3 ms·

I don't think your comment is offensive, and I get what you're saying -- you would prefer that all of humanity be inspired by what one of us does. Regrettably t

by neilk 17y ago

I don't think your comment is offensive, and I get what you're saying -- you would prefer that all of humanity be inspired by what one of us does. Regrettably this is not the case. People identify more with people that look like themselves. This is a bug in the human OS and we can't ever totally fix it. Even if we could somehow fix that, there are good reasons why someone will gauge their own chances based on the success of others who are similar to them, especially in a society that's still working on eliminating racial and gender disparities. Let me take an example closer to home. Paul Graham's theory about Y Combinator was, among other things, that people were ready to found successful companies at a much earlier age than was previously suspected. He has pretty much proven this by now, and I know lots of bright kids who are ready to take the startup plunge. But think of how people felt before -- "I can't start a company, I'm just a college kid" or "What do I know about business, I've just worked in a coffee shop" or "The people who start computer businesses have to be really smart, I don't even have a degree yet." or even if they do think they have the skills, that "nobody is going to trust a kid like me, the game is stacked against me. Forget it." And there is even the worry that one might succeed, but then be totally alone and alienated from all your friends. If the barrier is that high just for ageism, consider how much higher it is for sexism and racism. And people grow up and leave their youthful inexperience behind; you can't do the same with gender or ethnic background. Think how much more mental fortitude it would take to try to succeed in a profession where you'll always be the odd person out due to your gender or color. Knowing that someone's blazed the trail for you becomes very important.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
I see what you mean, and I get the motivation for this kind of thing. I'd quibble with your choice of example, though - Paul backtracked on that, unfortunately. But leaving that aside, I liked the way you described the reason for all this: as a bug. As intelligent beings (ha ha), I think humans should try to be aware of the bug and work around it, instead of reinforcing it, which is what this does. (In this case, sexism is reinforced.) Consider the implications of your last sentence: The trail has only been blazed for you if someone else in your subgroup has done something already. It hasn't been blazed if some other human did it. Again, this just reinforces the separation of humans into subgroups, instead of rejecting the importance of subgroups entirely.
- pg 17y ago
  Paul backtracked on that, unfortunately. I did?
  - jibiki 17y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77502 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77502 Wouldn't call it backtracking though.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    IIRC, about four years ago you made the point that if grad students can start companies, undergrads can too. Some time later, I believe you implied that you'd gone too far, and undergrads generally weren't as ready as you'd thought. I think one of the reasons you once mentioned was that people who'd worked for a while had experienced how much it sucked, and this made them more determined or desperate when they ran their startups. That first point was in an essay or talk, but the second might have been somewhere else. Maybe "backtracked" wasn't the best word (backpedaled, maybe?), because I'm not saying you completely reversed your position and started rejecting all young people, but I hope it's clear what I'm getting at. Here is the talk: http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html And this might be the other thing I'm thinking of: http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html
    - pg 17y ago
      Current undergrads do turn out to be at a disadvantage as startup founders. But because of the gravitational attraction of college, not because of their age.
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        Sure, but doesn't this increase the average age of YC founders, especially since you still advise young people to go to college? Put another way, rather than telling 18-year-olds to start companies, you now tell them to go to college for the experience - where, as you say, they're at a disadvantage as startup founders. I assume you wouldn't tell them to do both at the same time.

by neilk 17y ago

johnnybgoode 17y ago

I see what you mean, and I get the motivation for this kind of thing. I'd quibble with your choice of example, though - Paul backtracked on that, unfortunately. But leaving that aside, I liked the way you described the reason for all this: as a bug. As intelligent beings (ha ha), I think humans should try to be aware of the bug and work around it, instead of reinforcing it, which is what this does. (In this case, sexism is reinforced.) Consider the implications of your last sentence: The trail has only been blazed for you if someone else in your subgroup has done something already. It hasn't been blazed if some other human did it. Again, this just reinforces the separation of humans into subgroups, instead of rejecting the importance of subgroups entirely.

pg 17y ago
Paul backtracked on that, unfortunately. I did?
- jibiki 17y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77502 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77502 Wouldn't call it backtracking though.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  IIRC, about four years ago you made the point that if grad students can start companies, undergrads can too. Some time later, I believe you implied that you'd gone too far, and undergrads generally weren't as ready as you'd thought. I think one of the reasons you once mentioned was that people who'd worked for a while had experienced how much it sucked, and this made them more determined or desperate when they ran their startups. That first point was in an essay or talk, but the second might have been somewhere else. Maybe "backtracked" wasn't the best word (backpedaled, maybe?), because I'm not saying you completely reversed your position and started rejecting all young people, but I hope it's clear what I'm getting at. Here is the talk: http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html And this might be the other thing I'm thinking of: http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html
  - pg 17y ago
    Current undergrads do turn out to be at a disadvantage as startup founders. But because of the gravitational attraction of college, not because of their age.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      Sure, but doesn't this increase the average age of YC founders, especially since you still advise young people to go to college? Put another way, rather than telling 18-year-olds to start companies, you now tell them to go to college for the experience - where, as you say, they're at a disadvantage as startup founders. I assume you wouldn't tell them to do both at the same time.