
Should we talk about the fact that founder Jody Sherman didn't just die? - danboarder
http://blog.launch.co/blog/should-we-talk-about-the-fact-that-jody-sherman-didnt-just-d.html
======
antirez
I'm not sure the problem is with being a founder. Actually this can be a very
stimulating experience in your life, and may even bring some economical boost
that is not bad for stability.

I think the problem is with the culture of being founder: there is agreement
that you can sacrifice almost everything for your work. It is not true. As
long as you enjoy what you do, it's ok to work long hours at critical stages
of your startup, but it is also ok to take pauses, go to drink with friends,
and avoid the pressure in general.

Another thing that always makes me a bit suspicious is that "we are going to
change the world". This is a good recipe for pressure. Maybe there is another
way to take it, and is simply, I work without too expectations, I try to do my
best, but well it's not a drama if this does not work as expected. I'm also
worth as an individual, outside my work, outside the business.

Maybe we are building a too aggressive culture and this is the result? I think
that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years.

~~~
michaelochurch
_I think that "back to technology" should be the motto for the next 10 years._

Yes, I agree. I am _really_ hoping to see a Flight to Substance. I am
doubtful, however, because I think the "cool kids" malignancy-- the VC
darlings, the investor in-crowd who all collude on terms-- has taken over the
organism. I am very optimistic about the long-term future of the technological
economy, but I think there's going to be some short-term bleeding and pain
before we get there, because nothing good is going to happen until some
established players are removed from power and they won't go down without a
fight.

The "change the world" bullshit coming from most of these VC darlings is an
excuse to underpay and exploit people, especially fresh college kids.

Bill Gates is fucking changing the world. Some build-to-flip IUsedThisToilet
app that exists to get some idiot a hiring bonus along with his douchey PM job
is not.

~~~
javert
In a free market, nobody truly has power. If they suck, they just cease to
matter and can safely be ignored. Only the _competition_ matters, and people
who suck usually aren't the competition (if they are, they are easy pickings).

Now, none of this applies if we're talking about big business
vendor/regulatory lock-in type situations, but that's not the part of the
economy I think you're talking about.

So what makes you thnk that the current VC "organism" has "power" and that
"nothing good is going to happen" until they are removed? I mean, why can't
people just ignore them and go do things separately?

~~~
michaelochurch
The problem is that VCs don't really compete with each other at all. They co-
fund a lot of deals and it's more important to them, in the long term, that
they "get in on" the few blockbuster deals that exist every year, than it is
that they make the best investments. So they're not going to piss off another
VC who might have access to good deals. The result is that they end up
colluding more than they compete, and the result is that entrepreneurs don't
get fair terms, but terms set by a VC in-crowd.

They also compare notes on who they like and who they don't, and if you turn
down a term sheet you're likely to have that VC pick up a phone and dry up
interest in other VC firms that are supposed to be his competitors.

~~~
javert
I think you must be talking about the Silicon Valley VC crowd. I'm sure there
are VCs in other places.

And if you're right about the Silicon Valley VC crowd, that's a business
opportunity for new VCs in that area to set better terms and not collude.

------
richardjordan
Jason raises a good point. The stresses of startups often go unmentioned, or
certainly minimized, in the myth-of-the -heroic-founder out startup narratives
become after the fact of a success. Failure and hardship are rites of passage,
right?

But the collateral damage is real. Going out on a limb financially is
celebrated but most stories don't end with a win - just the ones we tell. Most
startups fail and a lot of these risk takers we celebrate end up with
financial strains for years to come, busted relationships or broken marriages.
Anything can derail the startup process. Experienced entrepreneurs are acutely
aware of this and if the end comes when you're out on that limb it can be
devastating.

I am sure there are many more suicides and countless lives broken that we just
don't hear about because they never achieved prominence or success. It's worth
pausing a moment to think about that.

