i am a web developer & startup founder based in Nigeria, West Africa, a place where there is hardly any electricity, so my startup is run on generators & inverters, broadband isnt available, dialup is the norm here. the computers we use are 5 years old, the list goes on. but i & my team still get stuff done, because of the passion we have and i guess its because we are 'relentlessly resourcefull'. Thanks pg for another excellent write up.
When I lived in Kenya for two months, this is one of the things I found fascinating. People would face immense daily challenges (compared to what is faced in the "West") and yet they would still go about their business without a hint of anger or complaint.
It's sad though because you just have to wonder what bigger things could be accomplished if infrastructure was more stable so people could put their focus towards bigger issues rather than smaller ones.
I'm not sure whether it possible to get them in Nigeria, but devices like Nokia N810 or Google G1 Dev. Phone can be very useful. They can stand by for almost a week. At least for me, here, in Nepal, these devices are very good solutions for electrisity outages. There are only 8 hours per day with power in Kathmandu (4 at morning and 4 at evening), but of course, mobile towers works 24/7. Some cheap netbooks with a 6-cell battaries is also reasonable. They could be used as linux-based test servers (without running X11.)
There's no accounting for taste, so I won't discuss whether the comment was humorous or not. However, I respectfully disagree that I have offended the original poster. Please allow me to explain:
As an engineer, I appreciate the original poster's resourcefulness and can-do attitude. Getting things done with minimum means is something admirable. However, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to claim that anyone who reads the words "Nigeria" and "internet" in the same sentence will think of 419 scams. That is not the OP's fault, of course, but it would be naive to think that such a prejudice does not work against him. Countries have reputations, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes your country's reputation helps, sometimes it hinders.
I am sure some people think I am being racist. Just so you know, I am no bigot. Moreover, if the OP was offended, he can defend himself, and I am here to apologize if my joke was offensive. I conjecture that if the OP were Russian and I made a stupid joke about vodka bottles and stuff, I wouldn't have been down-voted as fast. Not all bigotry is created equal, I guess.
Nah, it would have- and that's why HN is awesome. Dumb jokes get downmodded into oblivion, which keeps the quality of conversation high. If shit like that flew, the site would devolve into Reddit levels of lolcats. It doesn't contribute to the conversation and it leads into detours like this thread.
It's also beyond ridiculous to mock someone who's busting his ass to build a company when he has to transcend things like, you know, regular access to electricity, but that's a matter of personal taste.
I'm not saying show blind admiration because the cool kids are upmodding, I'm saying be respectful... especially when the OP is as badass as the OP in question!
AFAIK, the OP did NOT request your intervention (I am sure the OP's skin is thicker than yours, so to say). You are making a storm in a teacup. BTW, I was not mocking the OP, in case you haven't figured it out yet. Borrowing a British expression, I was taking the piss.
Born and raised in Western Europe, I have lived some time in a 3rd world country. I have seen the most annoying condescending gaze on the faces of so many American and British expats who claim to be very sensitive to cultural issues, but who actually never bother to interact with the locals. Going for a game of crickett at the private club is more fun than hanging out with the local "savages".
I admire people who work hard and get stuff done with minimum means, regardless of their race or nationality. Period.
and thats what has been downvoted, while it may be racially insensitive, "taking the piss" isnt really what the comments here are for, regardless of what you were taking the piss out of
To me, the insulting nature of your comment stemmed not from the economic status of Nigeria as a poor country (or the skin color of its residents) but the fact that you were jokingly implying the OP was involved in something illegal.
A joke about a Russian entrepreneur selling vodka, for example, would not be insulting, just trite. Which, quality of content wise, is equally bad.
Makes sense. I had never thought of it from that POV. I can't take back what I wrote, though. Personally, if someone made a joke implying that I was doing something illegal, I would not be offended at all (unless I was, in fact, doing something illegal), but it seems not everyone's skin is as thick as mine. Cheers.
"Anyone who can muster their willpower for thirty seconds, can make a desperate effort to lift more weight than they usually could. But what if the weight that needs lifting is a truck? Then desperate efforts won't suffice; you'll have to do something out of the ordinary to succeed. You may have to do something that you weren't taught to do in school. Something that others aren't expecting you to do, and might not understand. You may have to go outside your comfortable routine, take on difficulties you don't have an existing mental program for handling, and bypass the System.
So then let us distinguish between the virtues 'make a desperate effort' and 'make an extraordinary effort'.
And I will even say: The second virtue is higher than the first."
You mentioned on your blog that you tested out of your bachelor's degree. So what's your experience getting your degree from a non-traditional university? You seem somewhat of an autodidact, so did you find that the coursework was an acceptable study plan, or did you end up supplementing the coursework to learn the material?
The school you mentioned seems to be credible, it even has a couple engineering technology programs accredited by TAC of ABET. But I haven't had great experiences with getting college credit through standardized tests. I took several CLEP tests before entering college. And while it was definitely worth it to get rid of some general ed requirements, the tests were extremely easy. All I ended up doing was reading the study books once or twice before the tests. I don't think I learned a significant from preparing for those tests.
Illusion of transparency = zap! The text as written is ambiguous: I haven't yet tested out of a bachelor's degree, but expect that I could do so easily enough if required to earn a PhD - the bachelor's itself just isn't worth the time to me, even to test out of.
If anyone out there happens to be a professor of analytical philosophy or decision theory who's willing to let me come in and just do my PhD thesis on an elegant general solution to Newcomblike problems, give me a ring (see http://yudkowsky.net/ for contact info). But if I also have to show up for classes I can't test out of, just to prove that I was there - then I'm sorry, but I can't.
