不屈不挠的足智多谋

Paul Graham 2009-03-01

不屈不挠的足智多谋

2009年3月

几天前,我终于把成为一名优秀创业创始人的素质概括为两个词:不屈不挠的足智多谋。

在此之前,我最多只能把相反的素质概括为一个词:不幸。大多数词典说不幸意味着运气不好。但词典做得并不好。一支在比赛中超越对手但因裁判的错误决定而输掉的队伍可能被称为运气不好,但不会是不幸。不幸意味着被动。所谓不幸就是被环境所击打——让世界随心所欲地对待你,而不是你随心所欲地对待世界。[1]

不幸的是,不幸没有反义词,这使得很难告诉创始人应该追求什么。“不要不幸”不是一个很好的口号。

用隐喻来表达我们寻找的素质并不困难。最好的可能是橄榄球跑卫。一个好的跑卫不仅仅是有决心,还有灵活性。他们想要向前推进,但他们会即时调整计划。

不幸的是,这只是一个隐喻,对美国以外的大多数人来说并不是很有用。“像一个跑卫一样”并不比”不要不幸”好。

但最终我找到了如何直接表达这种素质的方法。我正在为投资者写演讲,我必须解释要在创始人中寻找什么。与不幸相反的人会是什么样?他们会是不屈不挠的足智多谋。不仅仅是不屈不挠。除了在一些大多数情况下不那么有趣的领域之外,这不足以让事情按照你的方式发展。在任何有趣的领域,困难都会是新颖的。这意味着你不能简单地冲过它们,因为你最初不知道它们有多难;你不知道你即将冲过的是泡沫块还是花岗岩。所以你必须足智多谋。你必须不断尝试新事物。

不屈不挠地足智多谋。

听起来不错,但这仅仅是一般成功的描述吗?我不这么认为。例如,这不是写作或绘画成功的秘诀。在那种工作中,秘诀更多的是主动好奇。足智多谋意味着障碍是外部的,在创业中通常是这样。但在写作和绘画中,它们主要是内部的;障碍是你自己的迟钝。[2]

可能还有其他领域,“不屈不挠的足智多谋”是成功的秘诀。但尽管其他领域可能共享它,我认为这是我们找到的关于什么使一个优秀的创业创始人的最佳简短描述。我怀疑它可以变得更精确。

既然我们知道我们在寻找什么,这就引出了其他问题。例如,这种素质可以教吗?经过四年试图教给人们,我可以说,是的,令人惊讶的是,很多时候它可以。不是对所有人,而是对许多人。[3] 有些人天生被动,但其他人有潜在的不屈不挠的足智多谋能力,只需要被发掘出来。

对于那些迄今为止一直处于某种权威控制下的年轻人来说尤其如此。不屈不挠的足智多谋绝对不是大公司或大多数学校成功的秘诀。我甚至不想想大公司的秘诀是什么,但它肯定更长、更混乱,涉及足智多谋、服从和建立联盟的某种组合。

识别这种素质也使我们更接近回答人们经常好奇的问题:可能有多少创业公司。并不像某些人认为的那样,这个数字有任何经济上限。没有理由相信消费者可以吸收的新创造财富量有任何限制,就像可证明的定理数量没有限制一样。所以可能创业公司数量的限制因素是潜在创始人的池子。有些人会成为优秀的创始人,而其他人不会。既然我们可以说什么使一个优秀的创始人,我们就知道如何为池子的大小设置上限。

这个测试对个人也很有用。如果你想知道你是否是适合创业的那种人,问问自己你是否不屈不挠地足智多谋。如果你想知道是否应该招募某人作为联合创始人,问问他们是否是。

你甚至可以在战术上使用它。如果我经营一家创业公司,这是我会在镜子上贴上的短语。“做人们想要的东西”是目的地,但”不屈不挠地足智多谋”是你如何到达那里。

注释

[1] 我认为词典错误的原因是词义已经改变。今天从头开始写词典的人不会说不幸意味着运气不好。但几百年前他们可能会。过去的人们更多地受制于环境,结果我们用于好结果和坏结果的很多词语都源于关于运气的词。

当我在意大利生活时,我曾经试图告诉某人我在做某件事上没有取得多大成功,但我想不起意大利语中表示成功的词。我花了一些时间试图描述我想要的词。最后她说:“啊!Fortuna!“(运气)。

[2] 创业公司有一些方面,秘诀是主动好奇。有时候你所做的几乎纯粹是发现。不幸的是,这些时间在整个过程中只占很小的比例。另一方面,在研究中也是如此。

[3] 我几乎会对大多数人这么说,但我意识到(a)我不知道大多数人是怎样的,(b)我对人们改变的能力病理性地乐观。

感谢特雷弗·布莱克威尔和杰西卡·利文斯顿阅读本文草稿。

Relentlessly Resourceful

March 2009

A couple days ago I finally got being a good startup founder down to two words: relentlessly resourceful.

