6 ms·

I think a huge portion of the blame of this is on the YC partners. I'm extremely comfortable debating and discussing ideas in an extremely logical and thoughtf

by aswell 15y ago

I think a huge portion of the blame of this is on the YC partners. I'm extremely comfortable debating and discussing ideas in an extremely logical and thoughtful way. My favorite question every day to myself is "If I was starting over today what would I do". And Joe Kraus's "Face reality". I found it impossible to do that during my YC interview though. From minute one it was a series of arrogant and condescending statements after another. Their ideas were nuggets of golden insight and my (far more educated in many instances) responses were dismissed out of hand. I've had countless discussions of the same type with many other smart people (successful founders, investors, regular smart people) before and since. Some who raised far more difficult questions. I have reason to suspect the biggest problem was the YC partners and not some problem I have being flexible or thoughtful. I think the essay as well as this quote are very revealing: With the good groups, you can tell that everything you say is being looked at with fresh eyes and even if it's dismissed, it's because of some logical reason e.g. "we already tried that" or "from speaking to our users that isn't what they'd like," etc. Those groups never have that glazed over look. I think you're mistaking some founders ability to placate you with thoughtfulness in many, but certainly not all, cases. One person who publicly talked about this phenomenon (in a joking way) was one of the founders of Heroku. He said that pg said "You're an Oracle killer" so he "smiled and nodded because I wanted to get in" (paraphrasing). I think that's very indicative of the way many founders probably feel when talking to the YC partners. The ones who disregard that idea are likely marked as "difficult to talk to." I think there's a very real danger you guys aren't hearing stuff like this because who in their right mind would tell you and who would you listen to? You would probably just say they're difficult to talk to. The problem with being so damn smart (which all the YC partners truly are) is that you can start to think that any problem you run into (like founders who seem hard to talk to) you're assumption is that it's their fault instead of your own. I do think there's some unbiased truth to the essay and maybe the founders who are good at placating will make better founders. But you have to consider: would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs really have smiled and nodded or would they have said "What the hell are you talking about, that's stupid." (We know what Jobs would have done anyway.) I'm still a really big fan of YC and all the YC partners, but I do think you might have let some arrogance creep in to your process. You guys are doing alright though, so feel free to ignore little ol' me.

SomeOtherGuy 15y ago
>I think there's a very real danger you guys aren't hearing stuff like this because who in their right mind would tell you and who would you listen to? Tons of people have told him he's a pompous blowhard. The problem is that the answer to the second half of your question is "nobody". Paul's ego does not allow him to listen to anyone. "I was lucky once" is his standard reply to any form of criticism or questioning of his "wisdom".
run4yourlives 15y ago
>From minute one it was a series of arrogant and condescending statements after another. Their ideas were nuggets of golden insight and my (far more educated in many instances) responses were dismissed out of hand. This is exactly what pg is saying; you don't seem to be considering that you are "difficult to talk to" at all. YC's behaviour is irrelevant to analyzing your chances of success. You might (and probably are) correct about each particular statement. However in business, successful people will take what they have learned - after all, it worked - and apply it to your problem, often in very arrogant or seemingly condescending and possibly incorrect ways. Instead of focusing on the statement, digesting it from their angle and replying, you are focusing on how it was said, assuming authority and dismissing it; a combative rather than an intuitive, "learning" stance. You may be right. You may be wrong. The whole concept is that this is irrelevant to thesis - which is that people like you tend not to succeed as startup founders. It's perhaps ironic that YC founders would probably be in this failing group with their current attitudes. (I don't know, I've never met them, it's also possible that in a different context, they alter their approach.) It doesn't refute the point however. It's the humility and resourcefulness that leads to success; the idea that you never fully understand your problem scope and that further knowledge can come from anywhere, including ideas previously dismissed. People that adopt this mindset tend to do well. That's what pg is saying in this essay.
- aswell 15y ago
  I think it's just as likely that only founders who fit that behavioral profile tend to do well in YC. Assuming that YC is representive of the world would be a mistake. There are a great many startups created differently outside YC that are very successful. I also find it hard to imagine a lot of the most successful people I've known fitting this profile. Some maybe, but not most. In fact it's a profile, that as you point out, pg himself certainly does not fit.

by aswell 15y ago

SomeOtherGuy 15y ago

>I think there's a very real danger you guys aren't hearing stuff like this because who in their right mind would tell you and who would you listen to? Tons of people have told him he's a pompous blowhard. The problem is that the answer to the second half of your question is "nobody". Paul's ego does not allow him to listen to anyone. "I was lucky once" is his standard reply to any form of criticism or questioning of his "wisdom".

run4yourlives 15y ago

>From minute one it was a series of arrogant and condescending statements after another. Their ideas were nuggets of golden insight and my (far more educated in many instances) responses were dismissed out of hand. This is exactly what pg is saying; you don't seem to be considering that you are "difficult to talk to" at all. YC's behaviour is irrelevant to analyzing your chances of success. You might (and probably are) correct about each particular statement. However in business, successful people will take what they have learned - after all, it worked - and apply it to your problem, often in very arrogant or seemingly condescending and possibly incorrect ways. Instead of focusing on the statement, digesting it from their angle and replying, you are focusing on how it was said, assuming authority and dismissing it; a combative rather than an intuitive, "learning" stance. You may be right. You may be wrong. The whole concept is that this is irrelevant to thesis - which is that people like you tend not to succeed as startup founders. It's perhaps ironic that YC founders would probably be in this failing group with their current attitudes. (I don't know, I've never met them, it's also possible that in a different context, they alter their approach.) It doesn't refute the point however. It's the humility and resourcefulness that leads to success; the idea that you never fully understand your problem scope and that further knowledge can come from anywhere, including ideas previously dismissed. People that adopt this mindset tend to do well. That's what pg is saying in this essay.

aswell 15y ago
I think it's just as likely that only founders who fit that behavioral profile tend to do well in YC. Assuming that YC is representive of the world would be a mistake. There are a great many startups created differently outside YC that are very successful. I also find it hard to imagine a lot of the most successful people I've known fitting this profile. Some maybe, but not most. In fact it's a profile, that as you point out, pg himself certainly does not fit.