4 ms·

'Resourcefulness' is entirely dependent upon knowledge of and experience in a particular area. For example: let's say my motorcycle just stops running. 15 ye

'Resourcefulness' is entirely dependent upon knowledge of and experience in a particular area. For example: let's say my motorcycle just stops running. 15 years ago, I'd have stood there dumbfounded, looked through a shop manual with near-zero comprehension of anything in it, and eventually given up and asked for help. These days, I'd immediately begin checking fuses, grab a multimeter and begin probing common fault areas (faulty kickstand or kill switches, etc). People sometimes comment that I'm resourceful or creative, or noted for the fact that I remain calm and go into problem solving mode in situations like this. But that's completely, entirely, solely due to the fact that I spent years upon years learning the mechanics of vehicles fairly intimately. I understand the whole system well enough that I can understand what is wrong, form and test a hypothesis, and take action. Similarly, I'm a decent and resourceful programmer. But if you tell me to go chat up VCs for funding, I'm going to be completely lost. How could I possibly have the slightest idea how to go about that? I have absolutely zero experience in anything even vaguely related to that. Furthermore, I don't want experience in that, because I recognize that I'm far better off focusing on my strengths than my weaknesses (something eschewed by the self-improvement crowd, but a well-demonstrated fact). I find the whole thing kind of weird. Of course a founder who has a background in schmoozing is going to do a better job of schmoozing, but that says absolutely nothing about resourcefulness. This whole thing stinks of confirmation bias to me.