To the criticism of Jason's post. He has his haters for whatever reasons,
though I find them to be highly unfair - I think it's clear that he genuinely
loves startups and will do whatever he can to help the ecosystem succeed. I've
met him twice and he's been nothing but generous. I think it's wrong to accuse
him of using this for traffic. It's an important point he's making, and he's
right nobody was talking about it in this case, for some reason.

~~~
michaelochurch
_But the collateral damage is real. Going out on a limb financially is
celebrated but most stories don't end with a win - just the ones we tell._

The biggest danger from startups as I see it isn't even the financial loss.
That's very bad, don't get me wrong-- $100,000 losses aren't uncommon-- but it
isn't the worst thing. The worst thing that comes out of startup failure is
the confluence of opportunity cost with the extremely harsh age-grading of VC-
istan.

Most industries give you 25 years to build a career, and then 15 more on the
plateau before you even start to worry about age discrimination. That's
something people start to face in their 60s, not 30s. In VC-istan, you have
much less time and losing 2 years to a dogshit startup is catastrophic. The
loss of opportunities even between 25 and 30 is a substantial drop. By 35, if
you're not retired or an executive (never mind whether you actually _want_ to
manage) people start to ask what happened.

VC-istan is a hypocritical culture, because it superficially champions risk
and failure, but if you don't have an unbroken stream of successes, you become
yesterday's dogshit pretty much immediately. What "we accept failure" means in
VC-istan is that people with the political skill to make their failures appear
to be someone else's fault can continue their careers uninterrupted, but how
is that different from the rest of Corporate America? It's not. VC-istan is
just as narcissistic and intolerant of missteps. If you're not VP/Eng by 35
and a Founder by 40, goodbye.

The real calamity you risk in a bad startup is the career damage. You can
easily end up in a position well below your level of ability in the next job,
and once that happens, you're screwed because most people get bored rapidly
and lose motivation when this occurs. I have no idea what happens to the
people who fall under their age curve. I hope to never find out.

It's no wonder why people are so depressed. A world in which the aging process
starts so prematurely _is depressing_. It's like modeling, but with uglier
people.

~~~
lukev
Surely, _surely_ the experience bonus of having a startup under your belt
(even a failed one) outweighs being two years older, to any rational VC?

If not, I think my opinion of SV just went down yet another notch...

~~~
jamesaguilar
At least according to PG, VCs like you more with a failure than with nothing.
One of his essays also refers to a claim that older founders are more likely
to be successful and to run their companies sustainably -- fewer eighty hour
work weeks, etc. I dunno for sure, but I guess the person you're replying to
probably doesn't know what he's talking about, because I haven't seen anyone
claim before that there's a serious age barrier in startups, especially to the
degree that that would be a primary concern if you failed in your mid to late
twenties.

~~~
michaelochurch
I really know nothing about whether VCs have a tendency to age-discriminate.
But ageism is rampant in VC-istan startup culture. It's not so severe that
older people can't get hired, but they tend to get less respect if they
haven't held executive roles by age 40.

I tend to think of this age discrimination as something where both classes are
victims. Older programmers start losing opportunities, but younger programmers
are attractive precisely _because_ they're easier to take advantage of. Both
young and old lose in this.

~~~
jamesaguilar
I really don't get why you would call it "VC-istan" then, because that makes
it sounds like you're trying to disparage VCs. Also, it makes a whole host of
your arguments in your original post irrelevant, because what we're talking
about is founder-suicide, not employee suicide. Last, it's kind of offensive
that you use the "-istan" suffix pejoratively as you are.

------
klpa
Mental health care is 1) unaffordable 2) inaccessible and 3) socially
unacceptable.

I'm a well-paid white-collar professional and I'd still find the financial
burden of between $150 to $250 a week or more hard to swallow. Seriously, who
has an extra $600/month lying around? And that's a conservative cost - heaven
help you if your insurance isn't up to snuff or if you need meds. Not to
mention the extra time out of one's day, because most therapists will not do
house calls. How much does an hour of your time cost? How much more that of an
entrepreneur?

Let's talk social acceptability: how many people want to invest in a person
(which is really what entrepreneurship is all about) who is seeing a
therapist? How many people want to have relationships with those they know
have mental health issues?

~~~
mercutio2
Hmm. In the US it really depends on your insurance. I was annoyed when my
excellent therapist's copay went up from $15 to $20... I don't know anyone in
my social circle who feels any stigma about therapy, it's fantastic!