Would you mind giving me a clue on what your decision theory is about? Newcomblike problems don't seem very interesting to me--if you anticipate such a problem, you could do things that make it appear as though you don't understand causality, and if you are participating in multiple consecutive rounds, you could one-box on all but the last one.
I Clepped basically an entire year of university. Higher education serves two purposes: Learning, and credentialing. And there's certainly faster ways to learn - so that leaves you with the credential. The cheaper and faster you can get it if you want that one, the faster you can get out into the world and do cool things.
At a good institution, you'll learn considerably more than you get examined on. The fact that you learned enough on your own to pass exams doesn't mean that you learned as much as a normal student.
I just realized, it is easy to get creative when bad stuff happens ... out of sheer desparation. That quote makes me wonder what would happen if I figured out how to do this when bad stuff isn't happening right at the moment.
Actually, there are reported cases of petite women being able to lift cars if their child is trapped under it and in danger. The body will redirect all its resources in moments of desperation to accomplish what is otherwise not normal. According to one report I read of such an instance, the woman said she was sore for weeks after as her body needed to recover.
I'm curious about contextual dependence in this...
For example, I can often be relentlessly resourceful in technical matters. If an approach doesn't work, then there's some other combination of code that may get us there, it just won't be as easy or elegant. But then we can usually simplify it after the fact to make it reasonably maintainable.
But when it comes to social matters, I'm far more likely to just give up than to keep pushing people or trying different approaches. A lot of that is simply because I know that code has no feelings: I won't be burning any bridges because I think that function definition deserves to die. But it's hard to tell when you've pushed a person too far, or when they'll get offended because you went behind their back, and if that'll bite you later.
Is there a way to apply resourcefulness in one situation to another, and basically "cross-train" to become more persistent in different domains?
YMMV, but I've found that in interpersonal situations the kind of resourcefulness that pays off the most is actually internally directed. If I give closer attention to my own reactions, I start to see what I'm doing to create or maintain a problem. That gives me new choices I didn't have before. I can stop doing those things or I can add something new, whereas it's hard to directly change what others are doing.
I've often wondered why this (applying introspection to social matters) works. For one thing, if I'm experiencing a certain reaction, the other person is often experiencing something similar (or opposite, but opposite is similar). For another, human relationships are systemic, meaning if a shift occurs in one place (you), some corresponding shift often occurs in another (them), yielding an effect that would be hard to bring about directly.
I guess what I'm saying is that the kind of resourcefulness you use in technical matters can be applied to social ones, but you have to learn how those two fields differ. If you try to naively treat one like the other, people will resist you till the cows come home. But the underlying qualities, like curiosity and play and trying different things, bridge both areas.
Yeah, this has happened in my experience too. Changing my own actions as a way to affect change is easier than changing someone else's actions. This is both in the social domain and actually physically affecting someone (e.g. sparring). In chess or Go or any other strategy games, this would be "initiative".
I've also found something similar to that opposite-emotion reaction with other people. I think it has a lot to do with the parts of our brain responsible for mirroring other people and empathy. For example, changing an internal state often reflects in the non-verbal cues that affects someone else subconsciously.
There are old (50+ years old) leadership manuals that points this and other things out.
I know, but the question is "How?" Particularly because if you just do it naively - like calling the same prospect over and over again and begging them to buy - you tend not to get very good results. Relentlessly resourceful, not just relentless.
I'm faced with similar issues, but I find that by reaching out to the people and other resources around me, things arise that I would have never otherwise considered.
When you face a dead end, that's exactly when you need to tap into the relentless (never giving up) resourcefulness (looking in places you have not yet considered).
Sounds great in theory, but it's much harder in practice.
It's like starring up a 70 foot wall and wondering how to get over it.
With people (by which I assume you mean co-founders or colleagues), being resourceful usually means finding out what is important to them in life and in that moment. Then you shouldn't have to push them very much (or at all) to get things done - they will almost always be things they want themselves. When this is not the case, you need to be resourceful in figuring out why they don't want to do something. Usually there's a legitimate reason which can be addressed.
With technical matters it seems good to be relentless and focus on your needs. As you mentioned, the goal is to simplify code so that it's maintainable and satisfies you.
With social matters you usually need to be relentless and focus on other people's needs. The goal is to find out what's irking a friend or a customer and fix it to satisfy them.
PG, I would be really interested in your experiences teaching people to relentlessly resourceful. How have you brought out resourcefulness in your startup founders?
Me: Sure, why not? Can't hurt to try. How hard can it be
to do at least version 1 of x?
Founders: Ok [dubiously] we'll try it.
A few days later:
Founders: Pg, check out this demo of x. It was a lot harder
than we expected, but we just got it working. While
we were working on it, we thought "what if we did y..."
One of my alltime favourite quotes that I think is relevant is:
"I can never stand still. I must explore and experiment. I am never satisfied with my work. I resent the limitations of my own imagination"
- Walt Disney
Also, perhaps this one might work too, also by Walt.
"Somehow I can't believe that there are any heights that can't be scaled by a man who knows the secrets of making dreams come true. This special secret, it seems to me, can be summarized in four C's. They are curiosity, confidence, courage, and constancy, and the greatest of all is confidence. When you believe in a thing, believe in it all the way."
I would say constancy is more important that confidence. It's simply dull, constant practice that gets you to be perfect in a certain skill, not confidence (and I'm speaking with experience as a hard sciences student). Advice from business-people is inapplicable to us science students most of the time.
Advice from business-people is inapplicable to us science students most of the time.
Walt was an innovator first, businessman second.
Did you know he invented the multiplane camera that revolutionised the Animation industry?
Or perhaps that he insisted on having the pegs on the Animation Discs down the bottom where it was the standard at the time to have them up the top? This was so they could do rolling, a small change but a huge revolution at the time
Every chance he got he tried to push the envelope of what was possible - in fact, this nearly sent him broke in the early days.
