
Coding Horror: Paul Graham's Participatory Narcissism - sharksandwich
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001080.html
======
pg
This, judging from the fact that it's in bold, appears to be his main gripe:

    
    
      "The problem with this particular essay is the way Mr. Graham
      implies the only path to true happiness as a young programmer
      lies in founding a startup."
    

whereas the essay actually contains the sentence:

    
    
      "Working for yourself doesn't have to mean starting a startup,
       of course.
    

I mean, how much clearer can I be?

As for this point about "participatory narcissism," you can make the same
attack on practically every nonfiction writer. Every (good) essayist writes
from experience. Most people who have the freedom to work on what they want,
work on things they admire. Every book on robotics or carpentry or surfing has
woven through it the sinister subtext that robotics or carpentry or surfing is
an admirable activity. But to accuse the writer of "participatory narcissism"
is to confuse cause and effect: the writer of the robotics book isn't claiming
robotics is admirable to make himself look good; it was because he thought it
was admirable that he chose to work on it.

A claim you could make with equal justification about any essayist isn't much
of a claim. But people will still believe it means something if they disagree
with him.

~~~
tptacek
How much clearer? Well, you could have started by not comparing employees to
caged lions.

~~~
pg
That's a metaphor. The way metaphors work is that they're accurate in some
respects and not in others.

The advantage of metaphors is that they help explain things by isomorphism.
The disadvantage is that people often take them too literally. Or pretend to
if they want to attack the writer.

Strange as it sounds, I expected to be criticized for telling readers what
they wanted to hear, not for insulting them. If you actually read the essay,
the thesis is that the famous founders who are made to seem like such gods in
the press are actually not that different from ordinary programmers-- that the
difference, as it says in the last paragraph, is "due mostly to environment."
In other words the exact opposite of the summary Atwood quotes: "Oh... you
haven't founded a company? You suck."

How can so many people read an essay saying X and come away believing it said
not-X? I think what happened in this case was that a lot of people who were
already feeling self-conscious about working for big companies read the first
section as some kind of criticism of them, and then either read that into the
rest of the essay or (this is the Internet) didn't read any more before
writing blog posts about it.

~~~
tptacek
It's interesting that you write something like, "How can so many people read
an essay saying X and come away believing it said not-X?", thinking that the
problem is likely with the _readers_.

~~~
pg
Asking that question doesn't _presume_ the problem is with the readers.
Sometimes the reason is that the essay was unclear. In this case my hypothesis
is that it wasn't, but rather that some readers read the essay as meaning
something they wanted it to, rather than looking at what I was actually
saying. (Much as you just did with the preceding comment.)

If something's unclear, I often go back and fix it. But I'm reluctant to start
trying to placate people determined to misread what I'm saying; that seems a
slippery slope.

~~~
tptacek
Ok. In the interests of providing a data point:

* Even as a startup junkie, with full-time founder role and a 13 year track record, I found your analogy belittling and myopic. You will lose the argument that the best work in software is being done in startups.

* Your essay contributed little else but the lightning rod; you've said substantially the same thing in other essays. We get it. You've also watched tens of $6k startups die; you should write more about the downside of being a software startup founder. You've been there, right? Why don't you start with the "vomiting blood from the stress" part?

~~~
logjam
Absolute horseshit. Really. Exactly _what_ "best work in software" is being
done by established companies? Practically _every_ innovation in the software
technology that really matters has come out of the startup/non-corporate-open-
source or academic worlds.

It's fascinating that people are so jealous and insecure, apparently about the
success and the moxie of startup folks, that they misread the referenced
article. It's like an ink blot. Absolutely amazing..

~~~
nostrademons
A lot have actually come out of large corporate research labs, and then been
commercialized by startups when the big companies ignored them. Xerox gave us
the mouse, the laptop, the GUI, color graphics, Smalltalk, the WYSIWYG word
processor, Ethernet, and PostScript. Bell Labs gave us the transistor, sound
in movies, six-sigma, the television, photovoltaics, algorithmic information
theory, UNIX, C, C++, and plan9 (which is full of innovations that haven't yet
been commercialized). IBM gave us the relational database. Microsoft is
funding much of the work on functional programming.

You really need both. Startups are an essential part of the economy, but
they're not the _only_ part of the economy, and many brilliant inventions have
been discovered by researchers working 9-5 at a big company.

