7 ms·

Do you actually know any of those people, or are you simply repeating media noise?

• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• presty 12y ago
  I'm not the OP, but have any of the accusations of "meanness" against Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Kalanick, Bezos, even Larry/Sergey, etc ever been denied? (And I don't necessarily mean by themselves, but say friends or co-workers.) Because there are several first hand reports from employees about Gates' meanness ("That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard"). Woz said himself how he had to give part of his equity to the employees Jobs screwed over. The whole Uber PR debacle has been going on for months. Zuck's money fight with Saverin is well reported in his gchats. Same thing with the Snapchat guys. And so on... Anyway, I think this is a poor article simply because it seems to depict people as being in extremes (you're either black or white), as if a "good person" won't do mean things and vice versa. There's an old saying that goes something like "the opportunity makes the thief".
  • paul 12y ago
    I'm sure they've all done something mean at some point, but it's a mistake to believe you know someone based on a collection of sensationalized stories. There's no point in arguing though. People will continue to believe what they want to believe regardless of truth or evidence. (e.g. http://www.newsweek.com/why-we-believe-lies-even-when-we-learn-truth-78775 http://www.newsweek.com/why-we-believe-lies-even-when-we-lea...)
    • personZ 12y ago
      So you have truth or evidence otherwise, or are you just waving your hands and implying that you do? I mean if we really want to talk about truth or evidence, the correlation between sociopathic behaviors and business success is very well studied and documented, and lies in absolute contrast with this rather odd essay by PG.
      • paul 12y ago
        What sort of evidence would convince you that someone isn't mean? I've know and worked with some of those people and not found them to be mean, but as other commenters have said, that makes no difference, because stories.
        • foobarqux 12y ago
          Sociopaths aren't mean to people they need something from and have no power over.
          • paul 12y ago
            Clearly you already have your answer and anything I say will only provide you with more evidence of your own correctness. If they do something harsh, that proves they are mean. If they do something nice, that proves they are a manipulative sociopath, and mean.
            • foobarqux 12y ago
              I simply pointed out that the behavior of a sociopath is not defined by being nice but by self interest. That isn't controversial. So pointing out the kind, self-interested things a sociopath does is not meaningful in judging their character. That's a general principle, I don't know about the particular cases you allude to.
              • deleted 12y ago
                [deleted]
            • deleted 12y ago
              [deleted]
            • boracay 12y ago
              Your first sentence doesn't exactly make your case more believable.
        • 12y ago
    • haberman 12y ago
      > There's no point in arguing though. People will continue to believe what they want to believe regardless of truth or evidence. I have no stake in this argument, but this tactic is kind of weak. "I would argue with you, but you suffer from a cognitive bias that makes you irrational (which, by the way, I do not)." That might even be true, but you can't accuse someone of being irrational before they've actually done it. Someone could just as easily accuse you of being blind to the evidence that goes against your own anecdotes and personal experiences. In other words, your personal experiences of these people could be positive but not represent other parts of their character that you haven't seen. (For what it's worth, I think that a "mean people" / "good people" dichotomy is far too reductive to actually have any meaningful conversation about).
      • paul 12y ago
        It's not a tactic, it's just a fact that people remember stories that confirm their prior beliefs and contrary evidence makes little difference. If it makes you feel any better, I'm mostly criticizing myself for engaging in a pointless and unwinnable debate :)
    • danielrhodes 12y ago
      There seems to be a widespread bias in thinking the mean/uncaring/strong individual dominates over the weak. Thus people are more likely to believe these types of stories or at least let it shape their idea of somebody. Personally I think in any situation where a company strategically outmaneuvers another company it is going to come off somewhat as mean (e.g. Microsoft in the 90s protecting their turf). The idea that a company/person succeeds because they are mean, however, is far too simplistic.
  • nkurz 12y ago
    An alternative conclusion (or perhaps an additional) would be that extremely successful business-people whom the public widely believes to be "mean" don't take great effort to prevent the public from believing this. Perhaps at a certain point of power there is a benefit to having a reputation for ruthlessness?
    • sliverstorm 12y ago
      The easiest way to cultivate a reputation for ruthlessness is to be ruthless...
