4 ms·

Your last line reminds me a lot of when PG said that most founders are really nice people who are rarely "mean". Why in the fuck would a founder even consider

Your last line reminds me a lot of when PG said that most founders are really nice people who are rarely "mean". Why in the fuck would a founder even consider being mean to one of the most powerful people in the industry? It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with.

michaelochurch 12y ago
I'm working on a blog post about this. The people who tend to succeed in the corporate world are (a) not needlessly mean, (b) rarely mean to those in power, but (c) generally avoidant of close personal relationships. A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs (or promoted into management) is whether there's a suspicion that you'll invite too many (presumably not deserving) friends. People who are "sticky" don't get promoted. People who might tip off their reports about an impending layoff aren't made managers. You have to be cold, for organizational ascent, but not a dick. In environments of heterogeneity, warmth is actually an advantage because people who are personable and giving tend to have a wider array of connections, and that means more information, better ideas, and an easier time staying up to date. The old Silicon Valley actually was that way, but for the past 20 years, it's been functioning as one (however postmodern) corporate organization. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save Silicon Valley is to pass a law that makes investors liable for certain kinds of founder misconduct, including sexual harassment. For example, a frat boy like Spiegel would actually probably not get promoted in a larger corporation, if his true colors came out, because he's an HR liability. But investors can fund people like him and wash their hands of the cultural issues created by funding frat boys. That's a real problem, and it ought to be fixed. Since founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley, it's only reasonable to acknowledge them as such, and pass liabilities up the chain into the executive ranks (investors).
- pgbovine 12y ago
  A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs ... Interesting insight about "stickiness"; reminds me of high school cliques, college fraternities/sororities/clubs, etc. Looking forward to your post.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  "founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley." I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it's definitely a useful perspective to keep in mind. A lot of things look very different if you switch over to that way of thinking once in a while. Both pieces of it, the founders are middle managers, and the Valley as meta-company.
- Helianthus 12y ago
  Which is an attempt to actively legislate morality--not that I necessarily disagree with you. I mean more to point out that there is a certain despair in choosing (what I see as) an impossible solution as the 'only way', even if it is a straightforward attempt to clarify the lines of responsibility and execution. I appreciate especially the description of the Valley as a postmodern corporate organization. Merry Christmas. I follow your writing, and if ever you are fully hell-banned I hope that's the day I stop coming here altogether. For now, though, I'm still a tech worker, and this is still the water cooler.
argonaut 12y ago
No, he's totally aware of the fact that people treat you differently to your face. You're totally not evaluating his argument in good faith (e.g. jumping to the least charitable interpretation). Here is his response to that: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/538816535930748928/ https://twitter.com/paulg/status/538816535930748928/
- davidgerard 12y ago
  That just says he thinks he can spot it. Maybe he can, but the process will clearly select for people for whom he can't.
  - argonaut 12y ago
    I was addressing the parent's assertion that "It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with." Clearly PG does have that self-awareness. The problem with what you're saying is that it almost falls into the class of unfalsifiable assertions. Meaning there's virtually no way to disprove what you're saying (not in the sense that it is proved true, but in the sense that it is nearly impossible to prove either way). Even if PG were to assert vigorously that he has spotted many cases of people being nice to his face but being mean elsewhere, you could just continue to assert "Well he just hasn't spotted it well enough."
vegedor 12y ago
mean literally denotes average, common behavior, which might include rudeness out of disregard and ignorance. The important part is that they don't treat everyone equal, or at very least that, if they want to, they can be well polite, extraordinary so to speak. I don't really follow PG, though, ymmv.

michaelochurch 12y ago

I'm working on a blog post about this. The people who tend to succeed in the corporate world are (a) not needlessly mean, (b) rarely mean to those in power, but (c) generally avoidant of close personal relationships. A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs (or promoted into management) is whether there's a suspicion that you'll invite too many (presumably not deserving) friends. People who are "sticky" don't get promoted. People who might tip off their reports about an impending layoff aren't made managers. You have to be cold, for organizational ascent, but not a dick. In environments of heterogeneity, warmth is actually an advantage because people who are personable and giving tend to have a wider array of connections, and that means more information, better ideas, and an easier time staying up to date. The old Silicon Valley actually was that way, but for the past 20 years, it's been functioning as one (however postmodern) corporate organization. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save Silicon Valley is to pass a law that makes investors liable for certain kinds of founder misconduct, including sexual harassment. For example, a frat boy like Spiegel would actually probably not get promoted in a larger corporation, if his true colors came out, because he's an HR liability. But investors can fund people like him and wash their hands of the cultural issues created by funding frat boys. That's a real problem, and it ought to be fixed. Since founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley, it's only reasonable to acknowledge them as such, and pass liabilities up the chain into the executive ranks (investors).

pgbovine 12y ago
A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs ... Interesting insight about "stickiness"; reminds me of high school cliques, college fraternities/sororities/clubs, etc. Looking forward to your post.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
"founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley." I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it's definitely a useful perspective to keep in mind. A lot of things look very different if you switch over to that way of thinking once in a while. Both pieces of it, the founders are middle managers, and the Valley as meta-company.
Helianthus 12y ago
Which is an attempt to actively legislate morality--not that I necessarily disagree with you. I mean more to point out that there is a certain despair in choosing (what I see as) an impossible solution as the 'only way', even if it is a straightforward attempt to clarify the lines of responsibility and execution. I appreciate especially the description of the Valley as a postmodern corporate organization. Merry Christmas. I follow your writing, and if ever you are fully hell-banned I hope that's the day I stop coming here altogether. For now, though, I'm still a tech worker, and this is still the water cooler.

argonaut 12y ago

No, he's totally aware of the fact that people treat you differently to your face. You're totally not evaluating his argument in good faith (e.g. jumping to the least charitable interpretation). Here is his response to that: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/538816535930748928/ https://twitter.com/paulg/status/538816535930748928/

davidgerard 12y ago
That just says he thinks he can spot it. Maybe he can, but the process will clearly select for people for whom he can't.
- argonaut 12y ago
  I was addressing the parent's assertion that "It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with." Clearly PG does have that self-awareness. The problem with what you're saying is that it almost falls into the class of unfalsifiable assertions. Meaning there's virtually no way to disprove what you're saying (not in the sense that it is proved true, but in the sense that it is nearly impossible to prove either way). Even if PG were to assert vigorously that he has spotted many cases of people being nice to his face but being mean elsewhere, you could just continue to assert "Well he just hasn't spotted it well enough."

vegedor 12y ago

mean literally denotes average, common behavior, which might include rudeness out of disregard and ignorance. The important part is that they don't treat everyone equal, or at very least that, if they want to, they can be well polite, extraordinary so to speak. I don't really follow PG, though, ymmv.