~~~
astrec
Hmmmm. Pretty sure unix started as an unfunded side project for a couple of
lads. From memory, research on transistors began well before Bell Labs had a
hand in their development, IBM didn't give us the relational database; the
honor belongs to a university I've long since forgotten. Oh, and Microsoft is
funding _some_ of the work on functional programming.

That aside, I agree with your second para.

~~~
tptacek
Hmm. Pretty sure Unix is universally credited to Bell Labs, originated in
another operating system built by Bell Labs, and received substantial funding
from Bell Labs. If your best argument is that Unix is an example of non-
corporate research because Richie started it in his spare time, you don't have
much of a case.

------
cperciva
Jeff Atwood could certainly have made his case in a better way, but I think he
has a point here.

There are many perfectly legitimate reasons for working at a large company;
family responsibilities (yes, there are mid-twenties and early-thirties
programmers with a spouse and children), a chronic medical condition (if I
were living in the US, my medical bills would be upwards of $20k/year, and I
know I'm not alone), or being dedicated to a non-economically-profitable
pursuit (if you want to spend 2 months a year volunteering in sub-Saharan
Africa, many employers will let you have the time off -- a startup won't) are
a few possibilities. Comparing people who decide to work for a large company
to caged animals, and suggesting that they are "ten times [less] alive" is
condescending, and ignores the fact that they might seem far more lively when
they are with their families or pursuing whatever activities they enjoy -- or
that if they worked for a startup, they might not be able to afford the
medicine which keeps them alive.

I consider myself fortunate that I can do something I enjoy and have a
reasonable chance of making money doing it; but not everybody is so lucky, and
we should not insult such unfortunates by suggesting that they made poor
choices or are somehow behaving unnaturally.

~~~
staunch
I don't think you're arguing here that they're _not_ caged animals, just that
they've elected to work in a cage for some good reason.

~~~
cperciva
That's one way of looking at it, yes -- except that the comparison to caged
animals has misleading connotations. A lion doesn't weigh its options and
choose to live in a cage; so to compare someone to a caged lion carries with
it the suggestion that they lack agency.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_to compare someone to a caged lion carries with it the suggestion that they
lack agency._

It most certainly does. PG is commenting on what, to him, is the revolting
sight of a bunch of apparently smart people wasting time in a pointless "team-
building" exercise. He didn't think those people looked happy, and he didn't
think they looked like people who were wasting their time by choice. They
looked like people who... lacked agency!

He obviously didn't mean to imply that they'd been _forced_ into their cage..
the entire essay is about how _you have a choice about whether or not to be
treated like an employee_.

~~~
aswanson
_the revolting sight..._

And what a revolting sight it is. I recall my job fresh out of school in an
R&D department. I was stunned at how the technical people stood at attention
and jumped as high as the managment told them. This management was clearly, at
least from a techical standpoint, far less intelligent. The engineers there
actually _marvelled and respected_ people who could barely figure out which
buttons to push on a product they _designed_.

One of the most bizarre observations of my life.

------
ojbyrne
While I realize that YCombinator is trying to change this, here's my startup
experience.

1\. Inspired by PG's rhetoric, go into partnership with semi-famous TV talk
show host to build site.

2\. Work ass off for 9 months. Site grows like gangbusters, VCs banging on the
doors.

3\. VCs/Partner bring in new CEO. Partner/CEO fill every position above entry
level with new hires.

4\. My job is now 9-5, cubicle, no chance of advancement.

5\. CEO and partner now described as "founders" in the press.

So I mostly followed PG's advice, only to end up in the exact same mind-
numbing job he's saying to avoid.

~~~
andreyf
When you went "into partnership with semi-famous TV talk show host", how much
equity did you get?

~~~
ojbyrne
I got some equity. Some day it might actually be worth something. I was
participating in a conversation about how being a founder is better than being
an employee, and pointing out that they often end up exactly the same (except
for the equity). I edited the post a little, remembering that I do still have
friends there.

~~~
obelix
Isn't equity a big deal? I was employee #2 in a just funded startup. I ended
up busting my ass the whole time only to realize that my equity was a fraction
of what the founders took in.

IMHO, if you do a startup, do it as a founder, or join after Series B, from a
pure risk-rewards perspective.