• mattmanser 12y ago
  No, but I agree with presty's comment. To add to it, to be completely honest, I think most people get to go through life with very few opportunities to do something mean. Startup founders, it probably happens every week. They are tempted, and tempted, and tempted. Even if you're good a lot of the time, at some point you're going to say: "Sue didn't work as hard as me" "Bobby isn't the idea man" "I don't owe Claire anything, she took 2 days off sick last year" "Carl's only a contractor, I can pay him 2 months late" "Jay only contributed a tiny amount at the beginning, now he does nothing, it's time to cut him loose" "Sally just isn't a cultural fit any more" Or simply "I worked so much harder/am brighter/deserve it more than most people, I'm allowed to be a bit selfish". It's the same thing as power being corrupting.
  • paul 12y ago
    I think you're confusing mean with something else. Firing an employ who is not performing is not mean. Mean, at least in the way I think pg is using it, is more like you see in YouTube comments, and everyone has plenty of opportunity to be mean like that (as evidenced by YouTube :). If anything, I think it's a sign of powerlessness.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • mattmanser 12y ago
      No-one acts like they do in YT comments in real life, who would write that essay? And as I've said in my edit, why does he use "good" and "benevolent" as antonyms instead of "polite" or "diplomatic"? Why "x-ray vision for character"? "they're usually trying to improve the world"? "you win not by fighting to get control of a scarce resource, but by having new ideas and building new things"? "People need to feel that what they create can't be stolen."? pg was clearly not talking about name throwing or spite. He's talking about moral character. He is repeatedly making positive judgements about how great these founders are. Not how they don't belittle other people for kicks.
• defen 12y ago
  I had several interactions with the current <company> CEO back when they were a very, very small operation, and while "asshole" might be too strong of a word, I got a very strong "I don't give a shit about you beyond what you can do for me" vibe. Does that qualify as "mean" as used in this essay? No idea. Note: edited to remove identifying information.
  • paul 12y ago
    Did he do or say anything mean to you?
    • defen 12y ago
      Short answer is no, but it's as much what was not said, as what was. It's probably something akin to the "x-ray vision" experience. Mine is probably much weaker than jl's - it doesn't trigger that often, but when it does I am fairly confident in it. I've edited my comment to remove identifying information because I don't feel like getting into more detail, and I agree that anonymous character attacks on the Internet are not that helpful.
  • sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I don't think it's fair to tell a story like that without strong evidence to back it up. Actually, telling it might be fine. Believing it, not so much. I know how fashionable it is to hate on <company>, but is this what it's come to? An unsubstantiated story about how someone felt "vibes"? When the CEO didn't actually do anything?
    • defen 12y ago
      Agreed. I edited my comment to remove identifying info; would you mind updating yours also please? Thank you.
    • douglasallen 12y ago
      How are his vibes less credible than Jessica's? Judge a person not by how they treat their superiors (Jessica, Paul) but how they treat those weaker than them, or those who can't do anything for them. You are happy to take Paul's intuitions as data, but the intuitions of real people NOT in a position of power, who interacted with this guy in a place where he will show his true colors, you will dismiss.
• hrktb 12y ago
  It partially comes back to what you mean by mean, but I'd argue that for Gates for instance directing a company engaging in illegal practices for years is objectively mean. Zuckerberg also had to settle lawsuit at great loss. On the other hand, a personal first hand account on how BG was a super nice guy would be a lot less relevant in my opinion.
  • paul 12y ago
    Settling a lawsuit proves that you're a mean person. Ok. I guess I'm a mean person too. You're right though that it comes down to definitions. I think the prevailing definition here is some closer to villain.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
• foobarqux 12y ago
  Knowing someone personally is obviously not the necessary standard to judge a person's character; I doubt it is the one you yourself use.
  • paul 12y ago
    It depends whether we're debating the actual person, or the fictionalized character depicted in the media. If you've never been on the other side of the news, you may not understand the difference.
    • foobarqux 12y ago
      I am well aware of media distortion. As with all news reporting and analysis the answer is not to withhold judgement (otherwise you could not make decisions) it is to use reasoning and experience to form an opinion and assess a confidence level to that opinion. You have a double standard: You certainly won't be coming to the defense of alleged misogynists and sexual harassment, for example, with cries of "but you don't really know the person" and talk of "fictionalized characterizations".
