Back in the 1960s, the Communists used to get so many votes in French elections that some people in the US worried the country would align with Russia. But as Laurence Wylie pointed out in Village in the Vaucluse (great book btw), most of the voters didn't actually agree with the Communists' policies. They were just voting for them because they worried that the dominant party was getting too powerful. Really they were voting for diversity.
I haven't quite figured out how to articulate what's wrong with this kind of thing, but it's somewhat similar to Fox news -- they're not simply useless, they're corrosive.
I'm still trying to think of a better explanation. Disagreement is fine and good, but this kind of thing is something else. The 37signals posts do a good job of presenting an alternate perspective, but in a way that is generally positive and helpful.
Your stated aim for the constituency of the news.yc community is "the 10,000 best hackers and nobody else". If you achieved that aim, you'd have a monoculture. It would be a slightly different monoculture than the current one and less in your image, but a monoculture nonetheless. If it's even possible to move away from monoculture without moving toward Digg, I don't think it's worth the risk of trying.
You will probably agree that there are far more compelling objections to the ethos of Hacker News than this article.
Even invalid criticism warrants a proper rebuttal, if at the least to educate those leveling the criticism as to their errors. The fact that it has risen to top stop this morning only serves to illustrate that there are many things about the YC process that people don't particularly enjoy.
Why those things are either a) misunderstood or b) essential to the process is the way to properly comment on the article.
EDIT: Wow, look at the downmods! So much for discussion being valued!
- People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
- Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
- They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic; [sic]
- They get a new identity based on the group;
- They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream
culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.
So it looks like we have a broken test function. (Though perhaps it's just missing a type-check -- maybe it's only supposed to be applied to religions.)
Anything from starting a family to funding a company to joining a professional sports team.
(except maybe "They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled." but I don't see how startups are isolated and have their access to information controlled.)
This isn't cult behavior, but it passes that test. The difference is that it's temporary behavior. You might work 60-80 hours a week for the first few months, and then you're back to semi-normal schedules except during crunch times. No doubt if you asked this family member, they'd have stories of these crunch times where they had to burn the midnight oil for a good bit.
"Scale" is exactly the right word -- Apollo didn't happen because one person worked more insanely hard than anyone else had worked in the history of the universe. It was a large project with a lot of people (and a lot of science). Yes, a lot of them worked hard. But please, measure effort on a human scale. It doesn't matter whether you're starting a company or developing a new technology for space travel -- if you're pouring your whole life into it, the same psychological conditions can apply.
My comment just pointed out that the definition of a cult used in the blog post falls down badly when applied to famous successful projects (which we can presumably agree were not cults), and is therefore either being misused or broken.
Well, its all good.
I'd like to solve the money problem as well, but unless I use my money for unselfish purposes I'm not going to pretend that I have higher ideals than others who are seeking for money.
Clearly he does not know many actual participants. Working 18 hour days for two months is not the norm.
I think it's safe to say that this guy took it a bit out of context.
I interpreted the statement literally too.
So, what exactly is the norm? What we hear from blog entries and the like is that you're all working from the time you get up to the time you fall asleep clutching your laptops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Definition_according_to_se...
"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."
For and exhaustive list, see here: http://rickross.com/sg_alpha.html
This is no laughing matter. People's lives are ruined by cults, and even if taken away from a cult, their effects linger.
Come on in and drink the Kool-Aid. Or, more accurately, the Goya.
Hi, I'm currently in YC for the summer. Although I certainly don't speak for everyone in YC, I think I'm somewhat more qualified than the author who has never been in the program and who apparently receives his information from blog posts and hearsay.
Most of his assertions apply to startups or any intense forms of collaboration (as PC noted) in general. Although we work a significant amount of hours, it's not as if we never get out. I've gotten to know many of the other cofounders very well outside of YC. Additionally, is it really work if you enjoy what you're doing? I rather work 60-80 hours per week on something I like that challenges me, than 40 hours per week on something I'm disinterested in. As for the pure speculative, link-baiting stuff:
"Young, impressionable and inexperienced entrepreneurs are willing to sacrifice their health, happiness and creativity while pursuing wealth." This is the second company I've started. It's my business partner's second as well. Many of the founders in YC have worked at startups or run their own businesses before.
Happiness/Creativity? I went from working a 9-7 office job I wasn't interested in to working on my dream project.
Health? Due to increased schedule flexibility, I've actually been able to exercise more and eat better. I've lost a good 5 lbs.
"They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic..." You should have been at my team's first meeting; it was like this, but the opposite. Informal founder feedback sessions have been similar. The carebear environment the author described wouldn't work anyway - the VCs would destroy us.
"They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled." Isolation? My parents just visited this past weekend. I still keep in touch with all of my friends even if many of them wear the hat of beta tester. If anything, I've been able to keep in _better_ touch with my friends because they're all curious about what I'm working on. Talking about a startup is a lot more fun than talking about a 9-5 or 9-7 for that matter.