------
arram
"I keep saying how brutally hard this is. Each time you crest the rise in
front of you, it just makes it clear the size of the even larger hill that
looms beyond it. It goes on for a long time. I pissed blood for years keeping
Netflix alive while we figured that shit out – as did every other successful
entrepreneur in the valley." - Marc Randolph, Founder/CEO, Netflix.

~~~
23david
It breaks you mentally bit by bit, and I personally experiencing this a few
years ago on a startup. It was horrible and unexpected to find myself mentally
unable to get my work done. Essentially it seems that the stress hormones
released by constant physical & mental stress physically damages/alters the
emotional centers of your brain. And over time the damage becomes more-or-less
permanent. There is some research to support this, but it's a very new field
(Some good research is coming out of the PTSD research being funded by the
military.) I don't think it's far off to say that at least mentally, starting
a company is a lot like going off to war. Less risk of physical injury
perhaps, but similar risks for mental injury.

For healthy people, but particularly people genetically susceptible to stress-
related disorders, startup work can trigger full-blown depression and bi-polar
manic/depressive cycles. That's just part of the job, and you need to be
prepared for it and take care of yourself.

IMO, successful founders are the ones that successfully cope with the
inevitable manic/depressive cycles. Self-awareness of our limitations, and
good medication are life-savers. Once you start testing out different
medication options, prepare to spend up to a year finding a combination that
works to help keep you stable through the most stressful and depressed times.
Don't give up hope. Ever.

~~~
foenix
In after the 1991 Gulf War, PTSD rates spiked beyond rates ever seen in the US
Army. A study commissioned to examine the effects of PTSD found that this
long-term stress was actually causing the hippocampus (the short-to-med/long
term memory module of the brain, amongst other things) to atrophy. This
confirmed a similar effect they had found with mice a few years earlier.

The next push is to replicate the more positive result of environment
enrichment, which has been shown in mice but not people. Basically,
environment enrichment has been shown to help facilitate LTP (long-term
potentiation — an extreme period of neurogenosis) and makes the hippocampus
less prone to stress-induced atrophy.

I've personally been a few very high stress work environments, but I use this
knowledge to help convince myself to relax productively.

~~~
dctoedt
> _In after the 1991 Gulf War, PTSD rates spiked beyond rates ever seen in the
> US Army._

Last year the [U.S.] Army's vice-chief of staff urged psychiatrists to change
the term to "post-traumatic stress _injury_." Apparently, too many troops come
home with PTSI but refuse to seek help. And as a result, some portion of them
end up taking their own lives. The Army's hope is that renaming the phenomenon
as an "injury" will reduce the fear of being stigmatized [0].

(Apparently some psychiatrists have rejected the idea of changing the name,
because heaven forbid that they should alter their sacred naming convention
for no better reason than that it might help some people.)

[0] [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/key-
psychiatric-...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/key-psychiatric-
doctor-rejects-name-change-for-ptsd.html)

------
nicksergeant
I said this on Twitter and I think it's worth mentioning here.

This stuff is sad. And it makes me think that true startup founders aren't
doing it right. If your startup is so central to your life experiences that
without it, life isn't worth living, then you have a problem, and you should
seek professional help.

Making this worse is the culture of startup founders gloating about how hard
they work and how much of a mental toll it takes on them (and those around
them).

Work smarter, not harder.

~~~
richardjordan
The system in Silicon Valley pretty much forces startup founders to make this
all or nothing approach - at least for the first several years of a startup's
life - it is virtually impossible to compete without doing so (and yes there
are rare exceptions).

The same VCs that laud founders also push them to these extremes while
claiming to support balance. I know few founders who haven't experienced that.

~~~
hindsightbias
If Y-Comb and VC's really care about "the people" that make up a team, perhaps
they should consider investing in training founders how to deal with the
stresses of the career.

Doesn't make much sense to sink a lot of money into a team and then have a
bunch of 20-somethings who struggle with the reality of startup life.

~~~
amirmc
_"Doesn't make much sense to sink a lot of money into a team and then have a
bunch of 20-somethings who struggle with the reality of startup life."_

And the cynic in me says the trick is _not_ to sink a lot of money in eg YC
only funds a team for a few months. VC's etc can wait to see who survives in
the 'sink or swim' game and the follow-on accordingly.

------
astine
The reason, I think, that people are being so circumspect about Jody's death,
is because it is so close on the heels of Aaron Swartz's own demise. Suicide
tends to happen in waves where the first one tends to encourage copycats.
Aaron received a lot of publicity and it's not impossible that Jody was partly
inspired/encouraged to follow through as a result. I think a lot of people are
concerned about encouraging more potential suicides in the startup community.

