Live data from Hacker News

The Lesson to Unlearn

paulgraham.com

231–240 of 588 posts

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#231
post #133

> The way you get lots of users is to make the product really great. That is wrong – or, at the very least, incomplete. "Build it and they will come" is the dream and misconception of every programmer who's talented at software development but not at sales. Hell, this is the number one advice of every business how-to book ever: You can't rely on people finding out about your great product by chance, you need to put i…

> "Build it and they will come" is the dream and misconception of every programmer (...)

Well, the amount of marketing required strongly depends on the quality of and demand for your product.

I built a software product and launched it with very very minimal marketing (I emailed a blogger and published it on a mailing list).

People liked my app so much that I had a 1000 downloads within a few weeks (which I consider decent for a somewhat niche app).

Working on that app has since become my full time job, and I do very minimal marketing.

Maybe I could make more revenue if I focussed more on marketing, but to be honest I'm pretty amazed how well word of mouth advertising works.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#232
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% right, and the corollary of this is: you don't actually need to make a great product, if your sales&marketing game is good enough. Or, in other words, a lot of successful business - including startups - is exactly the "test hacking" PG urges founders to unlearn. I'm honestly surprised by this essay arguing that "hacking the test" is the wrong approach in startups/business. "Hacking the test" is essentially what…

> you just have to discover how the system really operates. One might say that, by analogy, this is like saying you cheated on a test by studying. “Learning how the system really operates” isn’t hacking ; it’s the thing you’re formally setting out to do as a business!

The hacking starts once you learn that building great products isn't the only, or even the best, way to create a successful business.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#233

>The real problem is that most tests don't come close to measuring what they're supposed to This is what happens when the teacher's hidden goal is to make marking/grading easier.

Couple that with students' hidden goal being "not ruining my career prospects and/or angering my parents by getting bad grades", and you arrive at modern school.

>angering my parents by getting bad grades

At secondary school level, it's no longer an issue. Parents just change schools. A few months ago, an uber unserious secondary girl altered her end of term results. The father brought the slip to school to complain about the unprofessional look of the slip due to multiple alterations.

Found out what his daughter did and change schools.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#234
"how to raise money ... read as the test. It came at the end of YC. It had numbers attached to it, and higher numbers seemed to be better. It must be the test."

This is a great sharing of internal mental processes. The same process evolves around investment reports. "Oh look! I got a good grade!"

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#235
My son is 8, and yesterday he came home from school and said, "I'm not above grade level in math." He sounded a little disappointed, but not too much; he also seemed to be asking if that really means anything.

We had a really interesting conversation. I've been a middle and high school math teacher most of my life, so this is quite familiar ground for me. Over dinner I asked him how he would go about measuring whether a kid is "above grade level". He got really animated and started to tell me what he thought second graders should know and be able to do, and how third graders should expand on that, and what he thought he'd start to learn in fourth and fifth grade.

I told him I could start to teach him some of the operations and skills he'll learn in the coming years, but that it probably wouldn't mean a whole lot. Instead I asked him what ideas he's already familiar with that other kids his age don't know about, because we talk about math almost every day. "I know what phi is, and pi!" Yes, and we've also talked about limits, calculus, negative numbers, fractions, decimals, and he's looked at pages of math that's well beyond my understanding as well.

I told him that when he gets to middle and high school classes, he's going to see higher level math and it's going to sound familiar because we've already been talking about the ideas for years. He's going to watch other kids fail and drop out of those classes because the ideas and the skills will be too new and too difficult for them to take in. I said we're probably much better off just continuing to talk about fun and interesting areas of math for the time being instead of worrying about "grade level".

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% right, and the corollary of this is: you don't actually need to make a great product, if your sales&marketing game is good enough. Or, in other words, a lot of successful business - including startups - is exactly the "test hacking" PG urges founders to unlearn. I'm honestly surprised by this essay arguing that "hacking the test" is the wrong approach in startups/business. "Hacking the test" is essentially what…

What about marketing churn? If people try your product and have a bad experience, maybe they won't try anything else you offer either? It seems like the product at least needs to be somewhat decent?

