I'd read an article that said that for most people - their income will be very close to the average income of their 5 closest friends. Create the environment - and discipline will come on its own.
3.
Ambition either comes from having kickass heroes or from facing strong problems. England started becoming a super power only when King Henry read the book of King Arthur and his Knights of the round table. (King Arthur's story was a false story written by Thomas Malory - while in prison. A convict changed the fortunes of England which was until then a land of misfits and barbarians - by giving them a hero!)
When there is a lack of heroes, you need strong problems to build that burning ambition. Eg: how Chandragupta and Chanakya went on to unite India 2300 years ago - because Alexander threatened their existence. Up until Alexander showed up in India - no one even dreamt of uniting India...
England started becoming a super power only when King Henry read the book of King Arthur and his Knights of the round table. (King Arthur's story was a false story written by Thomas Malory - while in prison. A convict changed the fortunes of England which was until then a land of misfits and barbarians - by giving them a hero!)
I don't know much English history, but this is surely nonsense. Malory was a late compiler of the Arthurian legends, in no way their originator, and Henry V (whom I assume you have in mind?) was a generation earlier. Besides, history doesn't work this (fairy-tale) way.
You're right. I tried to cut corners and keep it short.
Thomas Malory got the legend of King Arthur from Geoffrey of Monmouth - a Welsh monk who lived in the early 12th century. Good 200+ years before Malory.
But Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was largely unknown until Thomas Malory revived it.
Thomas Malory's book Le Morte D'Arthur became a bestseller because of the right timing - Guttenberg invented his printing press at just about that time.
In either case - the Arthurian legend is entirely made up. Geoffrey of Monmouth weaved the story out of his imagination - which was later picked and spruced up by Thomas Malory.
About the King - I may have to check up on it - may have made a mistake.
Update: did some checking. Thomas Malory: 1405 - 1471.
King Henry VII: 1457 to 1509.
King Henry VII was so influenced by Thomas Malory's work that he also named his first son Arthur (but who didn't live long enough to become the next King...)
Geoffrey of Monmouth (Wales != England) did not invent the Arthurian legend, he reinvented it. The Arthurian legend predates him & appears to have been based on a 'Roman' soldier who remained in the British Isles after the first Roman invasion:
184 - Lucius Artorius Castus, commander of a detachment of Sarmatian conscripts stationed in Britain, led his troops to Gaul to quell a rebellion. This is the first appearance of the name, Artorius, in history and some believe that this Roman military man is the original, or basis, for the Arthurian legend. The theory says that Castus' exploits in Gaul, at the head of a contingent of mounted troops, are the basis for later, similar traditions about "King Arthur," and, further, that the name "Artorius" became a title, or honorific, which was ascribed to a famous warrior in the fifth century.
Thanks sharpn. I'll have to read a bit more history... thanks for the leads.
To not let my lack of knowledge take away from the point of the comment - let me reiterate:
The point is not how Arthurian legends started. The point is King Henry VII got a hero from Thomas Malory's book. And this hero gave him the ambition to change England.
What evidence I can find indicates it was actually the other way around - that Henry VII co-opted the legend to reinforce his legitimacy, rather than being inspired by it. If anything, the other part of your original point (having strong problems to overcome) is probably more apt for that case.
Anyway, your broader point of having heroes is still valid.
About point 3, I think you have cause and effect backwards, most likely your 5 best friends are either friends from college or work, or maybe neighbors.
So it's not like having wealthier friends will make you earn more money, but rather earning more money will probably lead you to have wealthier friends.
If you're in a good mood - you'll smile more.
And if you are in a bad mood - but you make a conscious effort to smile - your mood will change to become better.
Good mood leads to smiling. And smiling leads to good mood. Its circular.
Similarly - rich friends will lead you to become richer. And once you're rich you'll make more wealthier friends. It goes both ways.
What it sounds like you are saying is that it can, in the right circumstances, create a feedback loop in either direction. And you are right.
With that said, Nico had an excellent point. For most people their friends will include a peer group that almost certainly makes similar incomes to theirs, and for most people you will only really start making a lot of friends at a higher socio-economic point on the ladder when you move up to (or are in the process of moving up to) that same higher point yourself.