I think if Walt was born in this century, you'd see the guy in Silicon Valley doing what a lot of us are trying to do now.
Anyay lastly, I think I should finish this off with another quote of his, which kind of underlines the point I'm trying to make.
"I don't make movies to make money. I make money to make movies"
The times when I made the most improvement in a particular skill comes from not-dull, constant practice. Hard, yes, repetitive, yes, but never dull. If your attention wanders while you are practicing, you're not getting the most out of the practice.
Lacking confidence tends to distract as much as over-confidence. The person practicing stops paying attention to what he is practicing.
I'd say, transfer of learning (taking advice from one context and figuring out how to apply it in a different context)is a form of resourcefulness. (Though I'm more of the opinion that resourcefulness applies to both internal and external obstacles).
... That's actually a result of everything that's happened since Walt's death in 66, especially the terrible reign of Michael Eisner from 84 to 05 which nearly killed Disney's animation.
There's a book called "The Illusion of Life" that was written by Two of the "Nine Old Men" of animation who were with Walt from the early days.
When you read some of the early chapters, Disney held a lot of the values that many Hackers hold including iterating quickly, being open with information (within his own organisation that is) and always pushing the envelope with what was possible.
> especially the terrible reign of Michael Eisner from 84 to 05 which nearly killed Disney's animation.
Say what you want about the end of Eisner time, but Disney was circling the drain in 84.
Animation was still on a 3 year schedule when Eisner arrived and the quality was going down. Under Eisner, both production and quality went up.
Eisner didn't have time to affect Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company is no great shakes, but Little Mermaid through Mulan is pretty good. Yes, things went downhill from there (I liked Lilo and Stitch).
19 The Jungle Book October 18, 1967
20 The Aristocats December 24, 1970
21 Robin Hood November 8, 1973
22 The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh 3, 4 March 11, 1977
23 The Rescuers June 22, 1977
24 The Fox and the Hound July 10, 1981
25 The Black Cauldron 7 July 24, 1985
26 The Great Mouse Detective July 2, 1986
27 Oliver & Company November 13, 1988 (premiere)
November 18, 1988
28 The Little Mermaid November 15, 1989 (premiere)
November 17, 1989
29 The Rescuers Down Under November 16, 1990
30 Beauty and the Beast 1, 8 November 13, 1991 (limited)
November 22, 1991
31 Aladdin November 11, 1992 (limited)
November 25, 1992
32 The Lion King 7 June 15, 1994 (limited)
June 24, 1994
33 Pocahontas June 16, 1995 (premiere)
June 23, 1995
34 The Hunchback of Notre Dame June 19, 1996 (premiere)
June 21, 1996
35 Hercules June 14, 1997 (premiere)
June 27, 1997
36 Mulan June 5, 1998 (premiere)
June 19, 1998
37 Tarzan June 18, 1999
38 Fantasia 2000 3, 4, 8 December 17, 1999 (premiere)
January 1, 2000 (IMAX)
June 16, 2000 (regular)
39 Dinosaur[1]3, 8 May 13, 2000 (premiere)
May 19, 2000
40 The Emperor's New Groove December 10, 2000 (premiere)
December 15, 2000
41 Atlantis: The Lost Empire June 3, 2001 (premiere)
June 8, 2001 (limited)
June 15, 2001
42 Lilo & Stitch June 16, 2002 (premiere)
June 21, 2002
43 Treasure Planet 8 November 17, 2002 (premiere)
November 27, 2002
44 Brother Bear October 20, 2003 (premiere)
October 24, 2003 (limited)
November 1, 2003
45 Home on the Range March 21, 2004 (premiere)
April 2, 2004
46 Chicken Little 8, 9,10 October 30, 2005 (premiere)
November 4, 2005
47 Meet the Robinsons 9, 10 March 30, 2007
1 DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp August 3, 1990
2 A Goofy Movie April 7, 1995
3 Doug's 1st Movie March 19, 1999 (premiere)
March 26, 1999
4 The Tigger Movie 1 February 11, 2000
5 Recess: School's Out February 10, 2001 (premiere)
February 16, 2001
6 Return to Never Land February 10, 2002 (premiere)
February 15, 2002
7 The Jungle Book 2 February 9, 2003 (premiere)
February 14, 2003
8 Piglet's Big Movie 1 March 16, 2003 (premiere)
March 21, 2003
9 Teacher's Pet January 16, 2004
10 Pooh's Heffalump Movie February 11, 2005
11 Bambi II 2 January 26, 2006 (Argentina)
February 7, 2006 (U.S. video premiere)
April 24, 2006 (United Kingdom)
May 26, 2006 (Australia)
Nightmare Before Christmas 1, 2, 3, 4 October 9, 1993 (premiere)
October 13, 1993 (limited)
October 29, 1993
2 James and the Giant Peach 2, 3, 5 April 12, 1996
1 Toy Story 1, 2 November 22, 1995
2 A Bug's Life November 25, 1998
3 Toy Story 2 1, 2 November 24, 1999
4 Monsters, Inc. November 2, 2001
5 Finding Nemo May 30, 2003
6 The Incredibles November 5, 2004
7 Cars June 9, 2006
8 Ratatouille June 29, 2007
9 WALL-E 4 June 27, 2008
It's true, Eisner was doing the initial pixar deal but negotiations fell through several times.
Actually Bob Iger (Michael Eisner's successor) successfully negotiated and finalised the Pixar deal after he came to the realisation that all of the popular characters in recent memory in their theme parks were (in large) a result of Pixar's work. He came to this conclusion watching a parade while attending the opening of Hong Kong Disneyland.
