Alex RussellYes, yes, everyone's posting this...but if you haven't read it yet, add my recommendation to all the others:
https://davekarpf.substack.com/p/paul-graham-and-the-cult-of-the-founder
Alex Nedelcu@slightlyoff not sure what I expected, maybe to read about why Paul Graham is bad for Silicon Valley, but it wasn't very surprising to read the opinions of just another dude hating the rich and successful.
@alexelcu It's...interesting...that that's what you took from it.
@slightlyoff What else could I take from it?
Article praises Aaron Swartz, the founder of Reddit, one of YCombinator's success stories. It also praises Apple's Woz, and many of us wouldn't even know who he is without Jessica Livingston's “Founders at Work”.
If Altman is taken as a template, that smells like a quantitative statement that deserves evidence.
He mentions that the success of investors comes from being privileged to have money and access (no shit, but also, it needs nuance).
1/2
@slightlyoff He mentions that it's bad founders are elevated over “the rest of us”. But it makes no real attempt to explain why, and I find nothing wrong in praising and elevating entrepreneurship. It certainly takes financial and reputational risk to start a company, and the culture needs to encourage people to do it despite that.
So what else could I take away from it, apart from it being the opinions of a dude who hates the rich and successful?
2/2
Nick@alexelcu I think Dan Davies taps (in a better way) into precisely where “founder mode” holds up and breaks down, and I also think he rightly identifies Graham’s essay as a maybe tacit, maybe unconscious criticism of the last handful of years of Sand Hill Road culture:
https://backofmind.substack.com/p/i-am-a-mode-you-are-a-syndrome
@holgate Thanks for the link. I also read his original notes on “founder mode”. Food for thought.
Stephen John Anderson@alexelcu @holgate If you re-read the piece after reading the founder mode piece with a critical eye, then perhaps it puts a different light on it? The piece is criticising Graham’s selection and confirmation bias. Graham is a successful and influential person who has a much higher opinion of himself and people like him than is warranted by the evidence. He didn’t bother looking for contrary evidence *at all* before writing the founder mode piece. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is, basically.
Neil Kandalgaonkar@alexelcu I appreciate that you came to know of these people via YC.
But this is like saying that nobody would know about Alexander Hamilton if it weren't for the Hamilton musical. Dude is on the 10.
There are books and books about the Jobs-Woz partnership. Even Swartz' contributions to Reddit are a small part of his entire legacy.
The article goes too far in calling YC malign, but their success has yielded too much influence. Intentionally or not, they redefined "hacker" to suit themselves
Entertainment Porpoises Only@alexelcu @slightlyoff really hope Paul sees this, dude
@pikesley I'm pretty sure that Paul has better things to do, as do we all.
@slightlyoff I think Daniel Davies’ two posts on that essay — built from his recent focus on management cybernetics — are also worth a read. They’re more generous to Graham while not being especially generous. Post one:
https://backofmind.substack.com/p/the-general-theory-of-founders-managers
@slightlyoff Post two, to which I responded elsewhere “[ pats self on head ] this bad boy can hold an entire company” (and you should absolutely read “The Unaccountability Machine” because that’s the direction you and our broad cohort have been heading these past years):
https://backofmind.substack.com/p/i-am-a-mode-you-are-a-syndrome