3 ms·

The current top comment, and a lot of the discussion here seems to conflate "mean" with "rude" or "dick" or "evil" or "unethical", or "does illegal things", and

The current top comment, and a lot of the discussion here seems to conflate "mean" with "rude" or "dick" or "evil" or "unethical", or "does illegal things", and from there we get things like "This essay is crap because Bill Gates (because of IE) is mean and successful". "Mean" has a very particular meaning. At least it seems to in this particular essay, if I may speak on behalf of PG regarding his use of it. He even hints at what it may be without explaining it directly: Children (especially children of PG's age - both under 7 or so, I believe), when fighting with or teasing or blaming each other, are not usually described as "dicks" or "evil" or "unethical", or even "rude". They are too young to have those properties ascribed to them. It is common, however, for children to call each other "mean" while fighting, and it is also common for parents to tell their children "don't be mean" (as opposed to "don't be a dick", which is what teenagers tell their friends, or "don't do illegal things", which is what courts tell everybody). So when PG uses "mean", he uses it to describe behavior in adult-ish YC founders that is isomorphic to little kids being bad.

bokonist 12y ago
The dictionary defines "mean" as "Selfish in a petty way. Cruel, spiteful, or malicious." If you take the definition of mean to be "selfish or spiteful in a petty way", then yeah, most successful people are not mean. However, the operative word is petty. Most successful people avoid petty disputes. If this was the definition that PG was using, the essay would not have been worth writing. The explanation would be one sentence - successful people are not spiteful over petty things because it is not productive or efficient to wrapped up in petty things. So when I wrote my comment, I inferred from the rest of the essay that PG was using a broader definition, that defined "mean" as being "selfish or spiteful, about big or little things."
- YuriNiyazov 12y ago
  Actually, I disagree with you about the "if PG was including the word 'petty' in his definition of mean, then this essay wouldn't have been worth writing" part. I bet PG sees a lot of petty fights in YC. I was certainly part of one. If there's one overarching theme to PG's essays, it's something like: "smart people that would otherwise be successful repeatedly do things that are obviously counter-productive." Note the obviously. Yes, it is obvious that it is not efficient to be wrapped up in petty things, and yet it happens over and over again.
  - bokonist 12y ago
    Fair point. Using the word "mean" was a poor choice. There may still have been essay worth writing, but it should have been called "Petty people fail." Or he could have titled the essay "Assholes fail" and focused the argument on that. Or he could have titled the essay "Bad/unethical people fail" and argued that angle. But choosing "mean", which connotes both petty and asshole, makes the argument much more unclear.
    - YuriNiyazov 12y ago
      But the argument isn't "Assholes fail" or "Petty people fail" (using human or, not Boolean or). The argument is "Petty assholes fail", AKA "mean people".

bokonist 12y ago

The dictionary defines "mean" as "Selfish in a petty way. Cruel, spiteful, or malicious." If you take the definition of mean to be "selfish or spiteful in a petty way", then yeah, most successful people are not mean. However, the operative word is petty. Most successful people avoid petty disputes. If this was the definition that PG was using, the essay would not have been worth writing. The explanation would be one sentence - successful people are not spiteful over petty things because it is not productive or efficient to wrapped up in petty things. So when I wrote my comment, I inferred from the rest of the essay that PG was using a broader definition, that defined "mean" as being "selfish or spiteful, about big or little things."

YuriNiyazov 12y ago
Actually, I disagree with you about the "if PG was including the word 'petty' in his definition of mean, then this essay wouldn't have been worth writing" part. I bet PG sees a lot of petty fights in YC. I was certainly part of one. If there's one overarching theme to PG's essays, it's something like: "smart people that would otherwise be successful repeatedly do things that are obviously counter-productive." Note the obviously. Yes, it is obvious that it is not efficient to be wrapped up in petty things, and yet it happens over and over again.
- bokonist 12y ago
  Fair point. Using the word "mean" was a poor choice. There may still have been essay worth writing, but it should have been called "Petty people fail." Or he could have titled the essay "Assholes fail" and focused the argument on that. Or he could have titled the essay "Bad/unethical people fail" and argued that angle. But choosing "mean", which connotes both petty and asshole, makes the argument much more unclear.
  - YuriNiyazov 12y ago
    But the argument isn't "Assholes fail" or "Petty people fail" (using human or, not Boolean or). The argument is "Petty assholes fail", AKA "mean people".