He was more ready to do a proper deal that didn't screw over Pixar (which Eisner had gotten quite proficient at during his time). This resulted in Ed Catmull (then Pixar CEO and Pixar co-founder) becoming president of Disney Animation, John Lasseter (co-founder and director of many fine Pixar films) becoming Chief Creative Officer of Disney Animation and Steve Jobs getting a seat on the Disney Board.
Anyway, Eisner did nearly kill disney animation (It's not good when they're selling off equipment...) and his predecessor didn't do a very good job either when they decided to drop the use of multiplane camera's to reduce costs.
Also the later cel animated Disney films that people loved (beauty and the beast onwards) were helped in part by software that Pixar created (but the name of it escapes me at the moment)
> It's true, Eisner was doing the initial pixar deal but negotiations fell through several times.
The "initial pixar deal" was all Eisner, which got Toy Story and so on, happened before 95, which was before Disney purchased ABC (which is how Iger got to Disney).
Eisner did flub the final pixar deal, but that happened at the end of his time.
Eisner saved disney animation at the beginning of his time. Yes, it slid at the end (although it was still better than when he started).
Notice the pattern.
> Anyway, Eisner did nearly kill disney animation
The movie output (which I provided) doesn't support the "kill" hypothesis. Disney animation was on life-support when Eisner arrived. It got significantly better after he'd been around for long enough to have an impact and improved steadily for quite a while before tailing off at the end of his time. (Animation movies take three years.)
> Also the later cel animated Disney films that people loved (beauty and the beast onwards) were helped in part by software that Pixar created
Yup, but that's part of how Eisner re-animated disney animation.
2005 Eisner was arguably a disaster. However, 1985 Eisner was a savior and 1995 eisner was a genius.
> The "initial pixar deal" was all Eisner, which got Toy Story and so on, happened before 95, which was before Disney purchased ABC (which is how Iger got to Disney).
Yes, which resulted in Pixar having to give up 50% of the revenue for the films in exchange for Distribution... which is what caused all the friction in the beginning. Pixar felt like they were getting screwed.
> 2005 Eisner was arguably a disaster. However, 1985 Eisner was a savior and 1995 eisner was a genius.
> Disney animation was on life-support when Eisner arrived
Actually I think you have your people wrong.
You can credit Katzenberg with the success of those various films.
Katzenberg headed up the production of those films in the Late 80's/Early 90's that "saved" Disney animation. Eisner may have been CEO, but he was mostly concerned with operation of the theme parks.
It was around 94/95ish that Katzenberg left Disney (I'm not actually sure of the reason) and that's when you'll notice that shortly after Disney produced animation sucked for the most part.
Katzenberg ended up founding Dreamworks with Spielberg and they're doing quite well for themselves.
Ever noticed that from 94-08 Disney produced mostly poor animation films? Especially when you consider the great run of films that Disney had from 88 (The Little Mermaid) to 94 (The Lion King)... which funnily enough correlates to Katzenberg's time at Disney.
Bolt broke the drought and you can credit that to Lasseter's influence since becoming CCO of Disney Animation in 06 as part of the Pixar/Disney deal
Say what you want, but Eisner was ill-equipped to run Disney Animation. He just didn't "get it"
Bob Iger "gets it" with animation. I'd say this is partially why Dreamworks will now be distributed through one of Disney's subsidiaries in the future (this deal was done very recently)
The initial claim was that Eisner nearly killed Disney animation. When I provided evidence showing that Disney animation got significantly better under Eisner's reign, the claim becomes "someone else made it better" and that Eisner did nothing. Note the unstated retraction of "killed".
As far as Katzenberg goes, he wasn't created by Imagineering - he was hired by Eisner. And yes, he eventually left. That's what successful people do in Hollywood - they move upstream.
While the Pixar came to resent the original deal, that deal made them and it was a better deal than they could have gotten elsewhere. Everyone who breaks big has the same complaint about their early deals and they're all wrong.
> Katzenberg ended up founding Dreamworks with Spielberg and they're doing quite well for themselves.
Actually, Dreamworks is circling the drain. They sold the animation division in 2004. They sold the studio in 2005, and the "independent filmworks" division is having trouble raising money for a Spielberg film. The distribution deal with Disney is not from a position of strength, but to keep the company afloat. (If DW becomes a success, they'll hate Disney for that deal when it comes time to negotiate another.)
When I say Dreamworks, I mean Dreamworks in terms of PDI Dreamworks Animation SKG... the animation division.
That article you quoted is irrelevant, it talks about Dreamworks Pictures (the non animation division) which is doing horribly (can you name anything of late that they've released that did well?)
Perhaps instead of reading an article from a blogger and becoming an instant expert, it would be wise to read the annual reports sometime which are freely available. Or even just read some of the press releases from the company itself.. I'll give you a headstart.
You're confusing the "secret" Walt is referring to. He's not talking about intellectual property. He's talking about the so called "secret to success".
I guess I usually see someone accomplish some really hard task I assume they have some high level of innate ability or other advantage, when what really happens is that that they just started it and then dealt with any problems as they came up.
Hopefully I'll keep this in mind when ever I'm tempted to think that I need some big break or big idea to accomplish a goal.
We may help out with the occasional idea too. I don't mean to suggest that the preceding conversation is the only one. There so many different types of conversations about so many different problems.
It's not just me, either. There are also the other three YC partners, plus a constant stream of outside experts who meet with all the startups and talk to them about what they're working on.
This seems like an MIT/Harvard thing. I've noticed that the people who call me 'dfranke' IRL, you included, tend to be affiliated with one of the two.
I think RTM is pretty much universally RTM though, whether or not the speaker has any Cambridge ties. I don't think I've ever heard any spoken reference to his full name.