llambda 15y ago
> Furthermore, I don't want experience in that, because I recognize that I'm far better off focusing on my strengths than my weaknesses (something eschewed by the self-improvement crowd, but a well-demonstrated fact). Exactly right. The self-help "guru" scene is based on very little fact (or should I say, based heavily on cherry-picked facts) and instead focuses on "mind over matter", e.g. if you just try harder you'll get it sooner or later (and be damned good!). Absolute snake oil. > This whole thing stinks of confirmation bias to me. That's all self-help has ever been: one guy says he has a process, a method, another guy agrees that the first guy was on to something, but he has a slightly different remix that maximizes its effect. Rarely is this stuff based on actual research or science. Further, I don't really think pg's point was that you can somehow follow a guide to resourcefulness and become resourceful, rather he was making an observation about the quality of "resourcefulness" in some founders, i.e. the founders that ended up being most capable and noting that such people who have said aptitude need but a word to get going. I don't dispute that; I have no experience with it. But I do dispute the notion that you can come up with some method that will make me magically better and base it on nothing but conjecture and confirmation bias. Edit: Consider this, after ten-thousand hours of practice you might master some craft: but the implication isn't that I can sit idly at my computer, hitting the keys here and there and then after some set amount of time I've magically mastered it. No. Mastery only comes after countless hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades of passionate and careful dedication; no guide is going to make you suddenly better at something you lacked talent in without significant investment. And well, once you're investing passion and time, what do you need some guide for?
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  if you just try harder you'll get it sooner or later (and be damned good!). Absolute snake oil. I'm willing to say that, yes, if you focus on something long enough, you probably will make great strides toward competency in it. The 10,000 hour thing seems pretty valid. But the question, to me, is: why? The opportunity cost is quite high. Am I better off spending 500 hours focusing on learning to schmooze and network, or spending that 500 hours focusing on my technology skills and, notably, creating valuable product in that time? Improving a weakness for the sake of eliminating that weakness is what strikes me as snake oil. You're not invalidated simply because you're weak in an area, and often it's far more valuable simply to be aware of a weakness than it is to eliminate it. Further, I don't really think pg's point was that you can somehow follow a guide to resourcefulness and become resourceful I agree. My takeaway from pg's essay was that founders who are both technical and socially/schoozily/network-ily gifted will be more successful than those which are merely technically gifted. That was sort of a "no duh" for me, but perhaps there's an insight there that I'm not seeing.
  - llambda 15y ago
    > The 10,000 hour thing seems pretty valid. It's valid if it's understood: it shouldn't be taken to mean, "Randomly press keys on a keyboard for ten-thousand hours and you'll produce masterful code" but rather "work passionately and carefully for ten-thousand hours, learn from the masters, seek to emulate and extend their genius, and after ten-thousand hours you might be getting somewhere". Simply trying hard isn't enough. You have to be smart about how you try. That's what I was getting at with that. I agree, the snake oil is selling this idea that you /must/ improve your weaknesses or you're invalidated. On your last point: exactly. The takeaway is that it was a rather obvious point to make: people who are gifted in in a multivariate of disciplines will thrive; I doubt many will dispute that.
- itmag 15y ago
  That's all self-help has ever been There's an awful lot of people dissing self-help. But it's always vague. What specific books/authors/phenomena/trends/memes/etc within self-help is it that you have a problem with?
ajju 15y ago
Your own experience contradicts with your stance. You got from >15 years ago, I'd have stood there dumbfounded..and asked for help to >I understand the whole system well enough that I can understand what is wrong, form and test a hypothesis, and take action. by >I spent years upon years learning the mechanics of vehicles fairly intimately Clearly you didn't "focus only on your strengths". You identified a weakness - no knowledge of the mechanics of vehicles, and acted to fix it. You can do the same for fundraising, and it may take years to become a guru at it, but it doesn't take years to start having some success at it, just as with the mechanics of vehicles.
- llambda 15y ago
  > Clearly you didn't "focus only on your strengths". You identified a weakness - no knowledge of the mechanics of vehicles, and acted to fix it. Except you're missing his point, OP cared about that particular domain, so he got better at it whereas he doesn't care about schmoozing with VCs. Further, OP contests the idea that you necessarily must address your weaknesses, i.e. the perpetual selling point of self-help, on the basis that you will then be forced to ignore your strengths.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    OP cared about that particular domain, so he got better at it whereas he doesn't care about schmoozing with VCs. Exactly right. I should have been clearer about that.
    - ajju 15y ago
      You don't have to go chat up VCs to build a startup. Bootstrapping may be harder but is certainly doable. If you want to get funding though, you have to talk to VCs. If that's a weakness, you have to fix it or work around it by finding a co-founder who can augment your abilities. That is an example of resourcefulness. If you can't do either, you won't get funding.
  - mlinsey 15y ago
    That's a valid perspective, and one that can help you become a world-class specialist. Entrepreneurship, however, very much requires you to be a generalist. There are just too many areas to consider: fundraising, hacking, product design, user acquisition, recruiting, leading a team, product management, marketing, PR, accounting... Zero entrepreneurs are well trained in every one of these areas before doing a startup. Entrepreneurship is about trying to learn how to do something new, unfamiliar, and unpleasant every day. This requires focusing on your weaknesses, even in areas you aren't inherently passionate about. You certainly don't have to be a generalist to be successful - world-class specialists add much more value to the world than the median entrepreneur. But you do have to be a generalist to be a successful entrepreneur, and it's in that context of entrepreneurship that you should evaluate Jason's post and PG's essay on resourcefulness.
jasonshen 15y ago
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you misinterpret my intentions. No one is forcing you to go talk to VCs. However, if you want to obtain seed capital for a startup, you will probably need to be externally resourceful to get it - which means you might want to get good at talking to them. Your story about motorcycles is the entire point. When you started out, you knew nothing. But you cared enough to want to learn more and get better. So you did. It sounds like you're actually a very resourceful person. The point about resourceful founders being successful is irrespective of experience. Most startup founders have to gain skills/abilities far outside the range of what they had when they started their company -- that's why the resourceful ones are more successful. Totally agree with ajju.
jodrellblank 15y ago
'Resourcefulness' is entirely dependent upon knowledge of and experience in a particular area. No, did you even read the article? He covers exactly the case of needing VC funding! For example: let's say my motorcycle just stops running. 15 years ago, I'd have stood there dumbfounded, looked through a shop manual with near-zero comprehension of anything in it, and eventually given up and asked for help. Asking for help isn't giving up, leaving a broken motorcycle unfixed forever on your pile of "stuff I won't ever get round to" is giving up. Starting with a shop manual, then changing to asking for help, then getting a fixed motorbike is being resourceful. Saying "VC funding. I'm lost, I haven't the slightest clue and don't want to" is giving up. Saying "VC funding, I don't want to know so I'll ask some startup founders with VC funding if they'll contract to talk to VCs on my behalf" (and then getting over the fear of contacting busy strangers with a weird request and actually doing that), is being resourceful. But so is saying "I don't know and I don't want to know, but I can't get funded otherwise so I must do it anyway".
Vitaly 15y ago
> 'Resourcefulness' is entirely dependent upon knowledge of and experience in a particular area. I think you kind of missing the point. Solving something when you know the area well is not what is it about. Quite the opposite in fact. The question is what do you do when you don't know what the answer is. Are you frozen by the "I don't know how to talk to a VC" thing or you can say "ok, I've never talked to a VC but I'm sure I can figure out how to meet one. Lets see how do I start". Its not about not asking others for help. Its about not expecting someone else with "more expertise in the area" to do it for you. > Furthermore, I don't want experience in that, because I recognize that I'm far better off focusing on my strengths than my weaknesses Its a valid position, but its also one that make you not well suited to be a startup founder IMHO. And not resourceful, at least not in the sense of this blogpost, and possibly not in pg's sense.
- jasonshen 15y ago
  I guess in someways you can say that measure of your resourcefulness is what you do when you don't know what to do.

