Live data from Hacker News

What We Look for in Founders

paulgraham.com

71–80 of 188 posts

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#71
post #16

The running back metaphor appeals to me. I wonder how far you can take it. Running backs pivot for something that will completely stop them. The fact that getting downfield will take a long time does not make them pivot. Does this analogy make a good rule of thumb for startup pivot decisions?

The metaphor can only go as far as the person to whom you are using it with likes or even cares about American football.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#74
post #63
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought pg's comment on "naughtiness" was interesting, as I was tempted to use a shorter version of the story I'll relate below in response to the "hacked" question, as it was a very recent experience. I ultimately shied away from using it as my answer, as I thought it might be a little socially unacceptable ("naughty"). At Startup School, there was a line of several hundred people waiting for lunch, which consiste…

See, I think that's an example of the "bad hack" because it has the potential of damaging people, e.g. what if I was standing in that line for 15mins ahead of you and because you took that box of pizza, just when my turn comes the pizza runs out (you think it's unlikely? Then you haven't been to the wild world of college-student-after-event-pizza-eating). My definition of a hack is to add value to the an existing sys…

> My definition of a hack is to add value to the an existing system by modifying a property, not changing a zero-sum situation in your favor.

That seems like a nice definition of hack, but I don't think it's completely accurate. For example, if a college only accepts a certain number of people and you come up with clever way to get accepted, that's changing a zero-sum situation in your favor, and I would still call it a hack.

I agree, however, that the hack seems a little wrong. More clever would have been for the friends to grab another table, set it up opposite the original one with room for two lines, and then switch half the pizza boxes to the other table. (This works better than being on both sides of a single table because the way pizza boxes open typically blocks access from one side.) Another possibility would be to just grab a box each and carry it down the line offering pizza to everyone starting from the front.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#75

I can attest to the part about intelligence not being as critical as you might think. The last company I started was with a guy who was brilliant. He dreamed in code and had been hacking since he was 6 or 7. But he had a hard time finishing, and so I couldn't depend on him. I think the startup failed for multiple reasons and I definitely shoulder a large part of the failure, but next time I do a startup I will make a…

If everything was about raw intelligence, the world would be a totally different place today. I have a similar story as yours - I once worked with a guy with a genius level IQ, but he had trust issues and he was horrible with money.

As in the OP, it's really a recipe of traits that make a startup successful.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#76
post #54
post #50

> They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. or more accurately, "not the rules we think matter".

If you wanted to be that accurate, you could prepend "I think" to every statement in every essay written. That's implicit, except in proofs.

Here though it's in a context about morality and proprietries, and what's "naughty" vs "evil". So I think it's especially valuable to emphasize the subjectivity.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#77
PG, Aren't you misleading the young by so strongly suggesting that their start up needs a friend. Was it Mark... the Facebook founder who created the empire by himself?

Perhaps it is your opinion that friends do better, but to so strongly state it as a requirement aren't you perhaps implicitly disproving any sole founder start up and if so you are, why would you?

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#78

That fifth item, like the post originally mentioning as something that dooms startups, gets me every time. Having a solid co-founder seems to be the hardest part, and honestly, it helps with all the others. It helps you be more flexible since two people can see things more ways. Gives you more imagination by the same route. It helps you be more determined since one can pull the other up if he/she gets too demoralized…

> I'm also surprised that none of these points mention marketing - an ability to sell something seems vital in getting a startup going.

I agree. One of the best assets for a good founder with tech-skills is a business/marketing founder. She can keep the ball rolling on the business things that would halt or slow software development, and during development she can be out discussing the product with potential customers. Once a MVP has been developed, she obviously becomes the sales and marketing manager.

> Finding a co-founder is hard, though.

Are you single? Notice that I said "she" above? Consider joining a dating site and trying to meet some cool women who have business or marketing backgrounds (obviously women that you would like to date as well). I've only been on OKCupid for a month, and I've already met a couple really cool, driven women who would be an amazing asset to a startup.

I'm not saying to jump straight into a relationship just so that you can start your startup. My intent was simply to point out one way of meeting a potential cofounder, a way you probably never considered. There are countless other "hacks" that can be employed for meeting cofounders; you just have to put yourself into situations where you're likely to meet the kind of people you'd like to meet. It's really that easy.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#80
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mindset. You believe it, you become it :).

How awesome would that be if I could just believe that I am the King of England and so become it.

In his article, PG was describing personal qualities, as opposed to external qualities (with something of an exception in the case of the cofounder item). In the case of most personality traits, if you want that trait and actually try your best to exhibit it, then "you believe it, you become it," is pretty accurate.

If you want to procrastinate less and right away you begin to finish things that you've been putting off, well then you've already won. But if you keep putting off the day when you'll stop procrastinating, well you can see where that's going.

I think most people underestimate their ability to hack their own personalities.

Post reply on HN