsidesofthetable.com/the-co-founder-mythology-791...
- robocat 4y ago
  And here’s YC arguing the opposite: https://www.ycombinator.com/library/5x-how-to-split-equity-among-co-founders https://www.ycombinator.com/library/5x-how-to-split-equity-a... Disclaimer: I am an initial founder with a minority shareholding, and it truely sucks (even though the business is a centipede (very very approximately 1/100 of a unicorn).
  - baxtr 4y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for sharing. What would you do the next time differently?
    - robocat 4y ago
      > What would you do the next time differently? I am a geek engineer type. If I were coaching a younger me, I would mostly be encouraging learning soft people skills (negotiation, influence, reading others, etcetera). I still tend to get sidetracked on yak shaving (the quest for perfection in a very narrow area, rather than good enough then focus on the next most important thing). I made okay decisions given who I was, so I am not unhappy with myself. I have been improving myself, but not fast enough!
  - laserlight 4y ago
    The article unfortunately contradicts itself. If a startup takes 10 years to build, why vest 25% of the shares after just one year? Then, it’s a very cost-effective strategy to leave after a year and let others work for you for the remaining 9 years. Article also presents a very outdated view: more equity means more motivation. According to two-factor theory [0], equity is not a motivation factor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory
andy_ppp 4y ago
This comment is needlessly harsh on the article. I read this much more as why not consider the opposite view. One of my frustrations with the advice YC and others seem to give is that it is all hearsay and I don’t believe it needs to be that way. Especially for an organisation that prides itself on being scientifically lead there must be a way to show data around most of their claims. The whole point of the scientific method is trying to prevent people from guessing from their perceived experiences because we so easily fool ourselves into believing without the statistical proof to back it up. This article is also not purely true, I’m certain there are cofounders that work perfectly together and people who are better at selecting them for themselves. I think the stuff about handling high stress situations is very useful and testing that somehow seems like a good idea. I’m not sure how many difficult situations I’ve had with my best friend to be honest, let alone a stranger. I find it really surprising that a solo cofounder is more likely to succeed. Can anyone refute or confirm this?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Silverback_VII 4y ago
I'm seeing what you are doing here, people who criticize are often subconsciously perceived as more intelligent and powerful. But apart from your small power move, let me ask you, since there are some stats in the article, what exactly is wrong about the statement ? If you have a specific destination in mind it is certainly better to remain the captain. Naivity in dealing with other people has killed many great ideas and therefore some warnings are appropriate.
- braingenious 4y ago
  I’m not sure how my clearly-stated poking fun is a “small power move” but are you aware of the irony in your post? The topic of my post was a benign “I think this article is kind of silly” point. The topic of your response is that criticism is a “power move”? And your impulse is to yourself criticize?
doctor_eval 4y ago
It's got nothing to do with being smartest person in the room. When your wellbeing gets put into other people's hands it's super stressful, and if they fuck up, or you fuck up, or even if you just argue with them, then it's way, way more stressful than if you're just doing things on your own. The stress leads to a relationship death spiral, and then you end up losing everything. Not having cofounders won't stop you from making mistakes, but it will prevent the relationship/business death spiral. I've always said that I prefer to make my own mistakes, instead of implementing other people's. I wish I'd listened to my own advice before I brought in co-founders for my previous business; my next caper is going to be 100% solo.
- prirun 4y ago
  With 2 co-founders, you have to agree on everything. That's hard. 3 co-founders let's you do a majority thing on decisions, but that IMO can easily turn into politics: you do this for me, I'll do that for you, we are better friends so you need to vote with me on this, etc. Having previously started and exiting a 2-founder 50/50 business, I wouldn't do it again. I might give equity, but even that can be very tricky. See for example the case of Craigslist having a minority shareholder who sold his shares to eBay. The original minority shareholder may not have caused the other shareholders any problems, but having a large competing corporation as a minority shareholder is a whole 'nother thing.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    Oof. I can’t imagine a 50/50 relationship. My marriage isn’t even 50/50, unless we are getting a divorce. In my marriage we each have “domains” that we are gods of. When it comes to money, she has domain over day-to-day expenses and I have control over making sure bills are paid and taxes are accounted for and we reconcile this fairly regularly. My point is, there has to be some kind of “tie-breaker” that isn’t biased/random. Whether that is a “fact” that something falls into someone’s “domain” or whether it’s a person. 50/50 just doesn’t seem realistic or a recipe for stress.
bjornsing 4y ago
It’s interesting how intense and emotional the criticism of this kind of reasoning tends to be, and your comment is a prime example. It makes me think there is self-interest or some strong ideological basis at its root. I realize it’s fairly pointless to ask, but why does this feel so threatening to you? Is it “smart person doesn’t need me – can make shitload of money without conforming to my social norms / letting me freeload”? ;)

_xnmw 4y ago

False dichotomy. Going out on your own doesn't mean you think you are the smartest person in the room. It's often about freedom. If I decide I want to go biking alone, doesn't mean I think I am the best biker. I decided to keep going the solo-founder route precisely so that my social circle could be enlarged and enriched. Now I don't have to spend most of my time around tech bros and cofounders whose main interest in business. Instead, I cultivate my social relationships in completely unrelated domains: the arts, community outreach, my physical neighbourhood, religion/philosophy and other hobbies. That gives me both the motivation and the space to think and keep going at the business, because my work fuels something other than itself.

braingenious 4y ago
I’m glad that worked out for you professionally and socially, but what exactly are you saying here? If you had a co-founder you wouldn’t have time for friends that are into art, philosophy, religion, neighborhoods, hobbies? edit: To clarify, if I had a business partner that cost me that much, I would definitely sever from that relationship. I would consider that a failure of a single relationship rather than waxing poetic about how everybody would cost that much. To do so would be for me to put myself above theoretical individuals because of a single event. That probably wouldn’t be the sort of error that I would see as reasonable when thinking about anybody I’d maybe do business with…
kossTKR 4y ago
Interesting, what kind of business are you running that is successful enough to go solo? I've been thinking about the same thing, but most solo founders or "digital nomads" i've met are actually working in marketing, affiliate or social media, not really coding, or SAAS. I wonder if it's feasible.

