6 ms·

would love to hear pg weigh in on this...

seiji 14y ago
Let me ragechannel pg for a minute: People are not created equal. Some are much smarter and much more capable than others. Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people. Being younger, you both don't know what you don't know and you haven't become set in unchangeable broken ways yet. Google likes to hire young so they can brainwash you into being "googly." Same with other companies. Once your brain thinks you need six TPS reports every day, it's not worth fixing you when we can hire younger, unbroken people. VCs love 'em young. Sequoia bluntly states they prefer to fund two guys working from a dorm room. These days,"young people" are part of the technology. It's not something they learn as abstract concepts. They are it and it is them. You wouldn't expect a 50 year old Elbonian mud farmer to go to school and learn to be a world class electric car designer. But, you would expect a 50 year old world class electric car designer to still be hot shit. Or, in song lyrics: maybe I should learn to shut my mouth -- I am over 25 and I can't make a name for myself; some nights I break down and cry. The brilliance of our current situation is what "they" think of you is more and more irrelevant. Just make something people want. People have unlimited wants after all.
- pfortuny 14y ago
  "Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people." Do try not to believe in myths. Especially in 2012: people are young way longer than before and 'smarter and more capable' is quite relative.
- smacktoward 14y ago
  Google likes to hire young so they can brainwash you into being "googly." Same with other companies. Once your brain thinks you need six TPS reports every day, it's not worth fixing you when we can hire younger, unbroken people. VCs love 'em young. Sequoia bluntly states they prefer to fund two guys working from a dorm room. The flip side of this analysis would be: YC and Sequoia prefer to fund kids because kids are easier to manipulate. Kids don't know how to read a contract or a term sheet. Kids don't know how to protect their own interests in their business when accepting funding. Kids don't know how to play hardball in negotiations. Kids, in other words, are very easy to use as disposable resources. (Indeed, with appropriate conditioning you can even convince them to believe that becoming a disposable resource is a sign of their Epic Founderhood.) Someone who's seen peers get screwed over in previous gigs, or who's been screwed over themselves, is going to have learned a few things about how not to get screwed over the next time. So it's more profitable to deal with people who haven't learned those lessons yet. And once they have learned those lessons, you throw them overboard and replace them with the next batch of dewey-eyed innocents.
  - jasonshen 14y ago
    While that might be true (that young people are more easily manipulated) it doesn't make much sense as a primary reason for why VC's like young people. Ultimately, making a big successful company is really hard and VC's would want to bet on people who have the best chance of doing that - not the ones they can easily screw with. Note: I don't buy the idea that only young people make good entrepreneurs. There's tons of evidence that older entrepreneurs can be very successful. It's probably true though that young people in general are more likely to massively revolutionize something entrenched, even if their overall success rate is the same or lower than older people. Einstein, for example, was 26 when he published 4 papers that would change the field of physics forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
  - sedev 14y ago
    I was shocked that none of the top-voted comments mention this aspect of the matter. The attitude of founders is one thing, and possibly worrisome, but the attitude of funders is predictable: they'd like to maximize some index that combines "likely to start a company that goes huge" and "likely to be much better at starting that company than at negotiating how much of a stake we'll get in it." There is an obvious economic incentive to be balancing those, not just looking at the first. With respect to pg, VCs clearly vary in how they construct that index - but a cold look at the matter through the lens of economics should tell anyone that it certainly is an index, not just Most Likely To Succeed.