It sounds like you're saying that these particular founders don't have confidence in their ability to do x and are pleasantly surprised when, after a little push, they achieve it (even if it did turn out to be harder than they thought). From achieving x, they uncover the virgin territory of y.
So: is gaining greater confidence in one's ability to achieve stuff part of becoming relentlessly resourceful?
Y Combinator probably makes up the 6% on the confidence boost associated with being selected, alone. Makes it hard to compare unselected/selected companies, I imagine.
Probably much higher. I'd bet that it's 50% at least. Aside from health insurance, one of the biggest hurdles to startup generation is the uncertain career effect. Being YC-funded essentially means that Paul Graham is vouching for your time.
Think about college. Aside from the independently wealthy, no one would dedicate 4 years of life to study, given what would be the career costs of doing so-- an empty resume, a younger boss-- except for the fact that a prestigious institution is willing to sign for the time, making it a career-advancing endeavor. In this case, people are actually willing to pay for it. While there are some glaring inefficiencies in the college model, most would argue that it's a good thing for people to be better educated.
The effect of Y-Combinator is similar. YC is the Harvard of angel investors, and no one who has heard of YC would discredit a founder for time at a YC startup, even if it failed. The result of it is that more people are willing to do startups due to the reduced career risk-- a very good thing.
Actually this has started to become a problem for us. When we first started and had no reputation, the only people who applied for funding were people who really wanted to start startups. Now we get people who are attracted by the idea of "getting into" YC. And it can be tempting to accept them, because people who've been using this m.o. tend to have accumulated impressive resumes. But when we do accept them they often do badly, partly because they didn't really want to be starting a startup, and partly because real world users are a different type of test than they're used to.
In spanish you might say "un barbaro". It's literally "a barbarian" but with the implication of native cunning, resourcefulness, drive, and few inhibitions. It's someone who always wins because he figures out a way.
And Spanish unlike Italian has the exact word PG was looking for to say 'a success', and it's is perfect for startup founders: 'exito'. Of course it's derived from the same Latin word as English's 'exit'.
Regarding: "I'm pathologically optimistic about people's ability to change."
I am very interested in finding out if this optimism is based (somewhat empirically) on your experiences or is more of an intuitive belief based on your general outlook in life.
Fair enough. I too am optimistic about people's ability to change (and mine as well) but I have found that it is usually very gradual, in the order of years.
Once in a while though, some major catalyst materializes in life and changes one radically in some aspects. I have reason to believe that diving into a startup is one such catalyst. From personal experience, starting a startup on the side is not. Most likely because it violates PG10 [1] guaranteeing that you never gain enough momentum to break free from your old mindset.
[1] Startups in 13 Sentences. Sentence 10: No distractions.
This summary has struck me. I couldn't agree more about what it says and requires. Every day founders have to face the doubt inherent in what they are trying to accomplish.
But I think the hurdles are as much internal as they are external and the summary applies to both. Founders have to overcome the internal issues by being relentlessly resourceful as well as the external. "Why am I doing this?" is a question every founder is asking themselves daily because we are all sacrificing something to start our product.
Getting over the internal hurdles requires a great deal of resourcefulness merely to justify continuing the pursuit another day. "Should I quit now? Have I done everything I can to make this work?" "I can't quit yet because I haven't tried X."
You have to be resourceful to prove to yourself that you shouldn't quit just yet.
Relentless resourcefulness applies to internal factors as much as it does external factors because you have to be resourceful enough to provide yourself the impetus to continue, to keep sacrificing. "I can't quit this thing because I know there is a possibility that something I'm not thinking of will make it work. I have to find that thing."
Precisely. Being "relentlessly resourceful" essentially boils down to a highly advanced game of Make Vs. Buy. MacGyver would almost invariably always answer "Make!"
PG's article also reminded me of a comment I posted on here awhile go regarding a question somebody asked about "skimping" on certain things:
Assuming that by "skimp on" you mean "spend sparingly on a necessity," I'll preemptively refrain from rambling about what's probably not necessary for a tech startup.
Of course, one of my new hobbies, since making the voyage out here, has been to practice the wonderfully fun and interesting "make vs buy" comparison game. You can, and probably will have many opportunities to play this game as a startup founder. This game involves simply asking yourself and/or your team numerous questions of a basic logistical nature:
A) How much does X cost to make, if I get to (or have to, depending on the day) make it myself? B) How much does X cost to buy? C) What are the costs, inclusive of shipping/assembly, for scenarios A and B? D) Do I have anything that can be improvised or are there any possible substitutes that can serve the ultimate purpose of X (i.e. using a door as a desk) in the mean-time? E) How long can I "live" with the improvised substitute or the idea of an improvised substitute? F) How much of the actual value of X is imagined; that is, how much have my perceptions been influenced by hype or advertising?
Questions E and F can get complicated, as they relate quite a bit back to the original posit about "necessities" and such. Probably I'm too tired to go into them at the moment, so perhaps in the morning.
I therefore recommend being pretty weary of anything involving hidden "lock-in" costs resultant from usurping alternatives; for example, anything involving a contract probably fits into this category.
Regarding brand loyalty. . . remember that there's a big difference between purchasing actual quality and purchasing advertised "quality." When factoring in costs associated with advertising, the make vs. buy comparison game really can take a person full circle.
I think the kind of resourcefulness being discussed is less about "make v. buy" and more about "make/buy v. get for free."
By "get for free" I mean using personal connections, creativity, or whatever else you have at your disposal (maybe university affiliation) to avoid paying at all, either with real money out of your pocket or development and maintenance effort (in the case of software).