      • paul 12y ago
        Why wouldn't I defend "alleged misogynists"? In general, I find the lynch-mob culture here to be problematic and unhealthy. In this particular case I commented because I have direct experience with some of the people being discussed and am familiar with the ways in which the popular group-think diverges from reality for this group. At the same time, I know it's pointless to argue with people who already know the answer, so I'm probably wasting my time.
        • foobarqux 12y ago
          > Why wouldn't I defend "alleged misogynists"? Because it is widely perceived as socially indefensible and because of YC's support for women in particular. Perhaps it is an unfair to apply these generalizations to you, however I seriously doubt you (or any public figure) would depart from them. Nonetheless, the point was more general: Obviously you form opinions of people without knowing them personally. > In this particular case I commented because I have direct experience with some of the people being discussed and am familiar with the ways in which the popular group-think diverges from reality for this group. I pointed out that your experience may not be informative because of the particular power relations of your interactions. I think that is a fair observation. This group is ill-informed, has poor reasoning skills and poor judgement. That doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether successful people are more likely to be sociopaths. > I know it's pointless to argue with people who already know the answer You could apply the statement equally well to yourself.
• bambax 12y ago
  I'm sure the biggest asshole in the world is sometimes nice to his friends. Do we need to know people to know whether they're mean, and why does pg get a free pass when he asserts that most drug lords must be mean while admitting he doesn't know any? If Uber, as a company, strikes you as "not mean", you're delusional.
  • viscanti 12y ago
    Creating 50k jobs a month (http://mashable.com/2014/09/08/uber-ceo-techcrunch-disrupt/ http://mashable.com/2014/09/08/uber-ceo-techcrunch-disrupt/), reducing transportation costs for millions and reducing DUIs. That strikes me as "not mean". But I guess I'm willing to look at the facts rather than sensational headlines written by people with a vested interest in an Uber competitor.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • mikeash 12y ago
      Personally, that strikes me as completely orthogonal to being nice or mean. Your statement makes as much sense as saying that Uber has created jobs so they must be purple.
      • viscanti 12y ago
        Uber has done good for the world. I give that weight when trying to determine if they're good/bad mean/not mean. To me, they clearly care about people (they're trying to make things better for millions of riders and tens of thousands of new drivers ever month). One of the big arguments for Uber being mean, is that they recruited drivers from competitors. The goal there was to help extend an economic opportunity (the alleged benefit of capitalism) to more private contractors. We complain when large tech companies collude to keep salaries down, and I embrace companies who work to counter that. The fact that Uber appears to be doing that for tens of thousands of people every week puts them in the "not mean" category for me. It's very possible that we have different criteria for what is mean or not mean. I'm basing mine on the facts I have, rather than sensationalist reports from blogs masquerading as real journalism (the fact that obvious hit piece have been written about Uber doesn't put them in the "mean" category for me, although it makes me wonder about their competitors who would do that). I haven't seen Uber playing dirty in the press, with their riders or with their drivers. They seem to genuinely be making the world a better place, with a focus on helping both sides of their marketplace. That said, I'm open to other points of view. Am I missing something?
• douglasallen 12y ago
  Contrast the "media noise" of Woz with Jobs. There are hundreds of reports from colleagues, family, friends about the characters of each of these people. They are completely different. There is video evidence confirming these judgement. There is video evidence of Woz going around being a pretty sweet guy. There is video evidence of Jobs berating people and being mean. Should we--the unconnected public--pretend that we can't know anything about these people just because we haven't met them? It's not true that you have to know someone personally to judge their character. We, the masses, don't judge people by how they treat their friends, superiors, or other rich, connected, powerful people (like you). We judge them by how they treat the little people. Being mean is like being trustworthy. Sometimes it only takes one sufficiently mean act to become a mean person--especially if that mean act is toward a little person who can't do anything to fight back. You're a modern aristocrat, Paul, whether you like it or not. Not every aristocrat is abusive but one trend throughout history is that the kind aristocrats usually protect the evil ones. The servants know the difference. The nice aristocrats are ignorant. The mean artistocrats pull the wool over the eyes of the nice ones. If the servants complain about the mean ones, the nice ones side with the mean ones. Class solidarity, willful ignorance, or both? I am very sure this is what is happening in Paul Graham's case, and likely yours too. You are apologizing for the cruel aristocrats because they don't show you their true colors.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]