~~~
ojbyrne
I didn't mean to inject my bitch-fest into this thread, my point is that the
idea that being a founder is going to lead to a job where you have control and
independence, can run into a big road block as soon as you take VC money. It's
important to get stuff clear with your co-founders before you sign anything.

~~~
edw519
What you call a "bitch-fest" I call incredibly valuable data rarely seen here.
Since most HN readers will never become part of YN, your experience is
extremely apropos.

You should seriously consider writing a "Don't Let This Happen to You" piece
(a la Philip Greenspun) and posting it here to save others from the same fate.
Change the names (including your own) if you like. A post like that could be
the single most important thing some hackers ever take away from here.

~~~
ojbyrne
To paraphrase my lawyer, sometimes companies can be very creative about what
the standard "Proprietary Inventions and Information" agreement covers. And
any advice I give can basically be summed up as "get your own lawyer early."

~~~
iamelgringo
No, we totally appreciate your input here, and I think that you'll find that
being Digg's first technical guy carries a lot of street cred. Your insight is
appreciated. And, even though things may not be looking great for you now, I
wouldn't be suprised if you did better for yourself the second time around.

Although on a cautionary note, I'd be careful what I post here, because it
does tend to get picked up. Comments I've made got picked up by ValleyWag, and
that's almost never a good thing.

------
iamelgringo
I've worked in Silicon Valley as an ER nurse for the past 2 years, and I've
seen a lot of Software Engineers come and go through my department. And, I'll
have to say, at the nurses station, when the patients aren't around, there is
a stereotype that we have about Software Engineers, and often snicker at.

If a man in his 20's and 30's comes in to triage looking haunted and
complaining of chest pain, problems sleeping, or weird psycho-somatic
complaints, one of the first questions we ask is, "Are you a software
engineer?" The answer is invariably, "Yes." And, around the nurses station, we
all share a chuckle and a "tsk, tsk" at this poor, overworked, overstressed
man.

There is a stereotype, and like all generalizations, it has it's exceptions.
But, it's enough of a stereotype that the nurses I work with have been very
concerned about my going back to school for Computer Science. Most of the
nurses that haven worked in the Valley for years thought that being a software
engineer was a crap job compared to being an ER nurse. And, that's saying
something since a substantial portion of our job involves actual crap. It's
wasn't until I explained that I want to start a company that my coworkers
became a bit more supportive of the idea. I even had doctors talk to me in
concerned tones about the unhealthy levels of stress that engineers work with
in the Valley, to try and talk me out of my second career. In the ER, we see
the same haunted, caged look that Paul refers to in this article.

I think that what PG was referring to was the idea of a powerful animal who's
behavior and demeanor changes markedly in different environments. I don't
really think that he was trying to put people down who work at a 9-5 for
whatever reason. Paul didn't refer to the 9 to 5'ers as caged monkeys, or
caged rats, he called them caged lions for a reason.

I don't think that it just applies to Software engineers, either. I saw the
same change in my father when he left his job at 60 to pursue managing his
investments 10 years ago. There was a very marked change in the man. A great
metaphor for that would be describing as the difference as that of a caged
lion vs lion roaming free on the savanna.

I normally like Jeff's writing. I have to disagree with him this time. Perhaps
the problem is that maybe Jeff hasn't been on safari. Perhaps he hasn't seen
enough men change like lions set free once they don't have to work a 9-5 that
they hate. Paul says that he's seen similar changes in a number of founder's
they've funded over the past couple of years. As someone who feels rather
caged in their day job, I hope I get to see those same changes in myself this
fall as I start my first business.

~~~
sbraford
It feels a little weird saying it, but I feel exactly like the uncaged lion
paul describes.

My "hack" to achieve this:

* quit the job to pursue part-time freelancing

* the idea is to work on a startup / projects the other part of the time

* moved to Bucharest where I can live for $2k / month (I only have to "work" 4 days a month)

* while experiencing a foreign culture, it helps give you perspective, because you see many of their customs/etc. to be silly, which also makes you realize your own are silly as well

* european chicks have sexy accents (if the carrot is big enough...) =)

~~~
wallflower
I think you're living the dream - living where you want, working when you want
(4-hr work week style).

How much due diligence did you do before you took the leap? I assume you did
consulting before you left the States.

My half-baked plan is to move to a Latin American country, learn Spanish in
the mornings, code in the afternoons, party in the evening

~~~
sbraford
Do it man!

Honestly, it really is a weird feeling. I always hated working for other
companies, but felt that I "had to" because I was afraid of taking the leap.
(and yes, of course, it is more secure/stable/etc)

But yes -- I definitely did not go into this blind. Freelanced in the states
for 2-3 months to make sure I could get enough work.

