Dichotomies are such a cliched way of getting attention. In this case, though, it was barely necessary.
The thesis: "People who risk things to create are neat."
Okay, cool, just roll with that. I completely agree! But this rhetorical nonsense where we divide up the world between people who found a business and those who don't is so trite as to be exhausting. In truth, there are dozens or hundreds of types of people in the world. Some are starving, some exist under the thumb of dictatorial thugs, some are oblivious to greater than bronze age technology.
A precious few win the ovarian lottery in such a way that they can start a business.
Or not.
Now, just because rhetoric isn't strictly true doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. But when it's strictly dull, relative to the nuanced and fascinating reality it supersedes, meh, you're just posting for the sake of posting. Do better for your readers and yourself.
Creating an "other" is the oldest, cheapest tribalist trick in the book. Maybe you score some points with everyone on the side you're glorifying but no one learns anything.
Agreed. This post is disapointing and not a worthy HN submission IMHO. Even putting aside the silly title and rhetoric, the idea behind the post is still lame.
I can give up just about any web site I use daily with little disruption to my life. No matter how much blood sweat and tears it's creator has put on the line.At the end of the day, they are just web apps. They are not important to me, like say, my garbageman coming every week is important to me.
To classify people who start companies that build web sites as being superior to others in any way at all is laughable. (I make web applications for a living).
To classify people who start companies that build web sites as being superior to others in any way at all is laughable. (I make web applications for a living).
He didn't mention "companies that build web sites" or call anyone superior.
You need to practice reading between the lines. That's pretty much what the entire post was about.
No.
Believe it or not, there are entrepreneurs who do other things besides make web sites. If you think this post is specifically about web startups, you're missing the point. Moreover, attacking it on that basis makes zero sense.
Meanwhile, you and some others are projecting the "superiority" bit onto the article. The fact is, people have pretty much zero idea what it means to start a company until they've actually done it. Doesn't mean founders are necessarily superior, but it is what it is.
I don't understand why this is controversial. I don't get defensive when people say "either you've run a marathon or you haven't" or "either you've climbed Mount Everest or you haven't." I haven't ... so what? I don't get flustered and try to deny that they've got a shared experience that not many others will fully understand.
I wasn't talking about the website part, hence the partial emphasis of the quote.
Who said I was being defensive? I haven't started a company, but I watched my mother self-start a bookshop and publishing small business while raising me, so I'm aware of the risks.
The article is basically saying that self-starters have something no-one else has, and that makes them superior.
Thing is, he isn't saying "either you've run a marathon or not", but "either you've taken these amazing risks and that says something about you as a person". Which is fine (as I said, I'm not defensive about it) but it is pretty strongly implying superiority. Given the number of "hear hear!" comments to the post, it's pretty clear that the crowd also thought so.
Hell, even people who would utter something like "two types of people: either you have or haven't run a marathon/everest" are implying some form of superiority. The same as the vietnam vet who says "You weren't there, maaan!". It doesn't mean that the comment is invalid, but I'm just recognising that the article is self-congratulatory.
Chris just described me. Figuratively speaking. If you're bootstrapping a startup solo, you will realize it's a super lonely road and you just can't get enough of these "pick me ups". It's motivational and inspirational to me, and people like me. If it's not to you, then I guess this piece wasn't written for you. But it was written for me.
Is it just me, or do other people get put off by the "There are two kinds of people in the world" articles where there is an implied moral superiority simply from what you may have or have not done.
For any 2-way choice or state of being, there of course will only be two types of people in the world.
"There are 2 kinds of people in the world: Those with 5 dollars in their pocket, and those without."
"There are 2 kinds of people in the world: Those who are me, and those who aren't."
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who know binary, and those who don't."
Unless you've actually started a company, this will sound like a bunch of crap.
I think other quantum leaps would be having your first kid, facing a really big fear, fixing the relationship you have with members of your immediate family (if you havent talked in a while), going out kiteboarding/windsurfing in huge wind and waves when you've never done that before ... etc.
The experience gives you a new perspective on yourself and the world around you that you just cannot fathom from the place you were before you made the leap.
> Unless you've actually started a company, this will sound like a bunch of crap.
My mom, with little more than a GED, started the business which fed me for most of my childhood. I cut the salary cord and tried to make a go of it myself at 24 years old, facing down much fear. I failed. It was fucking awesome and I'd change nothing.