llambda 15y ago

> Furthermore, I don't want experience in that, because I recognize that I'm far better off focusing on my strengths than my weaknesses (something eschewed by the self-improvement crowd, but a well-demonstrated fact). Exactly right. The self-help "guru" scene is based on very little fact (or should I say, based heavily on cherry-picked facts) and instead focuses on "mind over matter", e.g. if you just try harder you'll get it sooner or later (and be damned good!). Absolute snake oil. > This whole thing stinks of confirmation bias to me. That's all self-help has ever been: one guy says he has a process, a method, another guy agrees that the first guy was on to something, but he has a slightly different remix that maximizes its effect. Rarely is this stuff based on actual research or science. Further, I don't really think pg's point was that you can somehow follow a guide to resourcefulness and become resourceful, rather he was making an observation about the quality of "resourcefulness" in some founders, i.e. the founders that ended up being most capable and noting that such people who have said aptitude need but a word to get going. I don't dispute that; I have no experience with it. But I do dispute the notion that you can come up with some method that will make me magically better and base it on nothing but conjecture and confirmation bias. Edit: Consider this, after ten-thousand hours of practice you might master some craft: but the implication isn't that I can sit idly at my computer, hitting the keys here and there and then after some set amount of time I've magically mastered it. No. Mastery only comes after countless hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades of passionate and careful dedication; no guide is going to make you suddenly better at something you lacked talent in without significant investment. And well, once you're investing passion and time, what do you need some guide for?

georgieporgie 15y ago
if you just try harder you'll get it sooner or later (and be damned good!). Absolute snake oil. I'm willing to say that, yes, if you focus on something long enough, you probably will make great strides toward competency in it. The 10,000 hour thing seems pretty valid. But the question, to me, is: why? The opportunity cost is quite high. Am I better off spending 500 hours focusing on learning to schmooze and network, or spending that 500 hours focusing on my technology skills and, notably, creating valuable product in that time? Improving a weakness for the sake of eliminating that weakness is what strikes me as snake oil. You're not invalidated simply because you're weak in an area, and often it's far more valuable simply to be aware of a weakness than it is to eliminate it. Further, I don't really think pg's point was that you can somehow follow a guide to resourcefulness and become resourceful I agree. My takeaway from pg's essay was that founders who are both technical and socially/schoozily/network-ily gifted will be more successful than those which are merely technically gifted. That was sort of a "no duh" for me, but perhaps there's an insight there that I'm not seeing.
- llambda 15y ago
  > The 10,000 hour thing seems pretty valid. It's valid if it's understood: it shouldn't be taken to mean, "Randomly press keys on a keyboard for ten-thousand hours and you'll produce masterful code" but rather "work passionately and carefully for ten-thousand hours, learn from the masters, seek to emulate and extend their genius, and after ten-thousand hours you might be getting somewhere". Simply trying hard isn't enough. You have to be smart about how you try. That's what I was getting at with that. I agree, the snake oil is selling this idea that you /must/ improve your weaknesses or you're invalidated. On your last point: exactly. The takeaway is that it was a rather obvious point to make: people who are gifted in in a multivariate of disciplines will thrive; I doubt many will dispute that.
itmag 15y ago
That's all self-help has ever been There's an awful lot of people dissing self-help. But it's always vague. What specific books/authors/phenomena/trends/memes/etc within self-help is it that you have a problem with?

ajju 15y ago

Your own experience contradicts with your stance. You got from >15 years ago, I'd have stood there dumbfounded..and asked for help to >I understand the whole system well enough that I can understand what is wrong, form and test a hypothesis, and take action. by >I spent years upon years learning the mechanics of vehicles fairly intimately Clearly you didn't "focus only on your strengths". You identified a weakness - no knowledge of the mechanics of vehicles, and acted to fix it. You can do the same for fundraising, and it may take years to become a guru at it, but it doesn't take years to start having some success at it, just as with the mechanics of vehicles.