You're one level removed from cause and effect. Having wealthier friends won't make you wealthier by itself - but having more ambitious/hardworking friends will encourage you to be more ambitious and hardworking yourself. Similarly hanging out with athletes won't suddenly make you fit - but it will provide the support you need to pursue your own fitness goals.
You're not the only one. This isn't bad, not everyone is cut out to be gregarious...then again being a hermit isn't necessarily a winning business trait.
I am fasting at the moment from around 4am to 8pm. I was very apprehensive before I started this year as the days were longer this time round - I thought I would really struggle. However I have to say food has been the least of my worries.
It is all in the mind not in the stomach. Once you know you can't do something you don't consider it as an option. I didn't have to mentally or physically prepare I just got on with it. In the two weeks of fasting I have lost weight, I end up gorging in the evenings and find that I can pretty much eat what I want and not worry about it. For the non-religious it would be a good way to lose weight and discipline yourself (just don't call it a diet).
I do know though that if I break one of my fasts because I got hungry it will be very easy for me to break the next.
If you're talking about Ramadan, I'd say it's mostly habit reinforced from an early age.
I have lots of will power in general but limited self-control. Yet fasting is a piece of cake. It wasn't always like it. I remember when I initially started around the age of 9 I would fast till noon instead of sunset. Then gradually by the time I was 11 I could fast till sunset.
I've read in several places about monks and their years of meditating literally changes the circuits in the brain giving them hyper self-control. Check out the book Evolve Your Brain.
There is an element of habit from an early age, but I would argue that it is not the biggest factor. We only fast for one month out of 12 a year, the habit is broken for the other 11. If it was fasting day in day out from a young age then yes habit would be a big influence.
At the same time it's not random, meaning your brain knows very clearly from the get go that this is something that will be done 1) every year 2) for 30 days 3) based on moon sighting.
IMO this aids as opposed to random unpredictable nature where I pick up something, drop it then try to come back to it one day.
Additionally, I'd argue that every time I pray I am somewhat reaffirming my faith and thus fasting that is to come later in the year. Premise here that fasting becomes easy because your body is mentally prepared from years of programming and the constant reenforcing of my religious values when I'm not fasting. Remove those two elements(faith + practice) and fasting will be very difficult.
If you're "ambitious", you may be going where no one has gone before. These days, everyone knows that getting into a land war with Russia is a bad idea, but it may not have always been so. Same thing with lots of other people whose ambition caused them to push the limits (mountain climbers?). If you're at the limits, you may not know when 'determination' means pushing on despite everything to achieve some great success, and when that same pushing on will cause you to die, when turning back may have let you live to fight another day.
Not sure where I'm going with this, I guess I just like to play devil's advocate a bit:-)
It's a good essay, but perhaps what I don't care for in general terms is the vagueness that surrounds the whole issue. Some people are smart because they push on in the face of great opposition. Others win plaudits for "knowing when to quit" and changing direction. It's all a bit wishy washy, although I think that PG's elements for success are, in a generic way, about right. Just that that vagueness sort of precludes one from applying them to specific situations until after the fact.
I think that PG's elements for success are, in a generic way, about right. Just that that vagueness sort of precludes one from applying them to specific situations until after the fact.
That was my sentiment as well, after reading. Much of what is said is difficult to argue with on an ideological level; it's just that it's rather abstract.
Ok, to continue your (excellent) mountain-climbing analogy, the ultimate goal is to climb the mountain and return safely. Encountering potentially fatal difficulties near the summit will result in you turning back to retry later if you are "determined" to reach the ultimate goal. If you willfully abandon the long-term goal of returning safely to achieve the "ambition" of reaching the summit, that's reckless rather than disciplined.
Some people are smart because they push on in the face of great opposition. Others win plaudits for "knowing when to quit" and changing direction. It's all a bit wishy washy,
Its not that its wishy washy, its that one of the great keys to success is knowing the difference between the two. On the one hand, if you are on the right track you probably need to be ready to persevere in the face of enormous opposition, but if you are on the wrong track, no matter how far you have gone, change directions. Telling the difference can be quite challenging though, at least in some cases.
Exactly. It's like the old question of the difference between having an open mind versus holes in the head.
