I feel sorry for the unnamed YC founder who looks like Mark Zuckerberg and is now learning that he has been the subject of an ongoing joke for the past 4 years. Having a startup fail is hard enough even without having people make jokes about it.
They were making fun of me for talking so much about how he looked like Zuck, not him because the startup did badly. It was arguably not his fault the company did badly; it fell apart due to a cofounder dispute.
I added more detail to that paragraph to make these things clear.
you guys know that the plastic surgeons who were telling their clients they could make them look like Zuckerberg are hoping this doesn't get out, right?
Of course the YC founders can't be fooled by someone's resemblance to Zuckerberg - we all know how silly that would be!
However, there are certainly things they would be fooled by, especially given a) the relative shortness of YC applications/interviews, and b) that they are all very smart and experienced people and as such are very likely to succumb to cognitive biases.
In fact, given the number of "10 tricks to get into YC" posts we see around YC application season (I wish my mock title were an exaggeration), I would be very surprised if there weren't any traits that did in fact fool PG et al and that could be used advantageously if one's only goal were to get into YC for the sake of it (it's very silly, but I've met many such people during my years in the startup scene).
We know that there are attributes that are good signals to them - they have said so. Examples include being a self taught hacker (preferably programming since high school), being close friends/having worked in the past with the other founders, focusing on things that don't scale, talking to the customers, etc. I would be terribly surprised if there has never been a founder who has filled all these checkboxes, made PG say "whoa this person reminds me of our past founder X, and they were super successful, of course we want them in the batch", only to have them fail miserably during YC.
So what did PG get tricked by in the past? That would be an interesting essay.
This is exactly what I'd hoped the essay would be about when I saw the title. While reading his essays about what YC looks for in founders, I've been amazed by how often I've thought to myself, "Wow! That's just like me." My rejections prove I have many faults too, and they help me to dig for them and improve.
I'm afraid that I get too excited while reading the parts that resonate so strongly with me that I gloss over important attributes where I need improvement. An essay identifying characteristics that made founders look very promising whose startups ultimately failed due to controllable variables would be very helpful for me. I'd be able to relate to characteristics I may (think I) have, and learn that those aren't enough. Or I'd learn that those characteristics are easy to mimic, that I'm not so apt as I imagine, and I'm just fooling myself about characteristics where I need far more improvement.
That detail really could have been omitted. It adds nothing and comes across as disparaging.
If pg decides to edit it out. I'm fine with this comment referencing it being deleted as well. There's no reason for that observation to persist in an article that might be linked to again every time this meme comes up.
>Could anyone be so naive as to think that resembling Zuck would be enough to make a founder succeed? And is it plausible that we, of all people, who'd interviewed thousands of founders, would think such a thing?
I think it's quite plausible that people have biases. Venture capitalists are not exempt from bias. The thing about biases is that people don't realise they have them.
I have no doubt that PG was joking, but comparing those of us that believe that Pattern Matching by VCs is still a factor in suppressing diversity in Tech, with the idiotic Birther Movement, is a bit of a reach.
Joking about someone's looks? Not like the person had much choice in the matter it seems. That's a level of superficiality I wouldn't have expected here.
Pretty much every single article written this year critical of Silicon Valley/startups/VCs has used the quote. If anything PG should have addressed it sooner.
Completely guessing here, but this feels like it was prompted by journalists pressing him about it, probably in relation to a diversity story.
In other words, they're likely using the quote as a club to hammer pg with. Maybe justifiably so, it really was kind of a dumb thing to say.
Just yesterday Jesse Jackson had an interview saying he thinks it's time for the government to get involved in tech company diversity, so there could be some more journalists preparing stories on the issue.
The issue is that I think most people did not interpret it as PG was saying. "Looks like Zuckerberg", when I first read this title, sounds a lot like "is like Zuckerberg", as in speech styles, personality and the like.
I wish PG would talk more about the cognitive bias in VCs. Too many women have to ask the question "how do I get VCs to take me seriously"
Indeed, it's a good general principle: Defensiveness never works. What does work? Counterattack.
With this post, the foundation has been laid for a counterattack. One way to do it would be to publicly name and shame any credentialed journalist who uses the quote out of context. Don't just be "curious how fixable this sort of bogus meme is"—use your formidable influence and numerous supporters to attack those who attack you.
It's sad that these sorts of responses are necessary. You'd think journalists would avoid such behavior, but you only start to notice it if you've been in the press.
Typically, resorting to misquoting and misconstruing only happens if a good counterargument to one's actual views can't be found. So I take it as an indicator of good (and possibly controversial) thinking if someone feels forced to respond in this manner.
Sam Harris has become quite experienced at handling this sort of attack, although he's had to spend significant time doing so.[1][2] Any victims of misconstruing might want to follow his style.
As Paul Graham points out, it is absurd to think that he or anybody at his firm would be swayed by someone's physical resemblance to Mark Zuckerberg. However, I have the sinking feeling that in this respect, Mr. Graham and his partners are the exception rather than the rule. That may well be one of the reasons why they are so successful. Not that I have hard data, and I'm not sure if reliable data could be obtained, but I have personally witnessed a frighteningly large number of incidents in which people were obviously influenced by the physical appearance of those whom they were tasked to judge.
I think this sort of meme doesn't require the people using it to believe that it was originally anything beyond a joke. As long as it sounds funny, that's enough.
To me it feels like he used the Obama Kenya thing as a way to keep people from quoting it. I'm not sure it will work because the birther debate hasn't gone away either.
Many more people read the headlines of hacker news than actually click the link so today they learned some sort of joke thing about Paul Graham being tricked by someone who looked like Murk Zuckerberg.
Yup, I didn't know he believed that you needed to look like Mark Zuckerberg to succeed. But now I know that he's actually quite obsessed with the idea!
