3 ms·

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.

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.
neilk 17y ago
Well, I think it's partially a bug, and even in some perfectly egalitarian future we'll still have to deal with it. But at the present time, it's also firmly rooted in fact. People from different groups have different opportunities, no matter how talented they might be. If you're from the wrong kind of neighborhood, it's hard to escape the conclusion that either (a) your people are not meant for better things, or (b) the whole society is in some kind of conspiracy against you. I mean, look at these kids -- they beat MIT in a robotics competition, but one of them now hangs drywall for a living. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html Yeah, I get that there's a huge legal problem here, (they're undocumented), but just compare their story, to say, the drug-addled C student that got to be president. The USA has a long way to go before it's a perfect meritocracy. That said, I do have a lots of problems with the whole inspiring-role-model concept. It can be unrealistic to say that because some ultra-nerd got a scholarship, that this somehow should inspire someone of merely average talents who won't get special treatment. And to go back to the original post, it was really patronizing to stretch the concept of "entrepreneur" to cover notorious bloggers. That kind of bogosity is common in the self-esteem industry.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Thanks for that link. I agree; that's a serious problem. But now we're talking more about socioeconomic class rather than racial/gender groups.

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.

neilk 17y ago

Well, I think it's partially a bug, and even in some perfectly egalitarian future we'll still have to deal with it. But at the present time, it's also firmly rooted in fact. People from different groups have different opportunities, no matter how talented they might be. If you're from the wrong kind of neighborhood, it's hard to escape the conclusion that either (a) your people are not meant for better things, or (b) the whole society is in some kind of conspiracy against you. I mean, look at these kids -- they beat MIT in a robotics competition, but one of them now hangs drywall for a living. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html Yeah, I get that there's a huge legal problem here, (they're undocumented), but just compare their story, to say, the drug-addled C student that got to be president. The USA has a long way to go before it's a perfect meritocracy. That said, I do have a lots of problems with the whole inspiring-role-model concept. It can be unrealistic to say that because some ultra-nerd got a scholarship, that this somehow should inspire someone of merely average talents who won't get special treatment. And to go back to the original post, it was really patronizing to stretch the concept of "entrepreneur" to cover notorious bloggers. That kind of bogosity is common in the self-esteem industry.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
Thanks for that link. I agree; that's a serious problem. But now we're talking more about socioeconomic class rather than racial/gender groups.