Whether or not this is the way to do that, I do not know.

~~~
EvanKelly
When I saw the post on Jody's death, I almost made a comment similar to this,
but I didn't know how to phrase it.

I'm afraid the terms "inspired" and "encouraged" don't properly convey the
mechanism of "suicide waves". I'm still having a hard time describing it, but
I think seeing suicides from people in a similar situation to you almost
reminds you that suicide is an option at your disposal

~~~
tossacct
>>> I almost made a comment similar to this, but I didn't know how to phrase
it.

Really?

>>>I think seeing suicides from people in a similar situation to you almost
reminds you that suicide is an option at your disposal

Seems like a pretty damn good comment. Make it a top level on the next suicide
thread, maybe it will help someone think more rationally about _WHY_ they are
suddenly looking at suicide as an option.

------
endlessvoid94
I care very deeply for my mental health and part of that is balance. My
parents always taught me to maintain balance, and it's turning out to be the
most important (and hardest) pursuit of my life right now, as I do a startup
of my own.

Get up early, go home at a reasonable hour (5 or 6pm) and leave your computer
at work. Read a book, go out with friends, have a social life when you have
the energy.

Do not sacrifice your health for extended periods of time -- it's not worth
your mental, physical, and social health to get a bunch of money.

------
orionblastar
Look I have talked about this before but was ignored. There is a lot of stress
in the industry, and if people don't know how to handle that stress a mental
illness may develop from it.

In my case I developed schzioaffective disorder, and ended up in a hospital
and short-term disability. After that I was fired after having a panic attack.
When others discovered I was mentally ill they bullied and harassed me. Yes
adult bullying, and harassing, and adult social kliqs and all that exist. It
is not just teenagers who are abused by bullies but adults as well.

In your startup you have to have a way to treat people who develop a mental
illness and find a way to get them therapy and medication to get better and
accommodate them and support them. You should not consider them of less value
and demote them and cut their salary, you should not fire them, or consider it
a weakness or personality flaw.

The way classical management treats the mentally ill, it is no wonder that
suicides are up, and that some became workplace shooters, and many others just
go on disability or become homeless or end up in an endless cycle of jails and
mental hospitals. You need to have management deal with mental illnesses
better than it currently does and it can even effect the CEO of your business
as well.

It would do you well to hire some people with psychology, and sociology skills
that can work with therapy that any employee can go to for help. You also need
people who can watch out for warning signs as well. This should be a function
of your HR department and your EAP (Employee Assistance Program) with the
state or some other government agency.

Yes I've been suicidal in the past, yes I had friends kill themselves over
issues of not finding work, stress from the job, and other stuff. I am a
member of Generation-X the suicide generation and in my early 40's. It is a
miracle that I am still alive, but since I am mentally ill no startup or
community wants me. Being excluded can lead to suicidal thoughts as well you
know.

------
Mz
You know, I know the copycat thing is a real phenomenon, but let me suggest
that it could also just be that we all live in the same world and are often
subjected to additional stress around the same time. The so called "January
Effect", of a dip in sales, can be pretty directly tied to overspending for
Christmas the month before. January is also a time when people start looking
at the paperwork involved in filing taxes, a big UGH for most people. And many
people put on a happy face for the holidays while feeling worse than ever
because the merriment around them often reminds them how empty and unhappy
they are. It isn't unusual for people to delay announcing ugly decisions, like
a decision to divorce, until after the holidays.

Maybe this was a long time coming* for both Aaron and Jody, for completely
unrelated reasons, and perhaps the close timing is "coincidental" in that we
are all subjected to some of the same larger trends, no matter who we are.

