Hacker News Reader

>From minute one it was a series of arrogant and condescending statements after another. Their ideas were nuggets of golden insight and my (far more educated in many instances) responses were dismissed out of hand.

This is exactly what pg is saying; you don't seem to be considering that you are "difficult to talk to" at all. YC's behaviour is irrelevant to analyzing your chances of success.

You might (and probably are) correct about each particular statement. However in business, successful people will take what they have learned - after all, it worked - and apply it to your problem, often in very arrogant or seemingly condescending and possibly incorrect ways.

Instead of focusing on the statement, digesting it from their angle and replying, you are focusing on how it was said, assuming authority and dismissing it; a combative rather than an intuitive, "learning" stance.

You may be right. You may be wrong. The whole concept is that this is irrelevant to thesis - which is that people like you tend not to succeed as startup founders. It's perhaps ironic that YC founders would probably be in this failing group with their current attitudes. (I don't know, I've never met them, it's also possible that in a different context, they alter their approach.) It doesn't refute the point however.

It's the humility and resourcefulness that leads to success; the idea that you never fully understand your problem scope and that further knowledge can come from anywhere, including ideas previously dismissed. People that adopt this mindset tend to do well. That's what pg is saying in this essay.

I think it's just as likely that only founders who fit that behavioral profile tend to do well in YC. Assuming that YC is representive of the world would be a mistake. There are a great many startups created differently outside YC that are very successful.

I also find it hard to imagine a lot of the most successful people I've known fitting this profile. Some maybe, but not most. In fact it's a profile, that as you point out, pg himself certainly does not fit.

I think your comment would be much stronger without this statement:

But you have to consider: would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs really have smiled and nodded or would they have said "What the hell are you talking about, that's stupid." (We know what Jobs would have done anyway.)

That's a straw-man argument. pg didn't say or imply that they want people to "smile and nod" or who don't challenge them when they're wrong, you said that.

I've had over a dozen meetings during which my cofounder and I have challenged things pg has said. But we listen and try to understand what he says first.

YC wants people who are flexible and who will honestly consider feedback, but they don't want sycophants.

EDIT: Typos.

The purpose of the interview is to find people who will make good founders. It is not a salon for intellectuals to sit around and be "comfortable debating and discussing ideas in an extremely logical and thoughtful way". It's closer to a boxing match. We're definitely not looking for people to "smile and nod". In fact, we sometimes make misleading suggestions in order to see how founders respond, so simply agreeing with everything is definitely not a winning strategy.

"In fact, we sometimes make misleading suggestions in order to see how founders respond"

Wait, really?... Being intellectually dishonest is not cool. If you cannot figure out the winning strategy without lying then you're not trying hard enough.

Asking questions where you are honestly open to consideration even though it seems wrong, that's great. Knowingly making misleading suggestions isn't.

I think that's what distinguishes street smart from book smart. Running a startup is like fight a war, not pursuit of intellectual truth. Or you can say YC has its own "Kobayashi Maru".

I mean "misleading" as in "leading in the wrong direction", such as "have you considered doing X?", where X is something that I think is a bad idea. If they agree with every I idea I have, then they will even agree with bad ideas, and won't make for a very effective founder (because the reality is that investors will make all kinds of dumb suggestions).

The idea that you would make intentionally make misleading suggestions certainly would explain a lot. I was actually expecting that to some degree. I think what confounded me so much is just how ridiculous the statements were and how many there were.

At one point I was reduced to essentially defending the very idea of startups and technology innovation. In the stress of the moment I also assumed like the comments were made sincerely (call me naive) so I did my best to pick my jaw up off the floor and explain why they were wrong -- only to be cutoff half way into a sentence. Rinse. Repeat.

When I say I'm "comfortable debating" I don't mean that I need to be comfortable while debating. I grew up with lawyers in my family and in a household where heated debate was part of our every day life. I've worked with some extremely smart and opinionated people. I love a vigorous debate about topics I'm passionate about (like startups). No one who knows me would say I'm a pushover, and most would agree I'm very open to sound logic and evidence.

I think if there's one thing that felt very different in my YC experience it was the intentionally misleading statements. I really am not accustomed to arguing with people who repeatdly make disengenous statements just to judge how I'll react. It's one thing to take an arbitrary position and defend it, it's another to just throw out random misleading statements. To me that would seem to only muddy the waters.

I'm sure I could learn to play that game. Maybe the best founders are great their first run. For all I know I was judged okay on that front. I don't really know.

I do know though that one would learn a lot more about my ability to think by restricitng the conversation to an honest debate of the relevant issues.

Again. I respect all of you guys and know you're good people and ridiculously smart. I'm not making any judgements on that account. One of the reasons I find YC so amazing is that you don't have to be "someone" to get in. It's not an old boy's club. It is disappointing to me to see that tinge of VC arrogance in the interview process, which is why I point it out.

I've never been even a fly on the wall in such circumstances, so I can't comment on the accuracy of what you are saying but look back to the text... "Like real world resourcefulness, conversational resourcefulness often means doing things you don't want to". I think what could be taken from this is, those that are resourceful find a way to get from point a to point b, and while communicating with arrogant or difficult people is never easy, there are ways to handle the situation to get a desired outcome--sometimes you just have to push your own ego aside, and give them what they want. It's kind of like when you get into a trivial argument with your loved one, and just to end the fight you cave in, and tell them what they want to hear, just so you can get back to the good times.

I really like the questions you ask yourself, it's an interesting exercise, but maybe you could add, "How can I get better?" That's what I ask, because I feel like instead of growing from your experience (You made it to the interview process at YC! That's an accomplishment!) you kind of seem a bit bitter--even if they are arrogant, and I really hope they aren't, don't let it affect you. Be better. And do you know what? It sounds like you're a smart guy with the ability to make some really interesting things in life, you've got no reason to be bitter. Don't sweat the small stuff, just be better.

Could you please share some specific details?

Your reply is the best comment in this discussion, because it demonstrates what PG is talking about and tells the story from the opposite viewpoint.

Being firm in your position and rooted in your values, while open to suggestion is different then being combative. When you come into an interview thinking "I'm gonna show these guys they can't push me around because I am smarter than them" you are hard communicate with. That is not to say that you have to know the answer to every question. When you come across a tough question, you have to answer it with either facts, or from the position of "these are x scenarios we are researching now to figure out the best answer to this question, this is what we found so far."

Bottom line, you first need to appreciate the opportunity of even getting an interview and when it starts speak truth, speak slow and be real.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a planted post based on real thoughts and observations designed to get feedback. YC is clever that way. Part of the process is meant to be chaos in my opinion, at least the interview. If you cannot handle 15 minutes of Hell's Combinator, what will happen when your company faces significant challenges that could determine the life of your business? That is not to say YC knows it needs and is trying to get better. It is so much more than a snapshot. Certain situations require certain action and are designed to get a certain type of result.

>I think there's a very real danger you guys aren't hearing stuff like this because who in their right mind would tell you and who would you listen to?

Tons of people have told him he's a pompous blowhard. The problem is that the answer to the second half of your question is "nobody". Paul's ego does not allow him to listen to anyone. "I was lucky once" is his standard reply to any form of criticism or questioning of his "wisdom".