Paul Graham: A few words about resourcefulness (A Word to the Resourceful)

With all Runet, we have completed the translation of the book “Hackers and Artists” , now we will concentrate our efforts on translating all the essays of Paul Graham .

January 2012.
Original - A Word to the Resourceful
Thanks for the translation of finik, for the support of the publication - the company Edison .
')
A year ago, I noticed the following pattern in unsuccessful startups that we finance: it is difficult to hold a dialogue with their founders. It feels like a wall between us. I would never say that if they understood what I told them.

This phenomenon caught my attention, because earlier we noted a pattern among the most successful startups, and at first it seemed that it was of a different kind. We financed startups and better worked those whose founders we could say: “they are able to take care of themselves”. The best startups are like a self-guided rocket, in the sense that you just need to give them direction, and they will follow, no matter what the direction. For example, when they receive money, you can begin to delve into the matter, at the same time, knowing that you may not think at all about this matter at this stage. You do not need to babysit with them to be sure of the result. This is the type of founders who return to you with money; the only question is: how much and under what conditions.

It seemed strange that success and losers could be identified by unrelated tests. It was to be expected that the founders of successful startups on the one hand possessed outstanding quality X, and losers on the other hand a complete lack of quality X. Was there some kind of inversion between ingenuity and the gift of eloquence?

It turned out that this is how the old proverb serves as the key to the riddle: “For a wise one word suffices.” The fact is that this phrase is often used, and often incorrectly (usually so said, before giving advice), most people who hear it do not understand what it means. It means that if someone is wise, all you have to do is say one word and they will immediately understand you. You do not need to describe the details, all the nuances will be captured.

Similarly, all you have to do is give the right founder the right task, and he will bring in the money. Is done. Discussion of all the nuances - even the dubious moments - which they tell you, is another task, this is the task of eloquence.
Like worldly wisdom, the ability to speak well often means the need to do unpleasant things. Clarifying all the details can sometimes lead to inconvenient conclusions. Well describes the situation of failure to act the word "gap", but it has too narrow a meaning. It is better to describe the situation as follows: losers have a conservatism that comes from weakness. They cross the space of ideas carefully, cautiously, like an old street man. [one]

Losers are not stupid. They, like the successful founders, understand all the subtleties of the problem. They simply have no passion to solve it.

So, not the difficulties in the dialogue are the cause of the death of startups. This is a sign of the lack of resourcefulness. That's what's ruining them. Just as they lose the subtleties of what they are told, losers lose money funds, users, resources, new ideas. And the most obvious indication that something is wrong is that I cannot talk to them.

[1] Partner YC wrote:
When you work with a bad group, you get the feeling that when they came to the office, they had already decided in advance what they would do and how. And all that they say, they are desperately trying to adjust to the already accepted decision, or immediately reject the proposal and then look for a rational explanation for refusal. They may not be aware of this, but this happens when you talk to bad groups, they have something that closes a different perspective on the problem. I do not think that this is a consequence of confusion or lack of understanding, this is the style of work.

About working with good groups, you can say that everything that you propose is considered with a fresh look and even if rejected, then for good reasons. “We have already tried this,” “Our users say they don’t need it,” and so on. These groups never give up another view of the problem.

Acknowledgments Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, Aaron Iba, Jessica Livingston, Robert Morris, Harj Taggar, Garry Tan, who read the drafts of this article.

PS
Who is ready to help with the translation of the most recent (April 2016) article - How to Make Pittsburgh a Startup Hub ? UPD Began to translate. UPD Translated - Paul Graham: How to make a Pittsburgh start-up hub .
A candidate for another translation - The Refragmentation (Long-Long Read) and How You Know ( UPD - translated).