[hi]

> "The persistent are attached to the goal. The obstinate are attached to their ideas about how to reach it."

I didn't know what the word "obstinate" meant so here you go: "stubbornly adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion."

While PG's quote suggests a clear distinction, it's overly simplistic. Persistence and obstinacy often overlap in practice, sharing traits like energy, imagination, resilience, good judgment, focus on a goal, and listening intently. The issue is that "reason" can be subjective. For example, Copernicus and Galileo were considered obstinate for his heliocentric theory, but history proved him right. This shows that the line between persistence and obstinacy is often drawn in hindsight.

Referencing the Collison brothers highlights a bias towards successful YC alumni. It would be more telling to classify current batch founders as obstinate or persistent and revisit their success in a decade.

[stale2002]

> While PG's quote suggests a clear distinction

No it doesn't. The essay includes multiple parts talking about how the things are related, similar, sometimes indistinguishable, and also that it can be a spectrum.

In fact, arguably the entire thesis of the essay is how the two traits have both similarities and differences and that it is complicated.

[Vegenoid]

> Persistence and obstinacy often overlap in practice, sharing traits like energy, imagination, resilience, good judgment, focus on a goal, and listening intently.

Obstinacy is defined by a lack of imagination, good judgement, and intent listening.

> For example, Copernicus and Galileo were considered obstinate for his heliocentric theory, but history proved him right. This shows that the line between persistence and obstinacy is often drawn in hindsight.

History didn't prove them right, science did. The fact that people considered them obstinate does not mean that they were. The only future where they would still be considered the obstinate ones is one run by obstinate people. They had the evidence, which was ignored by obstinate heliocentrists. Heliocentrists did not have convincing reasons for their belief that Copernicus/Galileo ignored.

[w10-1]

> Obstinacy is defined by a lack of imagination, good judgement, and intent listening

I think that may be a mistake.

Any value strategy that is primarily conservative (e.g., protecting sunk or resource assets) will be obstinate. That doesn't make it slower or stupider.

So oil and timber companies and monopolists et al will keenly monitor opposition and respond immediately and deftly -- with reality-avoidance. As will individuals who are primarily guarding something they feel is at risk of being taken away.

They have the same or more intelligence, judgment, and active listening; it's just that their strategy is not creation or innovation.

Indeed, in a fair fight the innovator will lose to the conservative, because it's just plain harder to make things happen, particularly when it involves convincing others to change their patterns or minds.