* I do not necessarily mean _years_. I am more suggesting weeks, in other words maybe they both decided Christmas was not the time to do this to other people.

~~~
patmcguire
There's a big post-holidays suicide bump, as well as one in the spring. Events
that are supposed to mean things are getting better and then don't.

------
danbmil99
I am reminded of the debate going on around American football. The big
"concussions" are obvious, and in a good situation you will have friends,
family and colleagues on your side (although disappointed), because the event
and its impact are big and obvious to everyone around you.

But the slow buildup of damage due to the everyday smashing of your head
against one brick wall or another, is both hard to measure, and difficult to
communicate to people outside the startup bubble world. And even if you do get
some sympathy, inevitably they say something like "you're so smart and
talented, you can get a job anywhere and live a normal, relaxed life!" They're
trying to help, but to your ears it just sounds like "PLEASE, QUIT NOW BEFORE
YOU FAIL AND ALL YOUR DREAMS COME CRASHING DOWN AND YOU FALL APART IN FRONT OF
EVERYONE WHO LOVES AND ADMIRES YOU!" and it has the paradoxical effect of
making you even more depressed.

Just saying.

------
hect0r
This seems to me to simply be a gratuitous speculation on Jody's death with no
other purpose than to try and generate traffic by appearing to be some sort of
brave, dissenting voice. It is completely unnecessary and in bad taste to
pontificate on his cause of death and, even if it was suicide, I really
struggle to see the benefit of discussing what is ultimately a private matter
for his family.

The argument that discussing the circumstances of Jody's death is necessary
because there is a systemic issue of founders killing themselves is outrageous
and an insult to the reader's intelligence. Is there any evidence at all that
founders are more likely to kill themselves than, say, the unemployed or
indeed any other vocational group? Sure, being a founder is stressful but then
so are many other vocations in life...

~~~
shardling
The author seems completely certain of the cause of death -- it certainly
isn't presented as speculation.

~~~
hect0r
By his own admission, he had only had "dozens" of emails with Jody over a few
years and wasn't a close friend. Given Jody's family and close friends haven't
spoken on this topic, I still consider the internet pontification of someone
with only a sparse email-based connection to Jody to be speculation since he
presents absolutely no evidence to support his allegations nor is there any
corroboration from those with a confirmed connection to Jody.

~~~
clicks
It was confirmed earlier this week by a news station local to his area, Jody
used a gun.

[http://www.lvrj.com/business/jody-sherman-ecomom-founder-
and...](http://www.lvrj.com/business/jody-sherman-ecomom-founder-and-tech-
entrepreneur-dies-at-47-188929801.html) \-- _"The Clark County Office of the
Coroner/Medical Examiner confirmed that Sherman, Ecomom's chairman and CEO,
died early Monday morning. It was ruled a suicide."_

~~~
hect0r
Even if that is true, it doesn't change the fact that when the person's own
family and friends are not discussing this matter, it doesn't behoove a
stranger (more or less) blogging about it. It just strikes me as being in bad
taste.

~~~
danso
I think you have really, really missed the point of the OP.

First of all, what family and friends want is not the sole factor in what
should be publicly discussed. If I die because I am drunk behind the wheel
tomorrow, I bet none of my loved ones would want to focus on that aspect of my
passing, and yet I think a case could be made that it is a legitimate topic of
public concern.

Of course what Jody did was a private decision...and yet that is the problem
the OP is alluding to. From all reports, Jody was a wonderful engaging person
with a lot to live for. And yet he killed himself? If there is something about
the tech world that causes such wonderful people to be untreated and lost,
then is is a topic that should be considered publicly, and not hushed on the
grounds of "bad taste"

~~~
lisper
I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but I knew Jody, and while he had many
terrific qualities, he was not a saint. He had issues. And his biggest problem
(at least when I knew him) was his unwillingness to admit he had a problem.
It's all but impossible to help someone who won't help themselves.

------
benatkin
No, all the other posts I've read about him are very good. When you give a
eulogy you don't criticize the other people giving a eulogy.

The lack of details didn't take away from the message, in most cases. For an
example of this, see Mark Suster's two posts. I think both of his posts stand
alone.

------
guard-of-terra
Maybe Wil Shipley nailed the problem in his "On Being Crazy":
<http://blog.wilshipley.com/2005/05/on-being-crazy.html>

So, is genius linked with craziness? Is this why we aren't all geniuses? Is
mankind only so smart because if we get any smarter, we cease to function
correctly? Maybe it's just not evolutionarily advantageous to be smarter than
we are; it makes us mopey, and we end up cutting our ears off when we're
trying to woo girls, which rarely results in offspring.

------
DuskStar
The post title to me has the possibility of him still being alive... I find
the full title much more clear.

"Should We Talk about the Fact That Jody Sherman Didn't Just Die, But That He
Killed Himself?"

~~~
danboarder
The title was truncated to fit in the allotted HN title field (80 characters).
I agree it could be re-written for further clarity though.

~~~
iNate2000
How about changing it to "didn't only die" or "didn't merely die"?

I first thought it was about someone who hadn't died. Then I started reading
the article and thought it was about someone with the same name. THEN I
realized what I was reading.