A lot of companies seem fine with churn, as long as they can acquire new customers faster, or if they form an oligopoly (banks and telcos come to mind).

In general yes, the product has to meet some minimum bar of decency. How high? Depends on a lot of factors. Note the popularity of business models involving some kind of lock-in - e.g. network effect, holding data hostage. Those are all attempts at hacking around the need for a decent product.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#237
post #133

> The way you get lots of users is to make the product really great. That is wrong – or, at the very least, incomplete. "Build it and they will come" is the dream and misconception of every programmer who's talented at software development but not at sales. Hell, this is the number one advice of every business how-to book ever: You can't rely on people finding out about your great product by chance, you need to put i…

100% right, and the corollary of this is: you don't actually need to make a great product, if your sales&marketing game is good enough. Or, in other words, a lot of successful business - including startups - is exactly the "test hacking" PG urges founders to unlearn. I'm honestly surprised by this essay arguing that "hacking the test" is the wrong approach in startups/business. "Hacking the test" is essentially what…

> I would think most of the startups have products as instrumental goals; the exit is the terminal goal.

Depressing, if true.

I would hope that most people have a product that they want to build, and more money is an instrumental goal that lets them build it better. For example, I'd expect someone who loves to code to have software they want to write, and want enough money to allow them to do so—as opposed the executive who loves money and views writing software as the best way to get it. I'm not convinced that any great work was ever crafted by someone who was primarily crafting for instrumental reasons.

But you're probably right, and that's probably a big part of what's so toxic about startup culture these days.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#238
> If getting into college were merely a matter of having the quality of one's mind measured by admissions officers the way scientists measure the mass of an object, we could tell teenage kids "learn a lot" and leave it at that.

It is equally naive to think some idea of "quality of mind" or what someone has already learned in their first ~17 years is what they should go by. This is just shifting from one bias to another.

Evaluating a human being, reducing them to a number or a boolean, is hard, and people tasked with doing this, no matter how confident or how much thought and intelligence they put into it, will get it wrong, often with bad consequences. So perhaps we should take such systems lightly, stay humble, and not get overconfident in our judgements.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#239

I know that learning how to hack systems is valuable because that's how I got into YCombinator. I set out specifically to hack the application process and succeeded. It wasn't even that difficult to do. If pg believes what he's saying in this essay, I have two questions: 1. why did he design a testing system that was easily hacked? 2. why does YCombinator itself focus so much on hacking the venture capital system, as…

I think what he's saying is that the approach is wrong. The highly industrialized school system is the way it is because of scale. His perspective is the initial point (paraphrasing: tests should be the same as taking a blood test).

To add to that point, take a urine test: people have been hacking it for years. The purpose of the urine test is to see what residual byproducts from certain drugs are in my system. I can hack it by using someone else's urine or imbibe on drugs that have a short lifetime in my bloodstream. Otherwise, to pass the test I have to not consume drugs.

His complaint is that people who pass the tests really shouldn't have. It's like a principal assuring parents that a strict urine exam is given to all teachers only to find out all the teachers who work for you are drug addicts (drug addicts who can hack the pee test).

His reference to private schools teaching students how to hack tests resonates with me as social workers teaching drug users how to hack their pee tests. I take that to mean that if teachers are doing their best but resort to teaching how to hack tests then their needs to be more work done outside of the teacher-student system.

[This is where disparities due to parent's wealth and income come in:] Students who have access to tutors can get the help they in a way having a teacher can't. A teacher can be a tutor, but cannot be a tutor for everyone (an issue with scale).

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#240
The tech industry has unfortunately adopted the methodology of centralized hackable tests as the canonical gatekeeping method in the form of programming interviews.

Most big tech companies don't care about how good you have been at delivering some value through creating software: they want to see you deliver a very specific type of performance at a whiteboard. Interviewers are given specific math puzzle questions to ask. Interviewees are explicitly told by the same companies' hiring departments that they should aim to hack the system by studying books like "Cracking the Code Interview".

This is an industry that prides itself on supposedly making data-driven decisions through A/B testing. When it comes to hiring people to make those decisions, everybody just plays along to a decades-old script.

Post reply on HN