It helps that I had a buddy who lives here. Otherwise I honestly would not
have had the balls to do it. (foreign language + trying to score an apartment?
ouch)

------
davidw
I don't really agree with Mr. Horror, but sometimes I do wonder what PG does
to, shall we say, "stay challenged". Surrounding yourself with younger, less
experienced people (albeit very smart ones) who owe you is not an environment
I would think of as one likely to create a lot of pushback. Maybe it
shouldn't, either, as that's not what YC is for, but you do need that kind of
thing from somewhere in your life if you wish to continue your intellectual
growth.

~~~
pg
_Surrounding yourself with younger, less experienced people (albeit very smart
ones) who owe you is not an environment I would think of as one likely to
create a lot of pushback._

Oh yeah? It does when they're the type of people who want to start startups.

The main thing we look for in founders is spirit and determination. We have
to, because that's what makes startups succeed. And dealing with the group of
people this produces is not like being a professor, believe me.

~~~
davidw
Well, all I can go by is what I see in the relationship from outside, and
occasional comments and fragments of things, like this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41257>

which perhaps paint an incorrect picture.

Point being, though, is that the group you're dealing with sounds like a great
deal of fun, and doubtless provides a lot of intellectual stimulation - no
question about that. What they probably don't have, though, is a very
dissimilar view of certain things to your own - you hand pick them after all
(and vice versa). Also, in the end, to be blunt, you're the guy giving them
money, and even if you try to get around it, that conditions relationships
between people.

It's sort of like this site - most of us found it and got into it because we
like your writing and attitude, so it's not likely to be a source of wildly
different opinions either. That's not entirely a bad thing - keeping points of
contention to a minimum is probably a good way of keeping the community from
imploding.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be a critique of YC in any way, just my hope that
you find ways to look at the world from a completely different point of view
from time to time. Thinking about my own sources of information, it's probably
something that everyone needs to try and do more often.

~~~
nostrademons
I didn't get the impression that the Zenters' comment meant they didn't push
back. Rather, they had an objective way of testing out suggestions: "Let's try
it and find out." And they sought out input whenever possible. Any startup
founder should be the same.

There've been plenty of times (mostly in my volunteer projects, but
occasionally in my startup too) where I implemented something I didn't agree
with just to see what it'd look like when it's done. And in a majority of
those cases, it turned out the other person was right, and their suggestion
was better than what I had in mind.

~~~
davidw
Paul says: "I had no idea the Zenters used to leave our meetings disagreeing
with all my suggestions". That's "not pushing back", and of course that
regards something more or less technical where they could have, pretty easily.
But what I think I'm trying to get at is a general world view that really has
nothing to do with YC. It's easy in SV to get kind of lost in the region's
distorted reality field, and it's healthy to get out and see something else
once in a while.

I certainly don't know PG well enough to know what he does and what he
thinks... but while I did like the recent jobs essay, I agree that there's a
hint of getting a bit wrapped up in the startup world.

But then again, it would be pretty boring to read about "different kinds of
jobs are good, and so you should choose the job best for you", wouldn't it.

------
david927
I think all of this is too simplistic. Follow your passion, and take bigger
risks while you can (because when you're older it gets harder), is great
advice. But Paul needs to understand that his passion is not everyone else's.
I know many people who found a start-up for the wrong reasons. There's a get-
rich-quick-scheme premise in a lot of Web 2.0 start-ups that I find sad. To
look down on employees is to not understand that their passion may lie
elsewhere, or that they're waiting for the right moment. I've had three start-
ups and was an employee several times as well. None of it defines me.

------
edw519
<EssayFormula>

Observe Something (mostly objective)

Generalize (subjective leap)

Expand (more subjective)

Conclude & Recommend (very subjective)

Let It Go (expose bullseye)

</EssayFormula>

Observe corporate programmers --> zoo animals = small leap

Writing about what you know ---> "Participatory Narcissism" = large leap

Funny, Jeff Atwood does EXACTLY what he accuses pg of doing, albeit with less
style.

pg is at a unique intersection to observe that which most never see. We don't
have to agree with the leap - that's what makes this a forum instead of a
circle jerk.

I, for one, look forward to pg writing about what he knows. If only others did
it as well.

