5 ms·

YC, Hacker News, Arc, and PG's essays are all counterexamples to "success causes passion." The passion came first.

betenoire 13y ago
Counterexamples or examples that don't fit this one pattern? Do you think the passion _caused_ the success just because it came first?
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Do you think the passion _caused_ the success? I think his success was equal parts intelligence and determination ("passion"). It seems true to say that those two ingredients alone were necessary and sufficient. He could still fail due to a run of bad luck. But it's a pretty safe bet that if things start to slip downhill, those setbacks won't make him any less determined. If a person's passion springs from their success, then they'll be discouraged when setbacks inevitably happen. Paul's model seems better: (a) doggedly pursue (b) something you're pretty sure will succeed. It'd be hard to doggedly pursue something that you're not already passionate about. In fact, that pattern seems common. Drew had decided to commit himself exclusively to Dropbox before even applying to YC; Airbnb's founders flew to NYC every week during YC to talk to users; Watsi's founders would probably do Watsi whether or not it was a huge success; etc. In every case it seems like their passion was independent of their success, because none of them were willing to give up under any circumstances. That's quite a different situation than someone whose determination depends on a positive feedback loop of success.
SkyMarshal 13y ago
YC not necessarily, PG pre-selects already highly successful people. They're just not startup millionaires yet.
- lgieron 13y ago
  Hghly successful people? Isn't he mostly targeting graduates?
  - SkyMarshal 13y ago
    Of top tier schools, or who have worked for top tier companies. Remember his goal shifted recently from funding the best ideas to funding the best people and then finding them a good idea.
    - lgieron 13y ago
      What I meant, I don't consider someone who just graduated from Standford and/or worked for a few years at Google "highly successful". It means they're capable and motivated, and that's probably what PG's selecting for.
      - SkyMarshal 13y ago
        We're using two different definitions of "highly successful". I'm comparing to the populace at large, where getting into Harvard/Stanford/MIT or worked at Google very much = highly successful. I think you're probably using the metric, did they found a startup that hit a billion dollar valuation, or something along those lines.
eterm 13y ago
Given that PG was already successful before YC and HN, what makes you assert that the passion came first?
mcguire 13y ago
Adams doesn't disagree: "I've been involved in several dozen business ventures over the course of my life, and each one made me excited at the start. You might even call it passion. The ones that didn't work out—and that would be most of them—slowly drained my passion as they failed. The few that worked became more exciting as they succeeded."
seiji 13y ago
Mostly wrong. Arc is a success by what measure? Sure, it's passion, but timecube is also passion. pg's first startup was an online art gallery. He was passionate about art. Nobody wanted it. They switched to a built-to-flip online store with no passion besides getting rich off 90s computer madness. That part worked.
ProblemFactory 13y ago
Perhaps you need a small amount of passion to get started. But passion and success are not independent, they form a very strong feedback loop. It is much easier to be passionate about a project that other people love (measured in downloads, users, revenue, media response or just feedback emails), than working on something that nobody else cares about for years.
drblast 13y ago
I think his point was that success and passion aren't necessarily correlated, so while passion might be a prerequisite for success (but maybe not), having passion isn't a very good indicator that any one person will be successful. It's much more likely that a tried-and-true idea executed well will make money. That point is emphasized by the fact that his bank wouldn't loan money to passionate people, so I'd say if you want advice you can "take to the bank," this is a good example of that. Of course, if you define success as something other than "make a lot of money," then this is probably the wrong article to be reading.
nicholas73 13y ago
I think the difference here is that YC invests in new kinds of products or services, whereas Adams' bank loans fund existing business models. PG states that passion is a pretty good indicator whether someone else would be interested in your new product, because you yourself want one. On the other hand, passion wouldn't help you make unbiased and calculated business decisions.

Counterexamples or examples that don't fit this one pattern? Do you think the passion _caused_ the success just because it came first?

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Do you think the passion _caused_ the success? I think his success was equal parts intelligence and determination ("passion"). It seems true to say that those two ingredients alone were necessary and sufficient. He could still fail due to a run of bad luck. But it's a pretty safe bet that if things start to slip downhill, those setbacks won't make him any less determined. If a person's passion springs from their success, then they'll be discouraged when setbacks inevitably happen. Paul's model seems better: (a) doggedly pursue (b) something you're pretty sure will succeed. It'd be hard to doggedly pursue something that you're not already passionate about. In fact, that pattern seems common. Drew had decided to commit himself exclusively to Dropbox before even applying to YC; Airbnb's founders flew to NYC every week during YC to talk to users; Watsi's founders would probably do Watsi whether or not it was a huge success; etc. In every case it seems like their passion was independent of their success, because none of them were willing to give up under any circumstances. That's quite a different situation than someone whose determination depends on a positive feedback loop of success.

SkyMarshal 13y ago

YC not necessarily, PG pre-selects already highly successful people. They're just not startup millionaires yet.

lgieron 13y ago
Hghly successful people? Isn't he mostly targeting graduates?
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  Of top tier schools, or who have worked for top tier companies. Remember his goal shifted recently from funding the best ideas to funding the best people and then finding them a good idea.
  - lgieron 13y ago
    What I meant, I don't consider someone who just graduated from Standford and/or worked for a few years at Google "highly successful". It means they're capable and motivated, and that's probably what PG's selecting for.
    - SkyMarshal 13y ago
      We're using two different definitions of "highly successful". I'm comparing to the populace at large, where getting into Harvard/Stanford/MIT or worked at Google very much = highly successful. I think you're probably using the metric, did they found a startup that hit a billion dollar valuation, or something along those lines.

eterm 13y ago

Given that PG was already successful before YC and HN, what makes you assert that the passion came first?

mcguire 13y ago

Adams doesn't disagree: "I've been involved in several dozen business ventures over the course of my life, and each one made me excited at the start. You might even call it passion. The ones that didn't work out—and that would be most of them—slowly drained my passion as they failed. The few that worked became more exciting as they succeeded."

seiji 13y ago

Mostly wrong. Arc is a success by what measure? Sure, it's passion, but timecube is also passion. pg's first startup was an online art gallery. He was passionate about art. Nobody wanted it. They switched to a built-to-flip online store with no passion besides getting rich off 90s computer madness. That part worked.

ProblemFactory 13y ago

Perhaps you need a small amount of passion to get started. But passion and success are not independent, they form a very strong feedback loop. It is much easier to be passionate about a project that other people love (measured in downloads, users, revenue, media response or just feedback emails), than working on something that nobody else cares about for years.

drblast 13y ago

I think his point was that success and passion aren't necessarily correlated, so while passion might be a prerequisite for success (but maybe not), having passion isn't a very good indicator that any one person will be successful. It's much more likely that a tried-and-true idea executed well will make money. That point is emphasized by the fact that his bank wouldn't loan money to passionate people, so I'd say if you want advice you can "take to the bank," this is a good example of that. Of course, if you define success as something other than "make a lot of money," then this is probably the wrong article to be reading.

nicholas73 13y ago

I think the difference here is that YC invests in new kinds of products or services, whereas Adams' bank loans fund existing business models. PG states that passion is a pretty good indicator whether someone else would be interested in your new product, because you yourself want one. On the other hand, passion wouldn't help you make unbiased and calculated business decisions.