- chubot 14y ago
  So I'm not a fan of ageism and I wouldn't ascribe it to pg without evidence... But given the "startup = growth" essay, where he says that only 1 company per cycle makes any difference to YC's returns, I can see the logic behind ageism. Young people (I'm not one of them anymore) just have more unpredictable outcomes. They are the Black Swans. The Black Swan theory is that the outliers shape our world. And that has been true in tech for sure -- Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are all anomalies. These companies grew enormously quickly and were all started by very young and inexperienced men. The two YC success stories that get pointed to -- AirBNB and DropBox -- were also started by the very young and inexperienced. Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes. There's the logic in investing -- once you're making money, you're less valuable. Because people know what you're worth. Before you make any money, people can ascribe crazy valuations to you. It will be wrong a lot of the time, but it doesn't matter because the one Black Swan event is what you're looking for. You only have to be right once.
  - seiji 14y ago
    You nailed it with Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes.
  - LastManStanding 14y ago
    No evidence? He is overt in bragging about his age discrimination. He is likely the "thought leader" who made this practice acceptable in Silicon Valley.
    - chubot 14y ago
      * citation needed
      - LastManStanding 14y ago
        "The other cutoff, 38, has a lot more play in it. One reason I put it there is that I don't think many people have the physical stamina much past that age. I used to work till 2:00 or 3:00 AM every night, seven days a week. I don't know if I could do that now. Also, startups are a big risk financially. If you try something that blows up and leaves you broke at 26, big deal; a lot of 26 year olds are broke. By 38 you can't take so many risks-- especially if you have kids." http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people. This is premised on the assumption that everyone was trying to "make it" at 22. Outside the little SV social network bubble, founders are generally older with a deep well of experience in a problem domain. I worked at two companies run by their original founders. The founders at both companies were in their late 30's or 40's when they started the companies. They had PhD's, years of experience in the field, numerous papers to their name, and extensive professional networks. They weren't trying to "make it" at 22--they were working in the industry building up a solid foundation for starting a business.
  - ShirtlessRod 14y ago
    Thank you for stating this more eloquently than I could. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that not everyone is obsessed with playing "the game".
kami8845 14y ago
He probably doesn't have an opinion on this. Then if you accuse him of being ageist he will just push the problem to his applicant pool like he did with women. That's perfectly fine, I just don't think this is a very interesting issue to discuss with him.
- seiji 14y ago
  It's pretty evident from His recent writings. The pg's opinions on the matter used to be more subtle, but I think in the recent few writings it's more overt. At one point, saying "young, unattached people are better than old people at technology startups" went from a What You Can't Say to something you can wink wink nudge nudge we all know it's true.
  - nugget 14y ago
    In fairness I think he'd also say he's excited to find exceptions to the rule and would encourage any older entrepreneurs to prove him wrong. You can acknowledge certain market realities and still support and maintain a strong meritocracy that doesn't discriminate against outliers.
    - seiji 14y ago
      You would make an amazing political speech writer. I think this debate boils down to "acknowledging certain market realities" versus "creating market realities." If you advocate youth based startups, you have to define youth, which is entire subjective. "Youth" in this context probably just means "hasn't reached full creative potential." Of course, people won't think that much. They'll see youth, think 25, then start evaluating the world from that viewpoint.
yaks_hairbrush 14y ago
Well, pg didn't found the company that made him a millionaire until he was thirty years old...