------
jbyers
"Participatory Narcissism"

Never have so many syllables been used to incite so many about so little.

~~~
noonespecial
Comment++ for most original re-quote of Churchill I've seen yet.

------
andreyf
The essay does take advantage over the common "naturalistic fallacy", where
people imply something as being "good" from its being "natural". As a simple
counterexample, many diseases are "natural" and many antibiotics, not.

However, I think it's only fair that Paul's motivation for some of his essays
is, at least in part, PR work for YC, and hence the fibs (that being the
harshest word I'd use) are understandable.

~~~
asdflkj
This is not a "naturalistic fallacy" (more properly called an appeal to
nature), because PG uses "natural" in the very narrow sense of "evolutionarily
optimal". PG must have thought his target audience is discerning enough to
dereference such things without any hand-holding.

~~~
andreyf
Hm, "appeal to nature" does seem to fit the bill better, as "naturalistic
fallacy" means something slightly different:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy>

It seems funny that I trust wikipedia+random guy on the internet over my
economics professors.

------
tel
I have to agree with Atwood, sort of. I actually see it as a wider condition.

 _You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss_ has a very specific "you" in mind: the
kind of people who are aching to become founders (well, obviously). That's in
no way a bad thing, but it is worth noting that earlier essays by pg had a
wider audience.

It's not narcissism, it's focus. It's a symptom of "nearly all the programmers
I know are startup founders".

~~~
bumbledraven
I don't think so. This comment by Peter on the original article summed it up
well:

"What gets PG's goat, it seems, is that relatively privileged, smart, hard-
working kids should want to participate in this awful existence known as 'the
9 to 5', rather than strike out on their own and attempt to do something great
-- possibly something even world-changing. And watching these clones root
around some cookie-cutter downtown Palo Alto cafe performing some absurd
exercise is more than he can stand. These kids could _be_ something -- they
could _do_ something, but instead, some nutjob decided it'd be cool to send
them on some wacky easter egg hunt. They could be busy trying to save the
world, but instead, they're busying conditioning their brains to be
subservient to the dictatorship that is modern corporations."

~~~
tel
Hah, that's a great quote.

I think we're both looking at it the same way. PG is in a fantastic position
where he gets to spend most of his time around some of the smartest, most
driven, and most interesting people all the time. He loves it, and with good
reason.

His essays are targeted toward those people who could become the kind of
person he respects, and they have not a little bit of force behind them
because he believes in what he says a whole lot.

------
gruseom
Paul Graham's essays have this weird Rorschach quality whereby people see
wildly different things in them. Some readers even get infuriated and seek
relief in the judgment that Paul Graham is an arrogant asshole. But I don't
buy that. (For one thing, if he were, then this site would be more of a
personality cult than it is, and many of us would be long gone.) So I'm
curious as to why his essays have this effect on people. It _is_ the essays,
by the way. You don't hear people saying, "He sold Viaweb to Yahoo? What an
asshole!" or "He started a new kind of investment fund, the arrogant prick!"

I've got a little theory. It seems to me that the provocative thing about the
essays is their _aesthetic_. They're governed by a particular style. One
principle in it is minimalism: compress the writing until everything
extraneous is gone. Another is vividness: whatever is being said, seek the
phrase or image that throws the point into the sharpest possible relief.

The dominant quality of the essays is that they pursue this aesthetic
ruthlessly. Anything that would use a few extra words to reassure the reader
is thrown out. Anything that would tone down an idea a little bit to make it
more palatable is thrown out. There isn't any room for these things because
the author is optimizing for something else - say, meaning per word count. In
fact, an entire dimension of language, the phatic dimension, is thrown out.

So, Paul Graham's writing is radically aphatic. That's disorienting. People
are used to writing that includes, among its threads, one whose purpose is to
reassure you that the author is a nice guy, that he might be wrong, you can
still get along even if you disagree, and so on. This is not only absent from
the essays, it's been deliberately excised. On top of that, what _is_ there
has been distilled for maximum impact and often touches subjects that people
have strong emotions about, such as programming languages and what we're doing
with our lives :). Not surprisingly, some readers feel punched in the gut. For
them, an obvious explanation is ready at hand: Paul Graham's writing is like
this because _he_ is like this. He must be someone who doesn't care how others
feel and wants only to magnify his own grandiose ideas. In short, an arrogant
asshole.

I think this explains why people project so much emotion into what they read
in those essays. "Oh... you haven't founded a company? You suck." But the
essays never say anything like that. People don't read them this way because
they _say_ such things. They read them this way because they _lack_ the kinds
of things writers are expected to put in to stave off provocation. They lack
these things not because the author is an asshole but because he cares about a
certain style of _writing_. Enough, in fact, to pursue it ruthlessly... in his
writing. To naively map that back to the personality of the writer is an
obvious error, a kind of reverse ad hominem. But it's an understandable error.
There aren't many people who care that much about an aesthetic. (I mean
"aesthetic" in a broad sense, by the way. As much a way of thinking as a
cosmetic thing.)

No doubt there is a connection between an author's personality and his style,
but it's hardly an isomorphism. I don't know Paul Graham, but I know he
doesn't talk the way he writes. For one thing, one can point to examples (like
the interview in Founders At Work). For another, nobody talks like that.