llambda 15y ago
> Clearly you didn't "focus only on your strengths". You identified a weakness - no knowledge of the mechanics of vehicles, and acted to fix it. Except you're missing his point, OP cared about that particular domain, so he got better at it whereas he doesn't care about schmoozing with VCs. Further, OP contests the idea that you necessarily must address your weaknesses, i.e. the perpetual selling point of self-help, on the basis that you will then be forced to ignore your strengths.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  OP cared about that particular domain, so he got better at it whereas he doesn't care about schmoozing with VCs. Exactly right. I should have been clearer about that.
  - ajju 15y ago
    You don't have to go chat up VCs to build a startup. Bootstrapping may be harder but is certainly doable. If you want to get funding though, you have to talk to VCs. If that's a weakness, you have to fix it or work around it by finding a co-founder who can augment your abilities. That is an example of resourcefulness. If you can't do either, you won't get funding.
- mlinsey 15y ago
  That's a valid perspective, and one that can help you become a world-class specialist. Entrepreneurship, however, very much requires you to be a generalist. There are just too many areas to consider: fundraising, hacking, product design, user acquisition, recruiting, leading a team, product management, marketing, PR, accounting... Zero entrepreneurs are well trained in every one of these areas before doing a startup. Entrepreneurship is about trying to learn how to do something new, unfamiliar, and unpleasant every day. This requires focusing on your weaknesses, even in areas you aren't inherently passionate about. You certainly don't have to be a generalist to be successful - world-class specialists add much more value to the world than the median entrepreneur. But you do have to be a generalist to be a successful entrepreneur, and it's in that context of entrepreneurship that you should evaluate Jason's post and PG's essay on resourcefulness.

jasonshen 15y ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you misinterpret my intentions. No one is forcing you to go talk to VCs. However, if you want to obtain seed capital for a startup, you will probably need to be externally resourceful to get it - which means you might want to get good at talking to them. Your story about motorcycles is the entire point. When you started out, you knew nothing. But you cared enough to want to learn more and get better. So you did. It sounds like you're actually a very resourceful person. The point about resourceful founders being successful is irrespective of experience. Most startup founders have to gain skills/abilities far outside the range of what they had when they started their company -- that's why the resourceful ones are more successful. Totally agree with ajju.

jodrellblank 15y ago

'Resourcefulness' is entirely dependent upon knowledge of and experience in a particular area. No, did you even read the article? He covers exactly the case of needing VC funding! For example: let's say my motorcycle just stops running. 15 years ago, I'd have stood there dumbfounded, looked through a shop manual with near-zero comprehension of anything in it, and eventually given up and asked for help. Asking for help isn't giving up, leaving a broken motorcycle unfixed forever on your pile of "stuff I won't ever get round to" is giving up. Starting with a shop manual, then changing to asking for help, then getting a fixed motorbike is being resourceful. Saying "VC funding. I'm lost, I haven't the slightest clue and don't want to" is giving up. Saying "VC funding, I don't want to know so I'll ask some startup founders with VC funding if they'll contract to talk to VCs on my behalf" (and then getting over the fear of contacting busy strangers with a weird request and actually doing that), is being resourceful. But so is saying "I don't know and I don't want to know, but I can't get funded otherwise so I must do it anyway".

Vitaly 15y ago

> 'Resourcefulness' is entirely dependent upon knowledge of and experience in a particular area. I think you kind of missing the point. Solving something when you know the area well is not what is it about. Quite the opposite in fact. The question is what do you do when you don't know what the answer is. Are you frozen by the "I don't know how to talk to a VC" thing or you can say "ok, I've never talked to a VC but I'm sure I can figure out how to meet one. Lets see how do I start". Its not about not asking others for help. Its about not expecting someone else with "more expertise in the area" to do it for you. > Furthermore, I don't want experience in that, because I recognize that I'm far better off focusing on my strengths than my weaknesses Its a valid position, but its also one that make you not well suited to be a startup founder IMHO. And not resourceful, at least not in the sense of this blogpost, and possibly not in pg's sense.

jasonshen 15y ago
I guess in someways you can say that measure of your resourcefulness is what you do when you don't know what to do.