~~~
danboarder
@iNate2000 good suggestions, I had considered a similar edit but then found
the edit link was no longer available due to HN's time limit for making edits.

------
dmoney
Not to take away from the tragedy of these founders' deaths, or from the
negative effects of unrealistic expectations, but is there evidence that these
expectations or the pressure they were under _caused_ their suicides? Is their
any data on the suicide rate in the startup community vs. the population at
large?

------
foenix
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Journalism_code...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#Journalism_codes)

------
j_s
I've never read a blog post at launch.co before, interesting that the author
chooses not to include any bio.

~~~
bostonpete
The author is Jason Calacanis.

------
ahoyhere
Yes, we should. Thank you for bringing it up. The OP makes some good points
about the risks and ridiculous time/energy expenditures of "startups," but he
misses the most dangerous element.

Grandiosity is a problem in the startup space. Grandiosity can be a sign of
personality disorders… or, if you ask me, it can be a sign of hanging out with
people who exhibit grandiosity, tell you it's what you have to have to achieve
what you want, who laud you for having it, and who mysteriously aren't there
to help you when you fall on your ass. In fact, who tear you up when you do.

Yeah, it sounds like high school, doesn't it? Only the stakes are a lot
higher.

Every time I hear somebody say they are going to "change the world," I cringe.
I imagine those people as some combination of arrogant fucks (pardon my
english) and/or depression waiting to happen.

Please, please be reasonable. If you want to change the world, start by
volunteering at a soup kitchen. Don't expect your startup to "change the
world." Don't think you have to, to achieve your dreams and help people,
either. Don't talk yourself up. If you're insecure, let yourself be insecure,
don't slap a layer of grandiosity and self-aggrandizement on top.

Please, don't be somebody to other people who you aren't… the more you pretend
to be confident to others, while being insecure inside, the less you feel like
anyone KNOWS you, or cares about you, the more alone you feel, the more likely
you are to really, desperately feel the pain of isolation.

The best way to be happy is to be grateful for what you have, not to
constantly anticipate becoming famous or rich or having an outsized impact on
the world when you haven't even made a tiny, local impact first. Have
perspective. Volunteer. Spend time with your friends, and your family if you
like them. If your friends exhibit all of the above symptoms, make a few new
friends who are totally disconnected to the whole "ecosystem" so you can
simply be real with them. (Note: not saying you should drop your grandiose
friends. But consider whether they're healthy for you.)

Otherwise you risk being caught up in a spiral of obsession and disconnection,
a constant raising of stakes ("Who's going to change the world more!? Who's
more ridiculously confident?! Who can work longer and harder?!") which will,
statistically speaking, never pay off.

~~~
pyre

      | Every time I hear somebody say they are going to
      | "change the world," I cringe. I imagine those
      | people as some combination of arrogant fucks
      | (pardon my english) and/or depression waiting
      | to happen.
    

During a 'cultural fit' interview, I was asked, "How I Was Changing The
World(tm)." They went on to talk about how they were changing the world
because someone on the other side of the globe was using their app on a smart
phone to manage their business.

I just remember thinking that it was a pretty arrogant stance and question.
(If the person on the other side of the world has a business and smart phone,
they probably doing pretty well...)

~~~
ahoyhere
Yeah. We live in a crazy time, when people think a convenience for a $400
device is "changing the world."

You're right… it IS arrogant. And it's also sad, like a group of little kids
talking about how important and badass they are, who they're gonna beat up and
which famous actress/actor they're going to marry, right up til mom & dad call
them home. Especially because they seem to be in denial that it's all fantasy.

This year we (my husband & I) funded 3 full fistula surgeries for poor women
in the developing world:
[http://www.fistulafoundation.org/whatyoucando/loveasister.ht...](http://www.fistulafoundation.org/whatyoucando/loveasister.html)

For the low low cost of $1500, we gave three women back the ability to be
productive, to be a part of their communities again, to be free from stigma…
in short, not to be covered in their own excrement and urine all the time, for
the lack of a simple surgery. Three women. Changed lives. And all it took was
a little bit of our money and an organization that is _actually_ changing the
world. I had it easy… I just had to fork over the money. They're the ones on
the ground making it happen. Doctors who do the surgeries in adverse
conditions, coordinating to keep costs low, taking care of the women post-op,
the women who walk so far to get taken care of and endure all the awful things
they've endured…

We just develop software. No big deal.

I think people like to wrap themselves in illusions because they think it'll
make them feel better… when really, deep down, they know they're lying to
themselves, which only makes them feel worse.

Screw grandiosity.