seiji 14y ago

Let me ragechannel pg for a minute: People are not created equal. Some are much smarter and much more capable than others. Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people. Being younger, you both don't know what you don't know and you haven't become set in unchangeable broken ways yet. Google likes to hire young so they can brainwash you into being "googly." Same with other companies. Once your brain thinks you need six TPS reports every day, it's not worth fixing you when we can hire younger, unbroken people. VCs love 'em young. Sequoia bluntly states they prefer to fund two guys working from a dorm room. These days,"young people" are part of the technology. It's not something they learn as abstract concepts. They are it and it is them. You wouldn't expect a 50 year old Elbonian mud farmer to go to school and learn to be a world class electric car designer. But, you would expect a 50 year old world class electric car designer to still be hot shit. Or, in song lyrics: maybe I should learn to shut my mouth -- I am over 25 and I can't make a name for myself; some nights I break down and cry. The brilliance of our current situation is what "they" think of you is more and more irrelevant. Just make something people want. People have unlimited wants after all.

pfortuny 14y ago
"Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people." Do try not to believe in myths. Especially in 2012: people are young way longer than before and 'smarter and more capable' is quite relative.
smacktoward 14y ago
Google likes to hire young so they can brainwash you into being "googly." Same with other companies. Once your brain thinks you need six TPS reports every day, it's not worth fixing you when we can hire younger, unbroken people. VCs love 'em young. Sequoia bluntly states they prefer to fund two guys working from a dorm room. The flip side of this analysis would be: YC and Sequoia prefer to fund kids because kids are easier to manipulate. Kids don't know how to read a contract or a term sheet. Kids don't know how to protect their own interests in their business when accepting funding. Kids don't know how to play hardball in negotiations. Kids, in other words, are very easy to use as disposable resources. (Indeed, with appropriate conditioning you can even convince them to believe that becoming a disposable resource is a sign of their Epic Founderhood.) Someone who's seen peers get screwed over in previous gigs, or who's been screwed over themselves, is going to have learned a few things about how not to get screwed over the next time. So it's more profitable to deal with people who haven't learned those lessons yet. And once they have learned those lessons, you throw them overboard and replace them with the next batch of dewey-eyed innocents.
- jasonshen 14y ago
  While that might be true (that young people are more easily manipulated) it doesn't make much sense as a primary reason for why VC's like young people. Ultimately, making a big successful company is really hard and VC's would want to bet on people who have the best chance of doing that - not the ones they can easily screw with. Note: I don't buy the idea that only young people make good entrepreneurs. There's tons of evidence that older entrepreneurs can be very successful. It's probably true though that young people in general are more likely to massively revolutionize something entrenched, even if their overall success rate is the same or lower than older people. Einstein, for example, was 26 when he published 4 papers that would change the field of physics forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
- sedev 14y ago
  I was shocked that none of the top-voted comments mention this aspect of the matter. The attitude of founders is one thing, and possibly worrisome, but the attitude of funders is predictable: they'd like to maximize some index that combines "likely to start a company that goes huge" and "likely to be much better at starting that company than at negotiating how much of a stake we'll get in it." There is an obvious economic incentive to be balancing those, not just looking at the first. With respect to pg, VCs clearly vary in how they construct that index - but a cold look at the matter through the lens of economics should tell anyone that it certainly is an index, not just Most Likely To Succeed.
chubot 14y ago
So I'm not a fan of ageism and I wouldn't ascribe it to pg without evidence... But given the "startup = growth" essay, where he says that only 1 company per cycle makes any difference to YC's returns, I can see the logic behind ageism. Young people (I'm not one of them anymore) just have more unpredictable outcomes. They are the Black Swans. The Black Swan theory is that the outliers shape our world. And that has been true in tech for sure -- Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are all anomalies. These companies grew enormously quickly and were all started by very young and inexperienced men. The two YC success stories that get pointed to -- AirBNB and DropBox -- were also started by the very young and inexperienced. Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes. There's the logic in investing -- once you're making money, you're less valuable. Because people know what you're worth. Before you make any money, people can ascribe crazy valuations to you. It will be wrong a lot of the time, but it doesn't matter because the one Black Swan event is what you're looking for. You only have to be right once.
- seiji 14y ago
  You nailed it with Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes.
- LastManStanding 14y ago
  No evidence? He is overt in bragging about his age discrimination. He is likely the "thought leader" who made this practice acceptable in Silicon Valley.
  - chubot 14y ago
    * citation needed
    - LastManStanding 14y ago
      "The other cutoff, 38, has a lot more play in it. One reason I put it there is that I don't think many people have the physical stamina much past that age. I used to work till 2:00 or 3:00 AM every night, seven days a week. I don't know if I could do that now. Also, startups are a big risk financially. If you try something that blows up and leaves you broke at 26, big deal; a lot of 26 year olds are broke. By 38 you can't take so many risks-- especially if you have kids." http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
rayiner 14y ago
> Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people. This is premised on the assumption that everyone was trying to "make it" at 22. Outside the little SV social network bubble, founders are generally older with a deep well of experience in a problem domain. I worked at two companies run by their original founders. The founders at both companies were in their late 30's or 40's when they started the companies. They had PhD's, years of experience in the field, numerous papers to their name, and extensive professional networks. They weren't trying to "make it" at 22--they were working in the industry building up a solid foundation for starting a business.
- ShirtlessRod 14y ago
  Thank you for stating this more eloquently than I could. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that not everyone is obsessed with playing "the game".

kami8845 14y ago

He probably doesn't have an opinion on this. Then if you accuse him of being ageist he will just push the problem to his applicant pool like he did with women. That's perfectly fine, I just don't think this is a very interesting issue to discuss with him.

seiji 14y ago
It's pretty evident from His recent writings. The pg's opinions on the matter used to be more subtle, but I think in the recent few writings it's more overt. At one point, saying "young, unattached people are better than old people at technology startups" went from a What You Can't Say to something you can wink wink nudge nudge we all know it's true.
- nugget 14y ago
  In fairness I think he'd also say he's excited to find exceptions to the rule and would encourage any older entrepreneurs to prove him wrong. You can acknowledge certain market realities and still support and maintain a strong meritocracy that doesn't discriminate against outliers.
  - seiji 14y ago
    You would make an amazing political speech writer. I think this debate boils down to "acknowledging certain market realities" versus "creating market realities." If you advocate youth based startups, you have to define youth, which is entire subjective. "Youth" in this context probably just means "hasn't reached full creative potential." Of course, people won't think that much. They'll see youth, think 25, then start evaluating the world from that viewpoint.

yaks_hairbrush 14y ago

Well, pg didn't found the company that made him a millionaire until he was thirty years old...