Without YC I'd still be at my same old job trying to work on our startup on the side. This is not only difficult to do, but very slow as well. YC essentially moved everything up a year or two and allowed us to work on what we love while being surrounded with a bunch of brilliant people to bounce ideas off of and anxious investors to present to. What more could two cofounders originally from Ohio ask for?
</tongue-in-cheek>
Actually most accounts of actual cult experiences describe a never-ending cycle of harsh criticism intended to break down the followers sense of self, followed by love from the charismatic leader.
So, to an extent you're validating what Daniel is saying.
Any elite group is going to have some cultlike qualities. The real hard part comes when you are attempting to determine if you are benefiting from the emotional programming you are receiving, and if not when you should leave.
I really doubt that YCombinator is a cult, if it were you'd see the leadership ordering founders to give up their own projects and work on projects the leadership favours and ratcheting up the share of equity demanded, and generally see people getting taken advantage of. And if it were seriously going wrong you'd see ostracism and megalomania.
ragerageragerage
Want to work independently in some capacity or another on a programming project but I don't really seem to be brimming with ideas.
Any particular ways you utilize to be inspired for project ideas?
If the startups we funded were run by the kind of people who'd feel at home in a cult, they'd get creamed as soon as they hit the real world, and our returns would be terrible. A regular company could tend toward the cultish and succeed (some technology companies show signs of it), but a venture firm couldn't be, because its startups would lose in the market.
or even 2008, ie Cuill. I suppose it's all about feeling you can do something better and believing in yourself enough to prove the doubters and incumbents wrong, at the same time attracting like-minded folks into the fold.
You've written about the need for working long hours, but aren't Michael Parkatti and Mike Marrone taking it a bit too far?
All of that being said, ever since I've been a founder (and especially during YC), I've noticed my work time shooting off the charts compared to how I used to work for other companies. I know why this is for me: it's simply because I know that every minute I'm not working is a minute that I'm subtracting from the company's success timeline. People talk about compressing your career into the span of 4 years as a founder, and yeah that's really what's going on. The reason is because if you don't work on your startup, there literally is nobody else that will. And for me, it feels like I'm costing myself money when I'm not working, and that takes a while for people like me to figure out how to balance. I have found that it gets easier after you've reached a more stable 1.0 of your product, but it's always a challenge.
I must say, though, that the idea that YC is a cult is pretty ridiculous.
The "burnout" happens when there is no reward in sight, or worse: you work hard for many months, produce good results, then your PHB shits on them for political reasons (so you wouldn't get too stuck up), or is just too stupid to appreciate your work.
I'm not a web programmer, and I tend to be very skeptical of much of what PG writes (especially the last few years), but I think independent enterprise is the way to go for the more gifted and hard-working people.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making
(No matter how fun the act of decision making is)
I sometime doubt why I've been living my life most of time by ignoring mainstream culture, being isolated from my relatives, with a few really good friends far below Dunbar's number that will help each other without questions, working 60 to 80 hours on non leisure stuffs, and living in the opposite side of the earth to my birth place since I was 15. I even joined a quasi-cult organization once to see how does it work. It has been a quarter of century and I love it. Because I do what I want to hack in my life and I learn from PG that beside that I also need to figure how to make something that people want! And I still have some chance to know some very attractive females and keeping myself fit.
At least I feel much better now because I know I can survive under inhuman conditions so I just need to persist till I get my share of glory. Of course I may die tomorrow but I didn't live a life that feel pressure from peers, pointing hair boss and failed marriages.
Of course YC is not a cult and PG is not a cult leader, but some people here do seem to treat them as such. Some of the questions asked here (like the "Is 40 years too old to start a startup" one alluded to in the original article) and some of the material posted here (like the ramblings of the poor college kid who thought being glued to a computer for 80 hours a week was a fulfilling existence) indicate that PG's message "running a startup is one of the most rewarding things you can do in your life" gets distorted in some people's minds to "running a startup is the only thing in your life that's worthwhile to do".
The irony, of course, is that PG himself, in his writings, demonstrates an interest in a lot of other things besides web start ups. It's not only PG who seems to have an unusually broad world view, however. The same holds true for a large number of the people who post here.
Unfortunately, a small number of people such as yourself seem to overlook that and reduce the message (if there is such a thing, which I doubt) to something ridiculous. The author definitely has a point there.
Did I say I glue myself 60 to 80 hours in front of computers for 25 years? I included my time thinking over ideas as work, reading books as work, congregation in cult as work. I even analyse strategic consequences of my friends relationship problems as logic and psychology exercises in work. It is really inhuman conditions because my mind has to run all the time to challenge itself without paycheck.
I see a big difference is most people thinking work/learning as slavery to the employers/teacher. So leisure time is classified as the time to avoid their work/learning. While you are working for yourself, everything you do in your life is work and learning.