Very succinct definition of a very common lesson in getting ahead. I've heard it phrased before as "use anything you see and everything you've got to reach your goal," which has a nice ring to it, but "be relentlessly resourceful" is beautifully simple.
I like the mini-essays almost more than I like the larger essays. They feel like long footnotes. It's fun reading a long essay, then a few days later getting an extra supplement.
I'm curious what pg's thoughts are about whether "relentless resourcefulness" is what it takes to be good at programming, independent of making a startup. I value his insights on programming, business, and persuasion much more than I value his insights on writing and painting.
It's sort of reassuring to think that living in Argentina is helping me develop some kind of important skill.
Probably some kinds of programming, but not others. It depends how much of the effort is devoted to overcoming external constraints. Sometimes programming is like math, in which case the recipe may be more to be actively curious. But writing an app for end users on a buggy platform might require one to be relentlessly resourceful.
I guess "Relentlessly Resourceful" is the same thing as "Get sh*t done".
(PGs 'being an animal' is the internal version, while GSD is external.)
I'm not sure it can be taught, after the age of five.
In my experience, it can be latent or simply turned off, usually by social norms [or schooling]. I've seen two cases where people really took off when they were simply given permission to 'GSD'. We managed to bypass a lot of organizational crud by effectively building a startup within a parent company, that was largely independent for the course of the project.
We used guerrilla tactics like stealing, ahem 'co-opting', people who we thought might be good if given a chance. I cringe to admit it, but we also used the unfortunate but necessary contrapositive of inventing nul sub-projects to keep non GSD people busy - those whom we had to have on board for political reasons, but who chose to basically just clock hours - so they wouldn't kill off other good work being done.
I guess in a startup, you publicly give yourselves permission to GSD [the whole S, and nothing but the S! :]
Just a small niggle, but don't you mean "helpless" as opposed to "hapless"?
Helpless: "unable to help oneself; weak or dependent"
Hapless: "unlucky; luckless; unfortunate."
It seems to me that helpless has exactly the definition you seek. "Relentlessly resourceful" founders are able to help themselves, strong, and independent.
I know you disagree with the dictionary definition, but could it be that the two meanings merged in your mind? They're not really merged in mine... I see "hapless" as relating to luck, whereas helpless is relating to ability. It seems unnecessary to propose a new meaning for "hapless" when "helpless" fits the bill perfectly.
Which seems to be exactly what you're aiming for. On the other hand, the antonyms of "hapless" are: " fortuitous, fortunate, lucky, well-off", which is not really what you mean, I imagine.
For me, hapless has a connotation of clumsiness. The hapless person goes through life fumbling every opportunity. The opposite is a person adept at taking advantage of every opportunity.
Relentlessly resourceful sounds like a person who makes opportunities or sees them where others don't.
Fair enough, although I've never heard it used without meaning unlucky/cursed/doomed. In all the places I've seen it used it references some unlucky downtrodden person who has bad luck through no real fault of their own.
I can't quite remember, but I'm sure it's used in quite a few cartoons.
I think this is a case where the meaning of 'hapless' has drifted towards 'helpless' because of the similarity of sound. Paronyms are becoming synonyms.
They're not quite contradictory. Number 1 is talking about the theoretical case where the economy reaches the maximum number of startups it can have, and number 3 is talking about the state of affairs now. At the moment, angels are the ingredient in shortest supply, but we are very early in the process.
I'm not sure I agree totally with Paul Graham's antonym choice -- the opposite of hapless when dealing with things might be named "resourcefulness", but when dealing with people "steadfast" might be closer to the feeling you want. Things need to be moved around, but when dealing with people often the most important action is to stand still -- to find a position and refuse to be knocked over or pushed around. This might be part of the reason it is so hard to find a proper antonym. It might also be why it is so hard to do.
Anyway, my fiancee asked me "of all the people you've ever met, who would best fit the 'not hapless' description the best?" I answered without hesitation "Sergey Brin."
Oh, he said, disappointed. "I mean someone who might be available to start a company with."
This observation would tend to support Paul Graham's thesis about the qualities you want in a founder, though.
"Things need to be moved around, but when dealing with people often the most important action is to stand still -- to find a position and refuse to be knocked over or pushed around. This might be part of the reason it is so hard to find a proper antonym. It might also be why it is so hard to do."
This idea sounds really interesting. Would you be willing to expand on it? A couple of examples might help me understand what you mean.
Examples of what? Why it is that standing up to people is one of the components of the "opposite of haplessness"? Or of the assertion that quality of leadership has two components is a large part of why it is so difficult to do and difficult to find?
Looking at the Google guys gives you a couple of examples of the first assertion. They were ultra-careful when hunting for a CEO, and chose one who didn't try to dominate them. They played off their VC's against each other, making sure that the both of the two top venture capitol firms invested in them. That's the kind of thing I mean.
Note that he is commending the resourcefulness of the manager, not his dishonesty. Also he is asking them to invest in eternity and not things that perish.
Unfortunately, you consider Jesus to be irrelevant as you wrote in an essay: "bronze age shepherds wandering about in Palestine". On the contrary.
Read Jesus. Your world will be shaken.
Hi Paul, let me just start by saying your essays are great and a true inspiration.
My team and i are from australia and we have all been working in a 9-5 and also doing our startup which after 1.5 years is almost complete (just a FEW more months). It isnt totally my choice to do a 9-5 but certain things happen in life that require that you have a stable income. Im still relatively young (27 and so is my co-founder.)
To do a 9-5 and working on a startup at the same time takes alot of resourceful-ness. Juggling responsibilities, making deals with the boss such as working from home agreements ;) occasionally telling white lies because of a major release require testing all takes fast talking.