Till then the best I’d managed was to get the opposite quality down to one: hapless. Most dictionaries say hapless means unlucky. But the dictionaries are not doing a very good job. A team that outplays its opponents but loses because of a bad decision by the referee could be called unlucky, but not hapless. Hapless implies passivity. To be hapless is to be battered by circumstances — to let the world have its way with you, instead of having your way with the world. [1]

Unfortunately there’s no antonym of hapless, which makes it difficult to tell founders what to aim for. “Don’t be hapless” is not much of a rallying cry.

It’s not hard to express the quality we’re looking for in metaphors. The best is probably a running back. A good running back is not merely determined, but flexible as well. They want to get downfield, but they adapt their plans on the fly.

Unfortunately this is just a metaphor, and not a useful one to most people outside the US. “Be like a running back” is no better than “Don’t be hapless.”

But finally I’ve figured out how to express this quality directly. I was writing a talk for investors, and I had to explain what to look for in founders. What would someone who was the opposite of hapless be like? They’d be relentlessly resourceful. Not merely relentless. That’s not enough to make things go your way except in a few mostly uninteresting domains. In any interesting domain, the difficulties will be novel. Which means you can’t simply plow through them, because you don’t know initially how hard they are; you don’t know whether you’re about to plow through a block of foam or granite. So you have to be resourceful. You have to keep trying new things.

Be relentlessly resourceful.

That sounds right, but is it simply a description of how to be successful in general? I don’t think so. This isn’t the recipe for success in writing or painting, for example. In that kind of work the recipe is more to be actively curious. Resourceful implies the obstacles are external, which they generally are in startups. But in writing and painting they’re mostly internal; the obstacle is your own obtuseness. [2]

There probably are other fields where “relentlessly resourceful” is the recipe for success. But though other fields may share it, I think this is the best short description we’ll find of what makes a good startup founder. I doubt it could be made more precise.

Now that we know what we’re looking for, that leads to other questions. For example, can this quality be taught? After four years of trying to teach it to people, I’d say that yes, surprisingly often it can. Not to everyone, but to many people. [3] Some people are just constitutionally passive, but others have a latent ability to be relentlessly resourceful that only needs to be brought out.

This is particularly true of young people who have till now always been under the thumb of some kind of authority. Being relentlessly resourceful is definitely not the recipe for success in big companies, or in most schools. I don’t even want to think what the recipe is in big companies, but it is certainly longer and messier, involving some combination of resourcefulness, obedience, and building alliances.

Identifying this quality also brings us closer to answering a question people often wonder about: how many startups there could be. There is not, as some people seem to think, any economic upper bound on this number. There’s no reason to believe there is any limit on the amount of newly created wealth consumers can absorb, any more than there is a limit on the number of theorems that can be proven. So probably the limiting factor on the number of startups is the pool of potential founders. Some people would make good founders, and others wouldn’t. And now that we can say what makes a good founder, we know how to put an upper bound on the size of the pool.

This test is also useful to individuals. If you want to know whether you’re the right sort of person to start a startup, ask yourself whether you’re relentlessly resourceful. And if you want to know whether to recruit someone as a cofounder, ask if they are.

You can even use it tactically. If I were running a startup, this would be the phrase I’d tape to the mirror. “Make something people want” is the destination, but “Be relentlessly resourceful” is how you get there.

Notes

[1] I think the reason the dictionaries are wrong is that the meaning of the word has shifted. No one writing a dictionary from scratch today would say that hapless meant unlucky. But a couple hundred years ago they might have. People were more at the mercy of circumstances in the past, and as a result a lot of the words we use for good and bad outcomes have origins in words about luck.

When I was living in Italy, I was once trying to tell someone that I hadn’t had much success in doing something, but I couldn’t think of the Italian word for success. I spent some time trying to describe the word I meant. Finally she said “Ah! Fortuna!”

[2] There are aspects of startups where the recipe is to be actively curious. There can be times when what you’re doing is almost pure discovery. Unfortunately these times are a small proportion of the whole. On the other hand, they are in research too.

[3] I’d almost say to most people, but I realize (a) I have no idea what most people are like, and (b) I’m pathologically optimistic about people’s ability to change.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell and Jessica Livingston for reading drafts of this.