
Be Relentlessly Resourceful - herdrick
http://www.paulgraham.com/relres.html
======
aitoehigie
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.

~~~
Rod
If your startup's core competence is online _419 scams_ then I wish you guys
were a bit less resourceful ;-))

(sorry dude, but I couldn't help it... though distasteful this joke might
seem)

~~~
medianama
Wish I could down vote you

~~~
Rod
Kind of PC, aren't we? Lower bound is -8. Knock yourself out.

~~~
ajju
Your being down voted has little to do with political correctness. You
insulted the OP and the comment wasn't even funny.

~~~
Rod
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.

~~~
colinplamondon
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!

~~~
Rod
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.

~~~
daleharvey
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

------
Eliezer
"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."

\-- <http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/isshokenmei.html>

~~~
chris11
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.

~~~
Eliezer
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.

~~~
tigerthink
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.

------
nostrademons
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?

~~~
gruseom
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.

~~~
qaexl
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.

------
chris11
PG, I would be really interested in your experiences teaching people to
relentlessly resourceful. How have you brought out resourcefulness in your
startup founders?

~~~
pg
Me: Why don't you just do x?

Founders: Could we really do x?

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..."

~~~
froo
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."_

\- Walt Disney

~~~
cosmo7
That's surprisingly ironic considering Disney's attitude towards the public
domain and copyright extension.

~~~
froo
... 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.

~~~
anamax
> 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).

Eisner also did the initial Pixar deal.

The following comes from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_anima...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features)

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

~~~
froo
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)

So there you go :)

~~~
anamax
> 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.

~~~
froo
> 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)

~~~
anamax
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.)

[http://www.alexburns.net/2009/02/dreamworks-debt-finance-
bat...](http://www.alexburns.net/2009/02/dreamworks-debt-finance-battle.html)

~~~
froo
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.

[http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/dwa/opencms/company/news/n...](http://ir.dreamworksanimation.com/dwa/opencms/company/news/news.jsp?nId=1259568)

------
aristus
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.

~~~
herdrick
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'.

------
collint
This is my favorite essay of yours so far.

I usually enjoy your ideas, but this one hit me like a freight train of: "Are
you being resourceful enough?"

Sadly the answer is "not enough."

Fortunately I feel the right question has be found.

------
ajju
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.

~~~
pg
It seems to be wired in. It causes some inconvenience in everyday life, but
it's very helpful in YC. It's as if I was made to to this.

~~~
ajju
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.

------
donniefitz2
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."

------
gojomo
Sounds like "Be Relentlessly Resourceful" is version 2.0 of "Be An Animal".

<http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html#People>

~~~
pg
Not so much version 2.0 as what happens when you apply that rule to the job of
startup founder.

------
triplefox
I can bring it down to one word:

MacGyver.

~~~
indiejade
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._

Original post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=167896>

~~~
ericwaller
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).

------
unalone
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.

------
kragen
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.

~~~
pg
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.

------
gord
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! :]

------
swombat
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.

Handily enough, the antonyms of "helpless" are: (
<http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/helpless> )

able, capable, competent, enterprising, independent, _resourceful_ , skilled,
strong

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.

</niggle>

~~~
pg
No, I meant hapless, but as it's really used, not the obsolete definitions in
most dictionaries.

Hapless means bad stuff is happening to you. Helpless just means you couldn't
defend yourself if it did.

~~~
axod
Bear in mind some countries still use those 'obsolete' definitions ;) Maybe
it's a US/UK thing.

~~~
pg
I am a US/UK thing, so I feel like I'm in touch with how it's used in both
places. Especially since it's mainly used in writing rather than speech.

~~~
axod
>> "Hapless means bad stuff is happening to you."

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.

------
fleaflicker
Recent PG quotes:

1\. _So probably the limiting factor on the number of startups is the the pool
of potential founders._

2\. _...and they think "anyone could have done it." But that isn't true; they
are not ordinary people._

3\. _Angels are the limiting reagent in startup formation._

#1 & #2 don't necessarily contradict #3. But it's interesting.

I like to think relentlessly resourceful/animal/not dead founders are limiting
reagent.

~~~
pg
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.

------
rfrankel
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.