So with that experience in mind: it's still sounding like crap, per my post above. I appreciate the celebration but would prefer to share it with many other kinds of people, not least of which the few decent people who made it their business to teach me important things.
There are many kinds of people in the world and this is hardly the most interesting razor to use to divide them up.
> There are many kinds of people in the world and this is hardly the most interesting razor to use to divide them up.
I think people who start something and really go all in, they are really worth celebrating.
Infact more than that - they need encouragement and in this piece Dixon lets them know that they should try even though they may be surrounded by smug detractors.
> I think people who start something and really go all in, they are really worth celebrating.
I think that too. But I also think that it isn't dichotomous and treating it so is cheap writing. This isn't a celebration so much as it's a creation of an "other".
Also worth celebrating? Teachers. Epidemiologists. Successful parents. Fred Rogers.
Celebrate people, by all means, but don't let's pretend that there only two kinds of people and only one is worth celebrating. Humanity is so much more interesting than that. Celebrate entrepreneurs on their own merits without false divisions and the resulting essay will be so much more interesting - guaranteed.
Not sure what your point is. I'm not threatened by the fact that I don't know anything about, say, fighting a fire.
Either you've risked your life jumping into a burning building to save lives or you haven't. It's true ... and I haven't. I'm not defensive about it and I don't feel like someone who says that is denigrating what I do for a living.
Sure, the "either you've X or you haven't" construction is a little trite, but so what? Why are you so bothered by it? Seems like threadcrapping all over an inspirational article.
> Why are you so bothered by it? Seems like threadcrapping all over an inspirational article.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. So there's that. And myopia bothers me — this article smacks a bit of the Valley/tech circlejerking that ignores the larger world, which is exhausting after awhile. And I'm gratified to not be alone in that; this thing was flagged so hard it dropped like a stone. So there's hope.
> Either you've risked your life jumping into a burning building to save lives or you haven't.
And an essay with that angle would be similarly lame, I assure you. It's just an awful thrust because it's not interesting. It's an obvious statement that leads to hagiography through false contrast. Ultimately, that's a disservice to the exalted subject because you could make the point much more effectively by simply sharing authentic enthusiasm.
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who mostly consume, and those who mostly create. I committed myself to being the latter. How you go about doing that is just details.
There's some negativity about this post, but in no way is he bashing non-entrepreneurs. He's just saying if you have the guts to put it all on the line, then win or lose, that's still a big deal, and don't worry about the non-entrepreneurial critics.
Agreed. This narrative that entrepreneurship necessarily must be this ascetic, consuming lifestyle really bothers me. I think it can also be done in a more measured way that's less black and white.
On a separate note, I'm surprised by the tone of some of the comments in this thread. Nothing in this article should make you feel angry and defensive unless you're bringing your own issues to the table ...
There seems to be a lot of mythology around the ascetic entrepreneur. My experience is that many founders begin startups from a place of financial strength. They either made money as employees of other startups before starting their own (after the startup was funded, greatly reducing risk), made money in industry before starting their own company, had a large inheritance, etc.
Does anyone have any concrete data on the finances of entrepreneurs when they start their first company, especially successful entrepreneurs? This study is the closest data I could find. http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/FactSheet/EduTechEntr1...
It states that most entrepreneurs are older (median age 39) and have college degrees, often from good schools, and often advanced degrees. This suggests that they may have quite a bit of reserve cash to maintain much of their lifestyle, and/or a working spouse that helps do the same.
I grew up poor, extended family scraped some money together (plus me working) to put me through college, worked at a software company for 6 years, saved up, and now I'm burning my savings every day bootstrapping. Here at Hacker Dojo, every day someone walks in the door, and I hear a similar story. That's my experience. Which is clearly the opposite of yours.
The thesis: "People who risk things to create are neat."
Okay, cool, just roll with that. I completely agree! But this rhetorical nonsense where we divide up the world between people who found a business and those who don't is so trite as to be exhausting. In truth, there are dozens or hundreds of types of people in the world. Some are starving, some exist under the thumb of dictatorial thugs, some are oblivious to greater than bronze age technology.
A precious few win the ovarian lottery in such a way that they can start a business.
Or not.
Now, just because rhetoric isn't strictly true doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. But when it's strictly dull, relative to the nuanced and fascinating reality it supersedes, meh, you're just posting for the sake of posting. Do better for your readers and yourself.
Creating an "other" is the oldest, cheapest tribalist trick in the book. Maybe you score some points with everyone on the side you're glorifying but no one learns anything.