Both vary so much between even similar situations, that there is no way of knowing which side of the line cases fall on, unless they are extremely good or bad, except try it and see.
This contains some good points concerning development in dangerous areas: aviation, extreme sports, mountain climbing etc. In order to push the field forward, you have to do stuff where the risks are not known beforehand. So choosing to push in a given direction can cause great improvements in the entire field, or kill you. This is one of the reasons I will never try to become a world-class glider pilot.
In highschool there was this guy who used to study a lot. Everybody said he was studying too much, and that he needed to study that much because he wasn't that smart. Finally he graduated with one of the best averages in our class. Then he got into the best engineering school in Chile, and I remember thinking that maybe he wouldn't be able to make it, or that he wouldn't have such good grades. Well, I was wrong. He graduated from engineering with a great average.
Now I don't know where this guy is working or what he's doing, but I have no doubt he will achieve whatever he sets himself to accomplish. For me, he is an incredible example of how will and discipline got him to achieve the things he wanted.
2 other stories about this guy:
1. Until he was around 12 he was fat. Then one day, after summer vacation he came back to school thin. He stayed like that at least until he finished engineering.
2. Junior year in highschool he had the best average in the advanced math class. There was a math competition and he was not chosen to go. When he asked the teacher about this, the teacher said: "for this competition we need talent, not effort"
"Everybody said ... that he needed to study that much because he wasn't that smart."
That's a dead giveaway for a "fixed mindset" about intelligence. Studies show that people that think that effort is an indication of lack of ability will avoid effort to not look stupid, leading them to perform less well over time than those that don't have this mindset. See research by Carol Dweck et al.
This is a very common thing around here indeed, people don't like to admit to making an effort, at least regarding school, so lots just won't push harder, whereas others will just lie, saying they didn't study very much. Nobody wants to look like they made a great effort and then got an awful grade (fail).
Reminds me of one of my classmates from undergrad. We were in the same hall in the first year, then we were housemates for the next two (in the final year he went back to halls and I, ermm, dropped out). Anyway, dude was a machine. He was smart, too, mind, but he put the hours in, working late into the night studying. And during the day he dominated every class, and make it look effortless.
His elder brother was a total slacker, cared only about smoking dope, doing yoga and getting laid. So there's some nature vs nurture there.
Not necessarily. Particularly if there was a couple years between them, there might have been an element of, "I'd better study hard - I want to accomplish stuff, not just goof off like my brother". I've seen the reverse a couple times, where a younger sibling grows up in the shadow of an older sibling widely considered to be really smart, so they try to compete by being really artistic or something instead.
> A good deal of willfulness must be inborn, because it's common to see families where one sibling has much more of it than another.
This is a non-sequitur. The hidden assumption seems to be that siblings in the observed families are treated exactly the same and have exactly the same environment, in every way, which is blatantly false.
Furthermore, if willfulness is purely inborn (or genetic) wouldn't siblings be more likely to exhibit similar strengths of will, since they have such similar DNA?
In a family, nature and nurture are mixed together. The only way to separate the two components are with twin studies where the twins are raised separately.
It's also "random" (more like unpredictable) which kids receive what types of environments. Sometimes, Dad's favorite is the eldest son, sometimes Daddy's favorite is the youngest daughter.
I have a feeling that "discipline", that is, getting yourself to do things by sheer force of will, only works in short bursts. For long periods, you need create a system for yourself that takes your own weakness into account. For example, for a long time I tended to exercise in intermittent bursts. I would do it for a few weeks, then catch a cold or something and fail to pick it up again afterword. The solution to this problem was to create a schedule for myself. I wake up, eat breakfast, check the internet, work for two hours, exercise, eat lunch, etc.
Another important thing is strong principles. That is, you have to have clear, logical reasons for making the sacrifices necessary to achieve your goals. Every time you're tempted to do something other than pursue your goal you're going to have to argue with yourself. If you aren't completely convinced that what you're doing is truly worthwhile, temptation is eventually going to win.
I don't know where you got that definition of "discipline". Discipline is the development of or training intended to produce a habitual and specific pattern of behavior. There are several slight variations in the meaning of discipline, but none that comes close to its being used as a synonym for will-power.