Also getting since money isnt in abundance in our startup, as the money is being used to support family (parents and sister) we have had to come up with alternatives and do alot of our reading to understand the best company structures both for the future and for now from a company structure and taxation point of view.
Finally the coding after work until the weee hours of the morning and then getting up at 8:30 to get ready for work again. There is the relentless drive that you need to have and the resourcefulness to make the best of the money and the situation.
Reading your articles just highlights that currently we have been doing things the right way, and its good to know. We are almost done, company structure, code/application (final stages of testing), business plan, monetization plans ... cant wait to release her out into the wild.
Great piece. I am going to suggest a simplification of relentlessly resourceful to simply "relentless."
Startups all share that they some sort of end vision of meeting some unmet market need - e,g, the destination.
But to get to the destination you have to navigate through an infinately complex obstacle course. The obstacles takes the names of: resource constraints, technology limitations, getting distribution, competitors, alternatives, usability, [add 1,000 more items here].
Any one of these obstacles can stop a start-up dead on it's wheels. DOA. Thanks for playing.
So you're right - an entrepreneur does need to be relentlessly resourceful to solve many of these obstacles, and you only get a prize completing the obstacle course and reaching the destination. Second prize gets the set of Ginsu knives.
However, these aren't really all resource problems. Many of them are business design problems, strategy problems or partnership problems (and more).
Don't get me wrong - I love being resourceful, I love being scrappy and am a huge subscriber to the simply economics of a penny saved is a penny earned (note: you also can't save your way to greatness).
I think of the journey like water flowing down a river. It goes around obstacles, it dissolves obstacles, It changes course. When it gets dammed, it find tiny cracks naked to the eye, wedges in, and gets through. It never sleeps, it never debates, it never gives up. It simply seeks the path to the destination.
The economist Steven Landsburg tried to come up with a word for this and decided to co-opt the word "gumption", redefining it as consisting of the following:
1. Sensitivity to know what needs doing.
2. Inventiveness to figure out how to do it.
3. Single-minded perseverance to make it happen.
I think for this audience, 1 and 2 are no-brainers and 3 is exactly what PG is talking about.
"[2] There are aspects of startups where the recipe is to be actively curious. There can be times when what you're doing is almost pure discovery. Unfortunately these times are a small proportion of the whole. On the other hand, they are in research too."
Paul can you please elaborate on the last sentence in the above footnote. The wording is a bit confusing. Thanks!
Does anyone have any thoughts on the ethics of being "relentlessly resourceful"? Its rumored that Bill Gates was in deep trouble with Harvard for draining university resources in order to launch Microsoft. If we imagine for a second that its actually true, is what he did okay from an ethical standpoint?
I wonder if you can shorten it down even further to just relentless.
When all of the employees quit, when rent is due, and when the ramen runs out, it takes a certain kind of person to continue working. And I think it's more than just being resourceful, although that's a big part. It takes relentless dedication to keep pushing forward and innovating, when all the tides are pulling the wrong way. Edison had it this drive. I think Einstein did as well. And if you look at the few dozen founders of successful startups, I think you'll find they have it too. They're relentless. They don't take weekends off and they don't quit at five. But they're not a workaholic, because it isn't work. It's their life.
I know for many things, being relentless is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. It is very easy to get stuck banging your head against a wall instead of finding a saving resource.
Really appreciate the comment regarding foot note [3] -
"Now that we know what we're looking for, that leads to other questions. For example, can this quality be taught? After four years of trying to teach it to people, I'd say that yes, surprisingly often it can. Not to everyone, but to many people. [3] Some people are just constitutionally passive, but others have a latent ability to be relentlessly resourceful that only needs to be brought out."
Thank god. I dont know about your environment, but I am sick of coming across people who cite genius and "natural abilities" as factors of people's success... hate it when people cant acknowledge hardwork!
"There are, it has been said, two types of people in the world. There are those who, when presented with a glass that is exactly half full, say: this glass is half full. And then there are those who say: this glass is half empty. The world belongs, however, to those who can look at the glass and say: What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!" - Pratchett
What I love about the term "relentlessly resourceful" is that it celebrates that it's OK to not have all the answers yourself. It also really plays into the fact that everyone is moving their lives online and we are all become resources to one another. In that one is "relentlessly resourceful" is that they have a network that they can tap into when they do not have the answers, but know where they can go to get the answers.
Whether you are starting up or breaking through in a large corporation, resourcefulness is always going to be your best bet. Thanks for putting it so eloquently!
"There's no reason to believe there is any limit on the amount of newly created wealth consumers can absorb"
I think Michael H. Goldhaber's work on the "Attention Economy" gives reason to believe there may be a limit. When there is enough traditional wealth (goods and services), then time to enjoy it becomes the new scarcity.
Of course, if the limit is every consumer being ecstatically happy every waking moment, we have a loooooong way to go before we reach the limit.
It's thought that eventually everything will be commoditized. If there is innovation all thie time in everything; will innovation be commoditized because of a limit to rapidly changing expectations and information overload? Check it out with your local philosphy professor
Otherwise I did like the premise of the essay
I _am_ relentlessly resourceful_ always have been since I was a kid. I'm now trying to mentor our admin asst to have more initiative and be responsible for small projects so I won't have to itemize her to-do's. I always had a hard time dealing with team members who aren't proactive from previous organizations, at least to the level I expect, but I _know_ it can be 'acquired' with proper guidance.
What a great piece. Thank you very much. I found you by signing on to FriendFeed and looking at popular people. I picked you because your name appealed to me, and then I was excited to see you'd written about something I'm working on over in Cork, Ireland.
"Relentlessly Resourceful" describes me well. Thank you for coming up with such a powerful descriptor.