~~~
pg
Wow; I think this is exactly right.

I'm always surprised by how offended people get by things I write. It seems
totally unpredictable. I didn't expect people to be so offended by this one.
In fact, I thought I was saying something rather smarmily ingratiating, if
anything: that the famous startup founders you keep reading about in the press
are not that different from you, but that they just have, in effect, a
healthier work environment. See the last paragraph.

And yet somehow that message has gotten completely twisted around. It's as if
people _wanted_ to misunderstand this essay.

I've been mulling over why this happens, and one reason is certainly the one
you suggest. I try to cut every unnecessary word, and I don't say things
unless I'm pretty sure of them. The result sounds arrogant, because it doesn't
have any of the hedging people usually surround ideas with to make them
palatable.

But there's no alternative. People won't read essays if they're too long. If
you want to get a lot of ideas into an essay short enough to read, you have to
be so curt you sound arrogant.

~~~
Spyckie
At one point in time I tried to optimize my writing style like this...

One other reason is that you have a touchy subject. Tell anyone they're doing
the wrong thing (implicitly or unintentionally) and you'll get the same
response. People are very sensitive about their own choices (stubborn),
especially ones that are hard to defend rationally (religion, major, job,
etc).

~~~
nostrademons
I do the opposite: I often purposely include phatic cruft because I've found I
can't convince people of anything without it. If you look at my comment
threads, there're whole paragraphs with no purpose other than to equivocate or
make my argument more palatable to those who would otherwise discount it. It's
good for karma, but on a strictly technical level, the writing is weaker than
PG's style.

I picked up this habit in the Harry Potter fandom, which aside from being a
community of writers also happens to be 99% female. Women's writing tends to
include many more phatic expressions, because (particularly in something as
socially-constructed as fandom) its _purpose_ is often relationship-building.
I adapted to fit in; before then, my writing style often tended to be brusque,
mechanical, and to-the-point.

I still use my old style in technical posts, where I figure the reader can
deal with any unintentional rudeness. For example, compare the last paragraph
of this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144001> to this comment:
<http://arclanguage.org/item?id=3103>