It's interesting that Paul believes willfulness is primarily inborn, especially since he now has a child. How would he react if his child were to exhibit lack of willfulness (a trait he clearly admires)?
I agree that among siblings in the same family, one often observes a wide range of willfulness. However, the same family may not be as homogeneous an environment as Paul assumes. It's been shown that elite universities disproportionately admit eldest children and only children. It would seem that the differential upbringing that only and eldest children receive (in undivided parental time and attention, etc.) does result in increased willfulness, discipline, and/or intelligence.
Ambitious people often hope that their children will exceed their own levels of achievement. Empirically, it seems that there is a strong regression-toward-the-mean effect among the children of parents who have done great things. I wonder how much of this is nature versus nurture - could there be a negative effect of growing up in too rich of an environment that diminishes one's chances of becoming a Steve Jobs or Paul Graham? How do you train willfulness and ambition in a child?
Now, PG argues that discipline is an important component of determination. For startups, determination is called "the most important predictor of success."
In the earlier essay, these comments were made:
Now I know a number of people who do great work, and it's the same with all of them. They have little discipline. They're all terrible procrastinators and find it almost impossible to make themselves do anything they're not interested in. One still hasn't sent out his half of the thank-you notes from his wedding, four years ago. Another has 26,000 emails in her inbox.
I'm not saying you can get away with zero self-discipline. You probably need about the amount you need to go running.
PG, does this difference in opinion represent increased wisdom due to the experience gained from doing YC rounds? Or is it simply a nuanced or superficial difference?
I talk about this in the last two paragraphs. You need more discipline in a startup, because you have to work on what other people need rather than what you want.
If we assume the best case is when what you want to do also solves a need for other people and the worst case is when a need is solved for other people but is something you have no desire to do, where do you see most startups falling on this spectrum?
As a grad student in math, i would say that determination still plays a important role. For me, there have often been periods where you lose motivation and dont see why you are doing what you are doing, and then sometimes there are moments of clarity. (someone aptly compared this to mountain climbing). I imagine this happens in lots of other fields,(music, to pick a random example) where there is a prequisite of learning lots of arbitary things before understanding/creativity happens. Determination, is what you might need to to go through these phases.
I agree. I had a problem with this specific claim by PG:
"Most people would agree it's more admirable to be good at math than memorizing long strings of digits, even though the latter depends more on natural ability."
Surely determination plus the right mnemonics can help anyone memorise long sequences of digits. I would have thought that reasoning creatively, carefully, and abstractly - i.e., mathematics - requires more natural talent, or at least a predisposition, than wanting to memorise digits.
I agree with you about PG's claim. Memorization might appear to depend on natural ability as much as success depending on intelligence. To me, PG's one statement there contradicts the rest of the essay.
As for creativity, reasoning, abstract mathematics, I don't think those have innate factors. If anything, the only thing stopping people from becoming exceptional in those fields is the belief that they cannot improve (== lack of determination).
I certainly hope you are right. I am just starting my own graduate studies in math, but having limited apparant innate abilities in mathematics I am counting on practice and study to correct that deficiency.
This has got to be, in my opinion, my 2nd favorite PG essay, right after the 'How Not to Die' essay.
So here in sum is how determination seems to work: it consists of willfulness balanced with discipline, aimed by ambition.
The essay is probably meant to help investors pick good investments. But I say that founders can use it to help pick good co-founders, as well as improve themselves. I would love to read more on things/characteristics about a person that might give evidence of a person's willfulness, discipline and ambition, or lack thereof.
Like most essays of philosophy, this seems to stop at the formation of the hypothesis. And while the model is interesting, it's still important to ask "does it reflect reality?". To answer that, we need to quantify "discipline", "determination" and its sub-components. And then, see if they really are good predictors of successful founders?
It's hard; that's our biggest problem. It's straightforward to tell in a 10 minute conversation how smart someone is, but very hard to tell how determined they are. When we pick wrong it's almost always by misjudging determination.
Whatever qualities the rich may have, they can be acquired by anyone with the tenacity to become rich. The key, I think, is confidence. Confidence and an unshakable belief it can be done and that you are the one to do it.
