4 ms·

You would not say that if you knew him. I can tell you as both someone who does know him at least moderately well, and someone who knows a lot of other startup

by pg 13y ago

You would not say that if you knew him. I can tell you as both someone who does know him at least moderately well, and someone who knows a lot of other startup founders, that very few people indeed have his combination of brains and tenacity. I wish more did, because I'd love to be able to fund them, but Zucks are rare. It's comforting to think that successful people were merely lucky, or became successful by underhanded tricks, but as I've said before, if you have to choose between two explanations and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, choose the other one.

rayiner 13y ago
I have to wonder how much of this is confirmation bias. There are lots of brilliant, tenacious people, but a tiny fraction of them are billionaires. Indeed, some of the most brilliant, single-mindedly tenacious people are doing relatively poorly remunerative things like toiling away as a professor in a mathematics department somewhere. The question isn't whether Zuck is brilliant and tenacious, but rather whether you could pick him out of a lineup of 100 similarly brilliant and tenacious people who are nonetheless not billionaires.
- pg 13y ago
  Oddly enough I know for a fact that I'd identify him as a very promising founder. After 8 years of trying to pick founders, part of my brain has turned into a founder detector that I can no longer turn off, and the first few times I talked to Zuck, I found it hard to concentrate because I had to contend with a screeching Geiger counter in my head. Consciously, of course, I knew I couldn't fund him, but the Geiger counter isn't conscious.
  - candybar 13y ago
    I think there's a great deal of truth here, but it seems unfair to use the tendencies of Zuckerberg, after he already became successful and has had years of positive reinforcement of his abilities, as an example of why he was destined to be successful. I'm sure a lot of people who were just as tenacious as a young Zuckerberg, have become less so over the years after having failed many times and discouraged. Some of them will rebound and others won't. Perhaps Zuckerberg had a great deal to overcome, but as a distant observer, it seems that he's learned the right lessons early in part because his effort was validated.
- beat 13y ago
  A brilliant and tenacious person can fail due to bad luck, but you can't succeed at the billionaire level WITHOUT being brilliant and tenacious. So bad luck can be a factor, but good luck is not, really. Good luck might separate the billionaires from the millionaires, maybe.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  Are you familiar with Richard Hamming's talk "You and your research"? http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html I'd contend that if a brilliant, tenacious person is doing relatively poorly remunerative things, it's because they're working on the wrong problems. Hamming writes: "I started asking, ``What are the important problems of your field?'' And after a week or so, ``What important problems are you working on?'' And after some more time I came in one day and said, ``If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?''" It's really easy to work on the wrong problems, either because you lack the courage to work on the right problem, or you don't know what the right problem is, or because your values don't line up with professional success. The first is regrettable, the second is hopefully temporary, and the third is fine. But if you want money and fame and all the other accouterments of success, and you're not working on an important problem, and you're not working on getting the courage to work on an important problem, and you're not trying to find the important problems - what are you doing? That's usually the situation that your hypothetical math mathematics professor is in.
  - jfoster 13y ago
    I think "of your field" mightn't apply as much when it comes to tech entrepreneurship. Facebook didn't solve a CS problem, but it did solve a social problem. Airbnb too solved a travel problem rather than a CS problem.
    - nostrademons 13y ago
      "Of your field" applies to the market, not the technology, for startups. Facebook was in the college student market; they realized that the most important problem for college students was "I met this cute guy/girl at a party; how do I get laid?" and solved that problem. AirBnB is in the travel market; they realized the most important problem was "How do I find a place to stay cheaply?" and solved that problem.
yerlaw 13y ago
This isn't very convincing without some specifics. "He's has brains and tenacity... if only you knew him." The problem is we only know what we see. And we see underhanded tactics, and enormous luck, not brains and tenacity. Is Aaron Greenspan lazy? I doubt it. Does he use underhanded tactics? I doubt it. Is he as successful as Zuckerberg? It seems obvious that a windfall on the scale of Facebook requires more than just "not being lazy." You are of course free to doubt it. When you have lots of capital to move around (or even a modest amount... like YC), and lots of media attention, you also gain the right of audience. People will listen to you. Even if you have no brains. That is to say, it's not your brains that draw the audience. HN is loaded with brains. But few have an audience like Zuckerberg or pg. Zuckerberg has a lot of capital and a lot of media attention. A lobby is born. Short-lived. Try again.