~~~
danso
Sorry, but I think the dismissive attitude behind "We just develop software.
no big deal" is not at all helpful. Having seen how software interfaces can
greatly enable - or hamper -- professionals in the educational, medical, and
law fields, I don't see software as just being some rich trivial luxury that's
e cherry on top of other professionals' hard honest work.

~~~
ahoyhere
If you can't see the gulf between being a doctor who dedicates his/her life to
doing surgery in remote, third-world locations, for a pittance, in order to
restore the lives of poor women, vs sitting in a comfy office in the first
world developing software on a $2500 computer for a $400+ device… what can I
say to persuade you?

Sure, there are some bits of software that save lives… but that's not what the
"startups" in question are doing, is it?

The rest is simple convenience. Convenience is nice and all, and everybody
loves it, and it pays well, and it can increase human productivity and
connectedness, but that isn't really world-changing.

Nobody on HN is inventing the next telegraph, or the next x-ray. It's all
variations and slight improvements on things that already exist. It's just
software. No big deal. And yet the phrase "changing the world" or "change the
world" is the one on everyone's lips.

Make no mistake, I love what I do, and I'm not cut out to be that doctor in
any way. I'm happy with my place in the world. I've also got no illusions
that, in the grand scheme of things, I'm 'changing the world' or, really, very
important to anyone but my immediate circle of loved ones. Believe me, this is
a better way to live.

The more you talk yourself up, the more you believe you're super ultra
important and doing super ultra important work, the more you create a gulf
between your exterior grandiose persona people see and your interior doubt and
insecurity, the more you are isolated, the more you are alone, the more you
risk losing if you make a mistake, the more social excoriation you (feel) you
deserve/are likely to get, the more scared you are to ask for help or admit
fear, the more hopeless you feel when you fuck up, the more likely you are to
cut yourself off from others, to work yourself to death, to commit suicide.

And the saddest part of all is that it was all in your head. You weren't that
important to start with. You can fuck up and the world keeps turning, just as
it had. Nobody dies because you run out of money or kill your startup through
an oversight.

Having a realistic understanding of your importance to the world makes you
free to experiment, to ask for help, to admit failure, to make mistakes, and
not feel badly about it. You don't have to feel like you're losing face,
risking anything, or letting anyone down.

Grandiosity, on the other hand, imbues every act with such great importance
that it seems like a matter of life or death. Grandiosity feels good right up
until it becomes clear you're just a human after all. Unfortunately, then
grandiosity sometimes literally becomes a matter of life or death.

It's deadly easy to substitute one factually false self-image (grandiosity)
with another factually false self-image (despairing that you're the worst
person ever and there's no escape).

This is sad. And it's all the more sad because it's totally avoidable.

NB: If you recognize yourself in the descriptions of grandiosity (and its side
effects) above, know that I'm not a doctor. But my best recommendation is the
audiobook (specifically the AUDIO book) of When Things Fall Apart by Pema
Chodron. It's a life-saving, life-affirming dose of reality.

~~~
danso
Well, I can't speak for the startups in question because I don't know enough
about them, but that wasn't my beef.

I was commenting on what I thought seemed a dismissive attitude towards the
role of software towards world-changing needs. You seem to think that because
software developers work in relative comfort and safety, then what they do
must be less noble or significant than the people on the front lines.

The people on the front lines, God bless them, but they're just one part of
the solution. Let's not romanticize them at the cost of bashing those who have
the potential to create great multipliers for their work.

And while I'm a software developer, I've been a journalist for most of my life
and have covered a variety of truly awful situations. In education, for
example, tragic stories at the classroom level are not the result of just some
terrible teacher, or because adults don't care enough, etc. etc. Some of the
problems have the potential to be alleviated through thoughtful logistical
support, something which today, software is an essential part of. It's not
sexy, and the people in charge of that aspect will never have their names
recorded in history or immortalized in a movie, but it's important work
nonetheless.

