[dvt]

I think this premise is reinforced by pg in several of his essays, so it's weird to see such push-back here on HN. Blind faith seems to be, by and large, necessary, especially when fighting against colossal odds (as is often the case in startups).

This kind of "insanity" is the precursor to the relentless determination one needs when leading a scrappy team of underdogs. Pragmatism and level-headedness sound good on paper, but borderline irresponsible risk-taking is what, at the end of the day, gets rewarded. There's no way to convince anyone -- potential employees, co-founders, investors -- without a cult-like aura. If you'll allow me some hyperbolic flair, startup founders are prophets.

[JasonFruit]

Is it possible that the attitude expressed in those essays stems from what is good for founders in the aggregate — that is, pg's pocketbook — rather than what is good for any one particular founder?

[mikekchar]

I think there may be another way to look at it (even though I'm not actually a massive fan of the way VC works). The "if you don't play, you can't win" argument is a fool's errand if your chances of winning are miniscule. However, if you've already decided to play you're going to need an attitude that ignores your tiny chances of success -- otherwise you are likely to get disheartened and quit.

[JasonFruit]

That's a reasonable interpretation. If you play, you probably won't win — but if you're going to play, give it all you've got.

[wtvanhest]

Your question is fair, but I believe a little misguided.

On one hand, VCs like YC need founders to build companies in order to get excess returns for their LPs.

On the other hand, founders still need to take excessive risks to start a company. Then they need to execute against incredible odds.

I say this as someone who left my job in 2014 to start a company. 14 months later it was over and I'd say that I set myself and family back substantially in the process from both a loss of cash to also a slower career path.

I don't regret the decision, but it does take excessive risk to launch.

[JasonFruit]

I'm not exactly certain if your reply addresses my distinction between what is good for the entire body of founders (and the VC's who invest in them) and what is good for each individual founder. To the extent that it does, I think your anecdote illustrates that blind hope didn't offer you any particular benefit.

[wtvanhest]

I'm saying that starting a company requires massive risk, and you should have irrational hope to attempt it. Its good for both founders and VCs.

[nine_k]

I think it's like a lottery. The rational move is not to play: it prevents you from nearly guaranteed losses. It also prevents you from hitting the jackpot.

Obviously, when you interview those who hit a jackpot, they will tell: buy more tickets! Believe blindly in your luck! This is what worked for them.

The trick is that you don't interview much those who kept failing, either by following the scenario, or by deviating from it. They are more numerous but less interesting.

Definitely, running a startup is not pure lottery, execution matters a lot. It's more like poker: a good player will win more often, but you always can do everything right and still lose.

[abhinai]

Which pg essays?

[dvt]

http://www.paulgraham.com/startupideas.html

> "Live in the future, then build what's missing."

http://paulgraham.com/swan.html

> "The fact that the best ideas seem like bad ideas makes it even harder to recognize the big winners."

[scottlegrand2]

Speaking from multiple direct experiences, simply living in the future and building what you perceive as missing does not necessarily end well.

I have lived this multiple times and I have delivered working products (why one of them is in production at Amazon but deprecated because of internal politics). For there is an inescapable political/sales dimension to this that separates a good execution from a successful good execution.

I am beginning to give up on the latter. I would love to know how to close the gap here but I suspect I will retire before that happens. One only gets a finite number of shots to succeed and the magazine is close to empty in my case.

[GavinMcG]

> does not necessarily end well

Well, no. No one is saying that blind faith is sufficient, and that a good outcome necessarily follows.

Blind faith is necessary, along with many other things, and even then there's no guarantee of success.

[scottlegrand2]

I'm going to disagree somewhat. I've seen too many people work inside FAANG and perceive what they're missing and then leave to build it for them and get acquihired back in a year or two after their departure.

This does not require blind faith. This requires a degree of empathy to the frustration that their staff is undergoing but for which they don't have the leadership to address, and I guess some faith that you can build it for them, but definitely not blind faith because the evidence is staring you in the face.

I'm kind of sick of living in the future personally. I wasted way too many years on that. YMMV.

[Mirioron]

I think the blind faith is less about whether they can guess what's needed and more about always portraying confidence and saying that you'll succeed. How seriously are you going to take a product when the CEO of it sounds hesitant or sounds like he's hedging his bets? If you know a lot about the field then the honesty might be refreshing, but if you don't know much about the field then it won't seem appealing.

[justinclift]

Maybe explore the political/sales dimension before plowing into the next product?

[abhinai]

I cannot see blind faith mentioned anywhere in these essays. I can also not see it mentioned anywhere that you should not spend any time questioning your idea in the initial stages.

It is likely that you misunderstood PG. He is merely saying that even with all the work, you won't always be right in picking an idea. However, this does not imply that you should put no work on it and start acting on blind faith. In fact I am pretty sure YC does not fund teams who haven't spent at least some time analyzing their idea.

[paulsutter]

The latter quote is about having a unique insight, not blindly charging into bad ideas. I can’t see any possible connection between the first quote and blind faith.

[dvt]

The latter quote is about bad ideas and good ideas being virtually indistinguishable in the early stages. The corollary is that to move forward towards execution, (blind) faith is required. This is also why YC invests in people and not in ideas -- pivots happen all the time.

[Farradfahren]

I have seen reasonable people when they try to copy this. Endless back and forths over a idea, risk analysis after risk analysis, hours after hour, and then finally, they do not take the leap, or withdraw midjump, and use that experience to justify the absence of further attempts.

If you want to hire at a startup, check for a mad-prophet-yes, but also check wether he rules unchecked- as in - is there someone to stand up to him execution wise. Otherwise, the good start idea might be sunk by lots execution novelties. Usually, after the first great leap is done, there is also a silent take over by someone who is better able to manage "dull" execution of standard tasks, necessary for the novel idea.