But you are right that I don't care what the author said and have no intent to disprove what he wrote. I just enjoy my own way of living.
I mean, most people here realize they don't need ycomb, right? It's one of many ways to get some initial funding, but it's certainly not the only way or even the normal way. It's more of a publicity stunt for a new startup than a real viable path to large-scale funding (if funding is what you need).
Of the 80 startups prior to the current cycle (who haven't had Demo Day yet), I believe 14 have raised series A rounds so far. Probably the same number again could have if they wanted to, but either didn't want to raise that much money, or got acquired first.
Just because many, many people take pg's advice doesn't mean they aren't evaluating it. We only hear about the ones that come to the opposite conclusion (that he's wrong).
E.g. you give all your money to The Guru because that's what a loyal follower of The Guru does, and all the people you hang out with are loyal followers of The Guru. All the people you hang out with are loyal followers of The Guru because they love you so much and they have so many things for you to do together and go on all these lovely weekend retreats where you are told that if you hang out with someone who's not a loyal follower of The Guru then it would be very bad for your karma.
The unanimity and the single leadership make cults different in kind, and not just different in degree, from other kinds of organized goal-seeking human groups. And I really don't see how the cult model, seen in this way, applies to YC.
If you start disagreeing with PG in a large way, those that like him will scrutinize you and take aim as they may feel they are also being questioned. So there is a slight cultish behaviour going on with this board and maybe with its larger YCombinator fund context, but not intently by PG, he's an investor for the most part.
YCombinator as a 'startup scene' is not a cult because no harm is being done, and the absorption of minds is for the most part very beneficial. Cult leaders, I think take advantage of their own charisma to defray free choice in their environment for their own benefit. All in all, Ycombinator has a culture but is not a cult.
The notion "build something people want" I think is an ideology and ideologies are at the foundations of many cults, but cults generally have spiritual or religious overtones.
We've got to stop dumping the used ones and zeros into the oceans! It's melting the ice caps!
Really, it's the ones. It's a well known fact ones have more energy than zeros. We should right now start dumping more zeros to cool down the oceans. If we do it quickly enough, we may stop global warming. We should also switch to other binary architectures as x86 code has a one-to-zero ratio that exceeds 1.
I'm certain I read that somewhere.
http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/08summer/olympics.asp
"...Talk of "magic" swimsuits obscures the incredibly hard work swimmers such as Russell, a second-year pharmacology major, actually put in. Before I went to university it would be 20 hours a week, weights and swimming. When I went to Indiana [his first school] my training stepped up to 30 hours of weights, swimming and dry land, though that is really excessive for me. Now it’s about 18 hours..."
Not only is it fun reading a scathing criticism, (and I think he went too far in some ways and not far enough in others) the really funny part is watching the target audience digest (or rather, regurgitate) it.
There is a strange similarity between YC and a cult. You guys quote PG all the time like he's the next Buddha or something. YC is looked at as the only way towards making your startup happen. Sometimes around application time the posts get really out there as far as hero worship -- and Paul's said so himself.
Having said that, there's a LOT of dissension here as well. Lots of folks that have nothing to do with YC and just think Paul's a nice, regular schmuck like the rest of us. I know I'm here because of the crowd -- and by that I mean the larger startup crowd, not necessarily the YC bunch. This is the first board I've been on that has a long-running discussion about how single-arrow voting sucks, for one thing, or the role of contrarian comments in a healthy community.
So yeah, he's got a bit of a point. But it's mostly overblown, and I wouldn't worry about it. If you're 22 years old and don't have somebody to look up to? Then I'd start worrying.
- People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations;
- Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;
- They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic; [sic]
- They get a new identity based on the group;
- They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream
culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.
1. Young and inexperienced? That's the point. This is how you gain experience. Impressionable? Another word for "quick learners".
2. Sacrificing happiness? Not if it feels good to work on something you believe in.
3. Sacrificing creativity? Since when is it not creative to create a new business?
4. "18 hour days for two straight months" -- from the point of view of "hard work," big deal. Good stress makes you stronger. You're alive all 18 hours anyway -- if you believe in what you are doing, and you take care of yourself along the way, then all that effort can actually add to your energy levels.
5. But the key line is "if you take care of yourself." The effects of sleep deprivation (and eating shit for food) are real. If think and act as though you're invincible, you really can burn out, and that is <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=69097">a hellish experience</a>.
Yet on Hacker News, the recruiting grounds of said cult, this post (information contrary to the teaching of said cult) has ascended to the top?
You can't assume that you always have a cylinder or a cube to fit into the mold. Heck, you may end up with an icosidigon and have only a triangle to try to shove it into.
As amazing as the Y Combinator idea may sound to some, you also have to have a healthy sense of skepticism and apply it appropriately to every situation and oppourtunity that comes your way. Make it work for you, not you for it.