------
johns
Jeff Atwood blogging about another writer's narcissism is the epitome of
irony.

~~~
murrayh
It is pretty easy to level the "Participatory Narcissism" attack at most
people with extensive, opinionated writing.

Quite often I will look at comments I have made and reflect at how skillful I
had been (before being methodically torn to shreds by smart people), so I hope
narcissism is a common phenomenon. And I also hope (for my own sake) that for
most people the matter at hand is trying to suppress self-gratuity in their
writing, rather than not having it in the first place.

------
staunch
A lot of the comments I've read about this essay remind me of the comments on
the idea that being in the silicon valley is an advantage for startups. 98% of
the negative comments are from people who are responding defensively out of
pure emotion.

> I work with young startup founders in their twenties. They're geniuses, and
> play by their own rules. Oh... you haven't founded a company? You suck.

The guy that wrote this is saying more about himself than the essay.

------
startingup
OK, I agree with 70% of pg's essay, but here is something that worried me.
Most YC start-ups want to sell to large companies (they pay better!). Is pg
saying that they go from being free men/women to caged animals? Or is he
telling them "take your money and run?" If so, wouldn't a large company
_knowing pg's advice_ assume that people will leave quickly, so put a lesser
valuation on a deal? After all, companies like Google acquire companies like
Zenter for the talent as much as for the product. If the attitude is "take
your money and run", wouldn't that necessarily lower the value of every YC
company in the eyes of the large acquirer?

To an extent, there was always an element of start-up founders taking the
money and walking, but by making things so explicit ahead of time, isn't pg
unwittingly devaluing the very companies he has nurtured?

Second, what should an employee number 18 in a Loopt or a Scribd think? Should
they start thinking "I am not a founder, so I am missing something". Apply
this recursively ... is pg in effecting talking away the very talent that his
companies need to grow?

------
allenbrunson
i don't agree with the coding horror writer, but i think a lot of people would
agree that pg's essays tend to be polarizing.

paul's essays sometimes follow a formula. explain three or four alternatives,
present arguments for why all but one of them suck. assume the reader will go
with the one remaining option. from there, you've got another choice to make.
paul presents another three or four options, and explains why all but one of
them suck. and so on.

a lot of times, while reading, i think: hey, he's just eliminated the option i
would have taken for reasons that don't apply to me so much.

now, that doesn't mean paul is wrong. but from over here, it seems like he IS
somewhat adamant about choosing the One True Way through the sea of the
problem he's talking about. whereas other writers might emphasize things like
"you could go this way if you want this type of result," or "you could go that
way if you've got this type of constraint," etc etc. paul does that sometimes,
but his consideration of those constraints almost always leads to dead ends.
for example: so you've got a wife and kids to support, therefore you need a
steady income. okay then, startups are probably not for you, and you fall off
the edge of paul's decision tree. that's got to be maddening for people who
buy into paul's philosophy about 80 or 90 percent, except for a few details
here and there.

it seems to me like a mistake many readers tend to make. paul's not wrong,
he's just describing a path that does not fit their situation exactly.

------
aflag
I think the essay is much more about telling people they should seek freedom
than anything else. Of course, the path Graham knows is through opening a
startup, so that's what he advises you to do. It doesn't mean there aren't
other means to be free, but working for big companies doesn't look like one.
Is the author of coding horror saying it is? I don't even think so, actually.

Jeff Atwood is just ranting on Graham, but he's not telling much about
Graham's article. He just picks on things that can be seen as polemic or too
extreme and trolls away. When you read someone's opinion you have to realise
that he's talking about their experience. If Graham had said the only path to
true happiness is through a startup -- and he didn't say it like that -- you
must acknowledge that he's just saying it's the only path he knows. It's just
an opinion, it's not absolut truth. People mix those sometimes.

If Jeff wanted to be more helpful he could have told us what paths one has to
follow in order to be free. Does he think working for a big company sets you
free? Why is he just ranting instead of giving his say on all this?

------
hbien
WTF?

I understood this post about Joel:
<http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000679.html>

And this one about DHH:
<http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001065.html>

Now it's PG. I need to start writing blog posts attacking people so I can get
some more ad revenue.

------
revorad
Brad Bollenbach once wrote: "Complaining and inactionable criticism is the
highest form of mental masturbation."

[http://30sleeps.com/blog/?s=criticism&x=0&y=0&pa...](http://30sleeps.com/blog/?s=criticism&x=0&y=0&paged=4)

Does anyone other than pg even attempt to write essays?

------
Gavin
The funny thing about all this is that the main criticism of PG's argument is
that it is condescending and belittles the huge mass of programmers working
for big companies.

As with much criticism, it never quite attempts to prove him wrong. Proving
that he's offensive is a very different thing.

------
danbmil99
"I don't know Paul Graham, but I know he doesn't talk the way he writes. For
one thing, one can point to examples (like the interview in Founders At Work).
For another, nobody talks like that."

heh lol

------
Xichekolas
It seems like everyone is focusing on this 'caged lion' thing just like they
focused on the lack of unicode support in Arc at first.

You have a decently sized essay and the entire internet goes berserk over one
line. Did Jeff actually read the whole thing or did he get to the lion part,
have some overly-emotional gut reaction, and turn on the flame machine?

Talk about blowing something out of proportion.

I guess you can consider the article a huge success by the criteria of 'the
more people that you piss off, the closer you are to truth' ...
<http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html>

------
electric
So what happened to the Reddits and the Zenters?

Lions roaming free and now caged lions as well. Okay maybe a little richer
than other caged lions ;).

------
Prrometheus
There is no One Right Way. Grow up. Paul Graham is helping people by
expounding on his way. Why don't you expound upon yours?

------
lst
I never read his essays, but if anyone here is able to arc-ify them (say max.
1-3 sentences each), maybe I would start reading (the arc versions).

~~~
rms
You weren't missing anything by skipping this one. Iamelgringo's post in this
thread is much more insightful.

~~~
edw519
It usually is.

------
wumi
so Jeff went through YC? what was his startup?