by pg 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

I have to wonder how much of this is confirmation bias. There are lots of brilliant, tenacious people, but a tiny fraction of them are billionaires. Indeed, some of the most brilliant, single-mindedly tenacious people are doing relatively poorly remunerative things like toiling away as a professor in a mathematics department somewhere. The question isn't whether Zuck is brilliant and tenacious, but rather whether you could pick him out of a lineup of 100 similarly brilliant and tenacious people who are nonetheless not billionaires.

pg 13y ago
Oddly enough I know for a fact that I'd identify him as a very promising founder. After 8 years of trying to pick founders, part of my brain has turned into a founder detector that I can no longer turn off, and the first few times I talked to Zuck, I found it hard to concentrate because I had to contend with a screeching Geiger counter in my head. Consciously, of course, I knew I couldn't fund him, but the Geiger counter isn't conscious.
- candybar 13y ago
  I think there's a great deal of truth here, but it seems unfair to use the tendencies of Zuckerberg, after he already became successful and has had years of positive reinforcement of his abilities, as an example of why he was destined to be successful. I'm sure a lot of people who were just as tenacious as a young Zuckerberg, have become less so over the years after having failed many times and discouraged. Some of them will rebound and others won't. Perhaps Zuckerberg had a great deal to overcome, but as a distant observer, it seems that he's learned the right lessons early in part because his effort was validated.
beat 13y ago
A brilliant and tenacious person can fail due to bad luck, but you can't succeed at the billionaire level WITHOUT being brilliant and tenacious. So bad luck can be a factor, but good luck is not, really. Good luck might separate the billionaires from the millionaires, maybe.
nostrademons 13y ago
Are you familiar with Richard Hamming's talk "You and your research"? http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html I'd contend that if a brilliant, tenacious person is doing relatively poorly remunerative things, it's because they're working on the wrong problems. Hamming writes: "I started asking, ``What are the important problems of your field?'' And after a week or so, ``What important problems are you working on?'' And after some more time I came in one day and said, ``If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?''" It's really easy to work on the wrong problems, either because you lack the courage to work on the right problem, or you don't know what the right problem is, or because your values don't line up with professional success. The first is regrettable, the second is hopefully temporary, and the third is fine. But if you want money and fame and all the other accouterments of success, and you're not working on an important problem, and you're not working on getting the courage to work on an important problem, and you're not trying to find the important problems - what are you doing? That's usually the situation that your hypothetical math mathematics professor is in.
- jfoster 13y ago
  I think "of your field" mightn't apply as much when it comes to tech entrepreneurship. Facebook didn't solve a CS problem, but it did solve a social problem. Airbnb too solved a travel problem rather than a CS problem.
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    "Of your field" applies to the market, not the technology, for startups. Facebook was in the college student market; they realized that the most important problem for college students was "I met this cute guy/girl at a party; how do I get laid?" and solved that problem. AirBnB is in the travel market; they realized the most important problem was "How do I find a place to stay cheaply?" and solved that problem.

yerlaw 13y ago

This isn't very convincing without some specifics. "He's has brains and tenacity... if only you knew him." The problem is we only know what we see. And we see underhanded tactics, and enormous luck, not brains and tenacity. Is Aaron Greenspan lazy? I doubt it. Does he use underhanded tactics? I doubt it. Is he as successful as Zuckerberg? It seems obvious that a windfall on the scale of Facebook requires more than just "not being lazy." You are of course free to doubt it. When you have lots of capital to move around (or even a modest amount... like YC), and lots of media attention, you also gain the right of audience. People will listen to you. Even if you have no brains. That is to say, it's not your brains that draw the audience. HN is loaded with brains. But few have an audience like Zuckerberg or pg. Zuckerberg has a lot of capital and a lot of media attention. A lobby is born. Short-lived. Try again.