~~~
dhbradshaw
"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.

~~~
rfrankel
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.

------
juwo
To PG: Jesus said it all before you did. He told the first evangelists to be
resourceful in spreading the new gospel. see
[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:%201-1...](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:%201-14%20;&version=31);

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.

------
sid
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.

------
m1rose28
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.

In a word: relentless.

Cheers,

Mark Rose Co-Founder Spare Change

------
dreeves
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.

------
silvershox
"[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!

~~~
brlewis
I read that as "Times of pure discovery are a small proportion of research
too."

------
tjlynn
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?

~~~
pg
Harvard would certainly say so.

------
grinich
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.

~~~
jibiki
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.

------
flashgordon
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!

~~~
connellybarnes
"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

------
kkocis
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!

------
LeBleu
"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.

~~~
RPatershuk
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

------
pigmata
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.

------
omaniblog
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.

------
omaniblog
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.

------
nemoniac
> 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.

See...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#The_.22euphemism_trea...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#The_.22euphemism_treadmill.22)

------
dbul
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.

~~~
gord
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'...

~~~
dbul
"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.

------
jodrellblank
_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...

~~~
NewWorldOrder
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).

------
ralph
Does anyone else look at the web page's source to see what bits of an essay
are there but commented out?

------
Alex3917
"Unfortunately there's no antonym of hapless"

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.

------
anuraggoel
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.

~~~
pg
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.)

~~~
anuraggoel
And I was beginning to think reading your essays and HN comments was
sufficient to authoritatively reason about your motives.

------
eddivze
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!

------
adrianscottcom
It's relevant to note that "don't be x" and "be y" are not equivalent even if
x more or les = not y...

keith johnstone writes nicely about this as it relates to education in the
introduction to the book impro.

hence be relentlessly resourceful is dramatically more useful than don't be
x...

------
nazgulnarsil
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.

------
netcan
_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.

~~~
chadgeidel
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?

~~~
eru
Why should we? Why should free agents be incompatible with money?

[Perhaps we'd get private money, though.]

------
plieb
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.

------
Ennis
This is right on the money. A question though, what does being relentlessly
resourceful to others reflect?

Personally, I think that's where the challenge in life is. It's a challenge
before and after the money or success comes.

------
joechung
Isn't the antonym of hapless opportunistic (without its negative connotation)?

~~~
dfranke
Obviously, the opposite of hapless is hapful.

~~~
Hexstream
I sometimes get annoyed at English's lack of symmetry.

    
    
      The opposite of...  is not...
      worthless           worthful
      senseless           senseful
      wasteful            wasteless
      handful             handless
      moreover            lessover (moreunder?)

~~~
dfranke
'wasteless' seems cromulent to me.

------
bigfan
Paul, Please place links in your footnotes that take the reader back to the
corresponding text.

After reading nearly thirty of your essays, this is one of the only few
negative comments I have.

~~~
pg
Just use the Back button.

------
swagner2
Before I become a software CEO I used to race cars. Racing cars is exactly
like running a tech company.

It takes a lot of gumption (and some money) to stay competitive.

To quote Malcolm X, "By any Means Necessary."

------
ludmil
I could not agree more with the thesis on the article. Corporate world is all
about survival, while the startup world is about success.

------
msort
I think Being Resourceful probably means: Do not give up easily; Courage to
try; Be positive; Be adaptive via iteration; Be good.

------
radha
Being a Fox rather than a Hedgehog would nicely summarize relentlessly
resourceful Vs relentless mentioned in the essay.

------
xenophanes
What constructive purpose does this sentence have?

> I doubt it ["relentlessly resourceful"] could be made more precise.

------
juampe
Is meeting people one of those things that fall outside of the being
relentlessly resourceful category?

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
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.

~~~
juampe
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?

------
juampe
I don't know much Italian, but I think you can say "succeso" instead of
"fortuna".

------
critic
I think more specific advice and tips would be useful.

~~~
qaexl
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.

------
honam
Two words I'd use - stubbornly persistent.

------
dcinnjx
What, she didn't say, "O Fortuna"?

------
firnas
Its a very good essay. Thank You

------
akothari
great essay! here's another good read: what makes entrepreneurs
entrepreneurial?

------
jimmurphy
Opposite of hapless: happy?

:)

Jim

------
time_management
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".

------
chiffonade
The antonym of hapless is shrewd.

------
c00p3r
There is a second useful meaning if you take a look at the french translation
of the word 'relent'. =) Good sign.