What a great piece. Thank you very much. I found you by signing on to FriendFeed and looking at popular people. I picked you because your name appealed to me, and then I was excited to see you'd written about something I'm working on over in Cork, Ireland.
"Relentlessly Resourceful" describes me well. Thank you for coming up with such a powerful descriptor.
> I think the reason the dictionaries are wrong is that the meaning of the word has shifted. No one writing a dictionary from scratch today would say that hapless meant unlucky. But a couple hundred years ago they might have.
Might I suggest an antonym: Machiavellian. At least in the traditional sense. The Prince is a good start. Those who are looking for "resources" may want to read this -- front cover to back cover. Indiana University sometimes offers a good course called Machiavelli, Marketing, and Management whose seminar leader is a Machiavellian scholar.
Hmm... I guess theres that line between getting things done, co-opting people, selling your idea to them on the one hand and on the other hand theres being a manipulative jerk.
'Michiavellian' has some pretty harsh manipulative connotations for me - surely he was resourceful.. but maybe resourceful without 'being good'...
"At least in the traditional sense." It was subtle, but if you have looked at Machiavelli's original political theory, you notice it has been grossly mischaracterized in today's society. If I were to sum up what Machiavellian means, in the traditional sense, I would say it is prudence, ability, effort, and fortunate circumstance.
In a previous post, pg revealed a situation where applying ideas created more ideas and this is perfect because it has nothing to do with theory, it has everything to do with authentic experience. Great ideas are easy, applying them is a whole different animal.
If you want to know whether you're the right sort of person to start a startup, ask yourself whether you're relentlessly resourceful.
What if I'm not, but want to be?
You say it can be taught "surprisingly often", but then in the same paragraph say people either are (latently) or are not. This seems exactly the opposite of being able to teach it...
One strategy for becoming relentlessly resourceful is to refuse to accept conditions you find undesirable. And as someone who has taken the oath to become relentlessly resourceful, you illustrate your refusal of external circumstances by finding a resolution that ultimately solves the issue or works around the issue (a.k.a. a hack).
Or at least there's no common antonym of hapless. If we're counting wank words, my dictionary memorizing friend informs me that agented is the antonym of hapless. It means a forceful person who causes change; literally a James Bond-like agent.
I guess the (surprisingly) restrained reception to 'How to be an angel investor' forced pg to explicitly point out its key takeaway for founders and write a whole new essay for it. He just doesn't stop trying to do good - a different kind of relentless resourcefulness.
I was going to do this anyway. I decided to as soon as I wrote that paragraph in the angel essay. (I would never decide what to write based on how many points a previous essay got, either high or low. It only works to write about what I'm currently interested in.)
If you read the angel investing article as an entrepreneur, it is hard to miss pg's one recommendation to potential investors on how to pick good entrepreneurs: it is to pick those who are the opposite of hapless. I have been thinking about what being the "opposite of hapless" means very specifically for me at this time ever since I read the article. It was one of the things that drove me yesterday to just sit down and start hacking away at a hard problem I have after dithering on it for a couple of weeks.
This work is inspiring given the large number of relentlessly fearful people claiming we're in a new Great Depression, particularly those who speculate in the financial markets. If only these people would focus on creating wealth and making something people want!
the way I think of it is that you want people who are bullets. They are sitting on a powder charge and all they need is a sharp tap to explode in a rush of F=ma.
This also falls in line with the fact that the initial idea isn't that important. Often the initial idea is useful only because it leads you to discover a tough problem. The tough problem is the sharp tap. Some people fall down bleeding, other people explode.
Of course sometimes all that energy gets misdirected (wall street sucking up intelligent college grads anyone?) and we quite literally shoot ourselves in the foot. Creative, productive people have a lot of energy inside them. How that energy is directed can be perverted.
There is not, as some people seem to think, any economic upper bound on this number.
I know that this is a side issue, but it keeps cropping up as a side issue in pg's essays. I would be interested in a more thorough discussion of this point.
I too, would like to see this discussed. There certainly is a PHYSICAL upper bound - that is the number of people living on the planet. What would the world be like if every man, woman, and child were an entrepreneur (maybe better put - a free agent)? It is certainly something to think about. Would we move to a barter system?
Being relentlessly resourceful is the ONLY way to get things done in large companies. The external restrictions in a large company are much harder to overcome than in a small business. They are institutionalized.
Can you please elaborate on why being good at RoR is being in a situation with no logical way out?
Sure. I learned Ruby on Rails about 3 years ago at a startup. I've since been trying to do other things for employment, but nobody wants to pay me to do anything besides Rails. Lucky for me, the economy has collapsed so nobody wants to pay me to do Rails, either.
Not if you consider the people you meet as being possible resources.
A good friend once told me that a big barrier to my success would be that I tended to be a loner. He was right and it's a reason I force myself to be more social and outgoing. People are interesting in their own right, and at some time in the future, someone you met briefly a long time ago might be just the person you need to break through a barrier.
I thought maybe being relentelessly resourceful was kind of a nerd trait, at least in the sense PG uses it.
He talks about building alliances as something apart from being resourceful in the essay.
Does someone who can't do a thing, but knows people that are relentlessly resourceful become an relentelessly resourceful person too?
That was my initial thought too. Then I realized, going forth and digging up said advice and tips would be a good way to exercise resourcefulness, heh.
I think the key is to avoid a certain set of developed traits that might be called "horsemen of the mediocralypse"-- learned laziness, learned helplessness, deference to authority, and discouraged distraction. I'm sure that many others that could be added to the list.
The world is a very dumb place-- full of social injustices and inefficiencies, and run by the wrong people since the dawn of time. But there are always some people able to succeed in spite of these problems on account of having a very high level of resilience, and thus an innate resistance against the "horsemen".