I think that last part is key. Determined people feel an obligation to succeed. Most feel like the opportunity is theirs to lose and not gain. Here are some behaviours I've noticed when speaking to technical people that I think are determined:
1. They speak calmly -- almost without emotion -- about their plans, even while responding to criticism. I think this is because they've worked out all possible scenarios in their head so many times before that spouting off about them one more time is just rote exercise. It's almost like they're an objective third person describing the plan.
2. They confide in others about their vulnerabilities and weaknesses. I think determined people are just confident enough that they aren't over-confident. Over-confidence is what differentiates a determined winner from a stubborn loser.
3. They never settle when it matters. We all went to school with the guy or girl that scored an A on a test and threw a fit because they wanted an A+. You never get the sense that they're satisfied until the goal is reached. Most people think this is all a show, and that these determined types are rubbing their noses in the average folks faces. That is not the case at all. The average folks don't matter to these people. They never enter the equation.
Other than these 3 things, I'm hard pressed to think of other characteristics. I've seen quiet determined people, loud mouth cocky ones, and everything in between.
This is purely anecdotal but, most of the people I've met perceive a ceiling to their own potential. But, I know of less than a handful who refuse to accept the existence of a ceiling and as such nothing will stop them. I'm not claiming it is a cause of determination but it is at least a factor and I argue it is a feature found in most founders in your set of successful startups (accounting for dumb luck and randomness by not saying all founders).
May I ask if there is an upper bound beyond which you start worrying that a candidate is too determined?
Any component of your formula could be very large/small resulting in large values of Determination.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that burn-out and flip-out become more problematic; also in some proportion to both wilfulness, ambition and the difficulty of the challenges.
I agree it's very hard to tell if someone has the determination and focus to succeed. One thing you can do is to look at past accomplishments, challenges, hardships and most importantly failures that they've encountered in the past and how they were able to overcome or cope with it.
determination is a tricky thing. but i think there's also the ability to 'program yourself' to be determined. this usually means figuring out how to make whatever project you're working on fun -- and figuring out how to make sure the projects you're working on now and in the future are at least related to some long-term interest.
great discussion though. there is probably a 'language' of determination. and more efficient ways of being determined than others. i mean determination etymologically is related to a terminus or boundary. it is literally the ability or quality of getting to a boundary.
so if we infuse the meaning of determination with the idea of getting to a successful terminus -- we're referring to the ability to get the transaction done. in the case of startup space, one has to analyze what are the common set of obstacles that prevent getting the transaction done.
well (1) the manner in which the final terminus needs to be renegotiated as the project changes and competing views about the desired end result are brought into view -- so negotiation of the final result is key. (2) taking advantage of previous solutions, not reinventing the wheel but (3) not using any wheels which are limited or limiting and (4) spending maximum time and energy on the specific product.
but i think the most important thing is to regularly analyze whether or not one is on the optimal path to one's goal (first-round funding, e.g.) and also whether one can make the process of the development so bloody fun that one wants to spend as much time on the project as literally possible.
the most undervalued link in the whole network of the problem space is between the founders and their problem space. i.e., figuring out how to spend as much time as possible in your REPL, with your design diagrams, or otherwise amongst your code.
and now, i am just going to press 'add comment'. but yeah, nice article.
An interesting second-derivation of this is with co-founders. Two (or more) people who share a goal can spur each other on via internal competitiveness & a symbiotic pattern of compensating for dips in the other's discipline or willpower. For example I'm sure neither Lennon or McCartney would have achieved half of their combined output.
Determination is great for investors because it increases the chance that they'll get a return. But the number of great ideas is x, and having a bunch of companies bound and determined to do something with x * 100 is relegating them to living under a horrible opportunity cost -- eating ramen for a subsistence profitability level when they could be doing something more interesting and profitable.
A company needs to eventually have an idea that's both unique and compelling. It should optimize on having a sustainable competitive advantage. Determination is incredibly important because few companies start out with the right mix and usually have to experiment to get it right, but let's not over-idealize it. All the determination in the world won't let you make a cake with sand and olive oil. A founder has to know "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em."
"When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water. Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they'd get from ambitious peers, whatever their age."