Maybe not all software developers are working on world-changing stuff (neither
are all doctors or aid workers, for that matter). But I would hope we have
more software developers who see how software can change the world and aspire
toward it.

Just because there are a few dishonest douchebag startups doesn't mean we
should discourage other developers to chase after these higher aspirations.

~~~
ahoyhere
A friend of mine who follows you/your work is convinced you, unlike most
HNers, aren't soaking in the particular startup cliché I'm talking about. That
you aren't aware of its epidemic-like prevalence. My side of the conversation
doesn't make sense, if you aren't.

Go to a few tech meetups and count the times you hear "changing the world!@!"
about something that is truly, at best, a diversion. Repeat several times a
year. Also read the posts here from startups who are hiring, count the times
they say "change the world" "revolutionize the xyz" etc. See how many of them
actually do anything that you or I would consider world-changing.[1]

Then see if you don't agree with me about the phrase. :)

At any rate, I'm not arguing with _you_ , I don't know you. I'm arguing with
the startup world's obsession with the phrase, and the epidemic of grandiosity
that infects it. It's literally killing people. That's my beef.

 _[1] I don't actually recommend you doing all these things because it would
probably depress you. It depresses me!_

~~~
danso
I don't know you either but I can tell you're intelligent enough to give the
benefit of the doubt to, so I'm only halfassedly getting into this
debate...either that, or it's Friday :)

I'm not steeped deep in the startup world, personally, but I get enough
exposure through friends and through HN to know what you're talking about and
don't blame you for being jaded. I just thought -- and was probably a bit
picky about it -- that your cynicism went a slight step farther than it needed
to.

OK, let's assume a lot of startups are cynically using "world changing" as a
way to attract hype and/or mask the fact that they are shallow-minded
professionals. Let's look at startups that _are_ changing the world: Facebook,
for example. I'm sure eyes roll every time Mark Zuckerberg talks about FB's
world-changing effects...but in FB's case, the problem is that, perhaps, _not
enough_ of its developers realize they are changing the world, and that is a
problem if the change is negative.

I don't disagree with you that some/many/most of digital startups may have
delusions of grandeur. But I'd suffer 99 of such fools (assuming that most of
them fizzle out) for every 1 person who really does believe that software can
change the world, and then sets about to do so. And similarly, I hope that
more non-software people who want to change the world continue to take
seriously the effects/potential of software (and other logistics), and not
just it as some technical operating detail they have to put up with.

~~~
ahoyhere
(serious not snarky)

Do you think the people who talk up how they're "changing the world" includes
the 1 out of 99 (or fewer) who actually does?

I don't. The people I know who are really out there changing the world focus
on small effects first, because they know that's the only way to create real
and lasting change. They don't try to do it all in one bite and they don't
crow about it either.

Also, my whole point wasn't that we should shut down people who talk about
changing the world, but that those people are creating a situation ripe for
depression _in themselves_. Yeah, it annoys me, but the results -- that its
prevalence makes more and more vulnerable people believe this is the way they
have to be, and that results potentially in ever more tragedy -- are what
drives me to talk about it instead of just ignoring the annoying buggers.

To my mind the only cure is A) explaining the facts and costs of grandiosity,
and B) introducing a little reality to the equation. You only seem to be
objecting to B, but the thing is, it wasn't advice for _you_ … or that 1 in
1,000 who is probably not here in the first place, who wouldn't identify &
identify with A, which is the only reason someone would consider me credible
enough to listen to.

------
Evbn
Should we talk about the fact that President Obama didn't just die?

------
oh_sigh
So what lawsuit was Jody Sherman involved in? That must have been the reason
he killed himself. We should take down that prosecutor, where ever they may
be.

~~~
lisper
What a bone-headed thing to say. Just because one prosecutor went rogue on a
geek doesn't mean they've all gone rogue.

~~~
oh_sigh
I'm sorry that you thought I was being serious. My point was this: Just
because someone commits suicide doesn't mean that there is some looming
external threat that makes them kill themselves. It was taken as a given on
hackernews, and the tech community as a whole, that Aaron killed himself
because of the lawsuit against him. Very few people brought up that it might
have been the crippling depression that he suffered from, and those who did
were downvoted rapidly.

~~~
lisper
Sorry, I guess my iron-o-meter needs calibrating. (Someone should invent an
emoticon for irony.)