Aeolun 4y ago

I think the idea is that you are the only person (not paid by you) that thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.

stingraycharles 4y ago

While I agree with the sentiment, it does need to be said that trying to find a cofounder can be incredibly difficult, and doing it solo should definitely be a consideration.

baxtr 4y ago

There is a great blog post by Mark Suster on that topic. He basically argues that you should hire your co-founder. https://bothsidesofthetable.com/the-co-founder-mythology-7919a32e17c8 https://bothsidesofthetable.com/the-co-founder-mythology-791...

robocat 4y ago
And here’s YC arguing the opposite: https://www.ycombinator.com/library/5x-how-to-split-equity-among-co-founders https://www.ycombinator.com/library/5x-how-to-split-equity-a... Disclaimer: I am an initial founder with a minority shareholding, and it truely sucks (even though the business is a centipede (very very approximately 1/100 of a unicorn).
- baxtr 4y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for sharing. What would you do the next time differently?
  - robocat 4y ago
    > What would you do the next time differently? I am a geek engineer type. If I were coaching a younger me, I would mostly be encouraging learning soft people skills (negotiation, influence, reading others, etcetera). I still tend to get sidetracked on yak shaving (the quest for perfection in a very narrow area, rather than good enough then focus on the next most important thing). I made okay decisions given who I was, so I am not unhappy with myself. I have been improving myself, but not fast enough!
- laserlight 4y ago
  The article unfortunately contradicts itself. If a startup takes 10 years to build, why vest 25% of the shares after just one year? Then, it’s a very cost-effective strategy to leave after a year and let others work for you for the remaining 9 years. Article also presents a very outdated view: more equity means more motivation. According to two-factor theory [0], equity is not a motivation factor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory

andy_ppp 4y ago

This comment is needlessly harsh on the article. I read this much more as why not consider the opposite view. One of my frustrations with the advice YC and others seem to give is that it is all hearsay and I don’t believe it needs to be that way. Especially for an organisation that prides itself on being scientifically lead there must be a way to show data around most of their claims. The whole point of the scientific method is trying to prevent people from guessing from their perceived experiences because we so easily fool ourselves into believing without the statistical proof to back it up. This article is also not purely true, I’m certain there are cofounders that work perfectly together and people who are better at selecting them for themselves. I think the stuff about handling high stress situations is very useful and testing that somehow seems like a good idea. I’m not sure how many difficult situations I’ve had with my best friend to be honest, let alone a stranger. I find it really surprising that a solo cofounder is more likely to succeed. Can anyone refute or confirm this?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Silverback_VII 4y ago

I'm seeing what you are doing here, people who criticize are often subconsciously perceived as more intelligent and powerful. But apart from your small power move, let me ask you, since there are some stats in the article, what exactly is wrong about the statement ? If you have a specific destination in mind it is certainly better to remain the captain. Naivity in dealing with other people has killed many great ideas and therefore some warnings are appropriate.

braingenious 4y ago
I’m not sure how my clearly-stated poking fun is a “small power move” but are you aware of the irony in your post? The topic of my post was a benign “I think this article is kind of silly” point. The topic of your response is that criticism is a “power move”? And your impulse is to yourself criticize?

doctor_eval 4y ago

It's got nothing to do with being smartest person in the room. When your wellbeing gets put into other people's hands it's super stressful, and if they fuck up, or you fuck up, or even if you just argue with them, then it's way, way more stressful than if you're just doing things on your own. The stress leads to a relationship death spiral, and then you end up losing everything. Not having cofounders won't stop you from making mistakes, but it will prevent the relationship/business death spiral. I've always said that I prefer to make my own mistakes, instead of implementing other people's. I wish I'd listened to my own advice before I brought in co-founders for my previous business; my next caper is going to be 100% solo.

prirun 4y ago
With 2 co-founders, you have to agree on everything. That's hard. 3 co-founders let's you do a majority thing on decisions, but that IMO can easily turn into politics: you do this for me, I'll do that for you, we are better friends so you need to vote with me on this, etc. Having previously started and exiting a 2-founder 50/50 business, I wouldn't do it again. I might give equity, but even that can be very tricky. See for example the case of Craigslist having a minority shareholder who sold his shares to eBay. The original minority shareholder may not have caused the other shareholders any problems, but having a large competing corporation as a minority shareholder is a whole 'nother thing.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  Oof. I can’t imagine a 50/50 relationship. My marriage isn’t even 50/50, unless we are getting a divorce. In my marriage we each have “domains” that we are gods of. When it comes to money, she has domain over day-to-day expenses and I have control over making sure bills are paid and taxes are accounted for and we reconcile this fairly regularly. My point is, there has to be some kind of “tie-breaker” that isn’t biased/random. Whether that is a “fact” that something falls into someone’s “domain” or whether it’s a person. 50/50 just doesn’t seem realistic or a recipe for stress.

bjornsing 4y ago

It’s interesting how intense and emotional the criticism of this kind of reasoning tends to be, and your comment is a prime example. It makes me think there is self-interest or some strong ideological basis at its root. I realize it’s fairly pointless to ask, but why does this feel so threatening to you? Is it “smart person doesn’t need me – can make shitload of money without conforming to my social norms / letting me freeload”? ;)