I've had the opposite experience, depending on what kinds of personalities are involved. Sometimes when you put several ambitious people together, they all destructively interfere with each other with the strength they radiate, particularly if they're young and inexperienced.
Ambitious people are almost always more granular and more preoccupied control freaks than people who are less ambitious. That can be a problem unless they are also diplomatic, pragmatic and wise.
This has been my experience as well. Their ambitions must align, at least somewhat. If ambitious person A wants to go one direction and ambitious person B wants to go another direction, it probably won't work. But being around other ambitious people at least gives you the opportunity to meet someone with ambition and goals that align with your goals.
I think if you read the article again with categorizing all things into symptoms and cause, you'll get better understanding. Most people confuse between two and try to instill symptoms into themselves and mostly end-up at wrong end. You cannot simply say that from tomorrow I'll be more determined on my goals. There has to be passion, love and solid drive for what you do, as mentioned at the end of article. I think veterans and people who have been constantly successful at what they are doing would agree that love for what you do is an important component to success otherwise you will simply run out of your breathe by constant push without any passion.
This is a very interesting essay because for the first time pg explicitly states that even if you find something you love to do, it doesn't completely do away with the need for determination. You have to make up for the diff between your love and your users' needs.
You have to try and minimise the need for determination by finding something you love to do.
But to find what you love in the first place, you need determination, mainly in the form of discipline else there's the danger of wasting away from lack of willingness or being too willful for one's own good.
There's some recursion going on here. Need to think this through to get my head around it.
>>> There's a third factor in achievement: how much you like the work.
There is a lot of weight in this statement. My mantra has been "love what you do and do what you love". It has definitely served me very well and has been a catalyst for my determination. The other important aspect is your company to which PG alluded via "ambitious peers". Positive and intellectual energy around you is a great fuel for determination.
Not really. He says it's possible to become more disciplined, but there's no support for that in the text beyond just the statement. On top of that, there have been all these HN links about how the traditional ways to make oneself disciplined only serve to make the willful types less likely to do them. Nothing kills one's desire to accomplish something more than trying to force oneself to do it.
Offtopic: my surgeon dad always says medicine is over 50% determination. And in fact if you are too smart, you will probably quit and opt for a supposedly more rewarding, less painful profession.
Out of my own curiosity: why's medicine painful and unrewarding? I would have thought most non-medics believe it's one of the most rewarding professions to be in, along with nursing and teaching.
Worth reading. I don't like the word "determination" because it feels too heavy to me; too much of grim-faced men in it. But I think PG is at least close to the right idea.
I'd say that sense of moral obligation to achieve -- tied in with making things better or removing an evil -- can play a large part in ambition and determination.
Loved it when you said "Ambitious people are rare, ... When you take people like this and put them together with other ambitious people, they bloom like dying plants given water. Probably most ambitious people are starved for the sort of encouragement they'd get from ambitious peers, whatever their age."
IMO, Ambitious people are like power engine or say running water - its a old saying that running water never stops at any hurdles, no mater what - they pass thru huge mountains and forests - if a ambitious person loves what he/she is doing then nothing can stop him/her - you can see the fire in their eyes to succeed, the ambition and love for their work itself becomes determination ...
Easy way to become better at controlling will power is controlling your diet. Yep - glucose increases will power. http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/11/4/303
2.
"Environment trumps discipline"
I'd read an article that said that for most people - their income will be very close to the average income of their 5 closest friends. Create the environment - and discipline will come on its own.
3.
Ambition either comes from having kickass heroes or from facing strong problems. England started becoming a super power only when King Henry read the book of King Arthur and his Knights of the round table. (King Arthur's story was a false story written by Thomas Malory - while in prison. A convict changed the fortunes of England which was until then a land of misfits and barbarians - by giving them a hero!)
When there is a lack of heroes, you need strong problems to build that burning ambition. Eg: how Chandragupta and Chanakya went on to unite India 2300 years ago - because Alexander threatened their existence. Up until Alexander showed up in India - no one even dreamt of uniting India...
4.
I think what is missing is luck - which can also be hacked somewhat. Book: The Luck Factor: The 4 Essential Principles: http://www.amazon.com/Luck-Factor-Four-Essential-Principles/...