I like to think of all the things he said as stacking luck as much as you can. It will always come down to luck, but you have to be prepared to grab luck when it comes.
Not trying to be cheeky, but that you understand immediately that I’m not talking about happiness here tells you that success =/= happiness. We can argue over what we should consider successful, but in the context of what Sam Altman is saying it’s unproductive: we all know Sam is talking about professional success, and most of us also know there is more to life than professional success, but we (collectively) have been so burned out (either by not achieving it, or by missing out in our lives achieving it) chasing after professional success that have a knee jerk reaction to anyone talking about it.
I also think it’s presumptuous of us to think Sam and whoever else did pursue success ambitiously are not happy - everyone’s definition of happiness is their own.
In the end, what matters is having good friends and family, having your basic needs met so you don't have to worry about them, and having fulfilling things to do with your time. I think many people chase money/"success" because they think that's how they'll be happy, but being a millionaire probably doesn't correlate with having good friends.
“How to be successful” always struck me as the wrong phrasing. It suggests a guarantee, the way “how to make a pie,” suggests if you follow these steps perfectly, then you will have the pie they were trying to tell you how to make.
Maybe a better title for everyone that is responding negatively to this might be: “How to slightly increase your chances of success”
The saying "Luck favors the well prepared" exists for a reason. Keep an eye out for opportunities and seize them when you can, and you'll find that your chances of success increase quite a bit.
Depends in the definition of success. Most people I know consider themselves successful when they have a nice (upward) career, nice healthy and happy family, close friends, 36 hr workweeks, vacation(s), car & house and early retirement. For instance, for programmers in, let’s say the Netherlands starting out now (today) fresh from uni, there is no worries achieving that kind of success without working like a beaten horse, ignoring your friends and family, running around an office trying to make everyone happy etc. You won’t get rich but you’ll retire comfortably and will be the envy of most (which should be incredibly unimportant to anyone, but I guess people who think ‘am I successful?’ often need some kind of measurement tool).
Advantage of this view of success depends far less on luck besides where you are born (or able to immigrate to).
Yes, there is a "secret": don't learn from other people successes, learn from their failures.
However, most people will not objectively describe their failures, instead they will blame their shortcomings on other factors. Thus, to get the data to train yourself is hard.
Some people have 1, and little to no 2. Some people have 2, and have completely lost all 1, preferring to learn to love and appreciate what they have, which is great.
Some people’s 1 is shallow and fleeting and changes daily.
The ones who have both find a way to align what they like doing with what makes them money and devote more time and effort to that than anyone else. This leads to an exceptional individual, who might do something great, if they can apply their 2 to things that capitalize on their exceptionality — ultimately, they need to be exceptional enough that others recognize it and start to take on work for them / propel them towards further capitalization for their own benefit.
If you’re exceptional and no one can see it, you’ll never clear that last bar. You have to apply 1 and 2 to figure out marketing and networking and be seen, or find someone who believes in you enough to do that part for you. You might have to move. You might have to face embarrassment and/or ridicule. You will face all manner of headwinds, and most people will fail not because they don’t know the steps, but because there are some steps they refuse to take (probably for very good reasons).
And yes, I do believe everyone has it within themselves to be exceptional at something — they just need to find the right thing. Today, more than ever, exceptionality pays.
If twitch and competitive gaming had been a thing in my childhood, I’d probably be a pro gamer. I was wiring my PS2 through capture cards and uploading gameplay videos online before YouTube existed, standing out in wars against the perennial top 5 clans on the Socom GameBattles ladders. There was no money in it back then. I was just obsessed. Now there’s money everywhere, hunting for exceptional individuals who have mastered a thing, so they can convert them into more money.
In summary, be exceptional and then show people.
—— I just pulled this out of my ass, but I kinda like it. Happy to discuss and have it picked apart.
Shit, today you can literally be exceptional at showing people your path to trying to be exceptional at something else. There are loads of people doing that really well.
I sometimes wonder at the underlying cause for so many people to, seemingly intentionally, take an uncharitable view of something. It seems to just be part of the human condition, though HN is less rife with this than other places.
This post is related to the delusional discount that we all apply to luck. Luck is the by far the single most important factor in success, but observing that reality is counter productive. It keeps us working like mad and blaming ourselves if we aren't successful, but without out that delusion no one would play the game and we would have zero successful people. Humanity would suffer.
Why do you blame the VCs for the (lack of) action by the founders? The founders are responsible for taking the risk, not their mothers and not their VCs.
I think the parent is saying that VCs take advantage of this delusion and try and profit from it. VCs are able amortize their risk over many companies. If 5% hit big VC's are making money.
I really have no axe to grind, I think you are misreading my intent. Just an observation of one particular lie/distortion that humans subscribe to. It's a useful for humanity, but not necessarily for the individual. It could even be a trait that was selected for via evolution.
Sam's advice deserves more consideration than is afforded by your unproductive interpretation of the interaction between luck and success. Success is not a "lie/distortion that humans subscribe to." It's the result of a combination of hard work and clever insight to achieve a goal in an uncertain environment. Prevailing in the face of uncertainty shouldn't be discounted as luck, and Sam's post shouldn't be discounted by implying that luck is more important than everything else he had to say.
okay one more time... I am not trying to convince you to try or not. I am pointing out humans systemically discount of luck as a factor in achieving success. I suggest this might benefit groups more then individuals. And this group effect might be why this distortion persists. It might be true that the only way to be successful is by ignoring elements you can't control (like luck) and without this no one would try anything. Ask a startup what their odds of success are. I guarantee that they'll give you a much better odds vs the objective reality. This delusion has created an economic engine of high-tech startups even if most startups fail (>90%).
Imagine two people in a similar situation, except the first has been saving money and working on a side project, while the second spends their money and has no side project. They both lose their job with some severance pay. The first sees it as an a lucky opportunity to work full-time on their side project. The second sees it as bad luck. Luck is important, but we can make some of our own.
That’s not luck, though. That’s simply being prepared for a downturn.
Being prepared is important, for sure, but if being prepared always or even usually meant desired outcomes in business, our world would look much different than it does now.
I also feel that this is related to the persons point of view on the situation. If the person that lost their job with no side project but was able to spend more time with their family, I think that is a win if they can look at it from that point of view.
I feel that luck is important, but also understanding the situation fully and having a positive point of view. Basically the mental state of the person is important.
I don't think luck is the most important factor. Sure luck can and often plays a role but it's the human being who has to realize and take advantage of it. And even then, he has to put a lot of effort into his work.
Most of the luck is geographic and what country gives you citizenship. Then it's how well off your parents are because that affects your resources and access to knowledge growing up.
If those things are good from the start, you don't have to spend years correcting them.
I took a trip to Vegas once and met a cab driver from Somalia. I was surprised. As far as I understand you can't even get a passport in Somalia as there is no central government to issue them. His brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles probably aren't in America, but he made it. I don't think being hardworking in Puntland and being prepared to seize the opportunity and by opportunity I mean Oil Tanker that comes along really leads to the same quality of life as winning the genetic lottery to be born in a nice country and also having the fortune of being someone who for some reason enjoys working hard.
Luck is massive. Hardwork is also massive. Luck towers over hardwork, but if you want to be somewhere other than you are you better not be coasting.
I have definitely fallen into this. I am not religious, and I have always wanted to know the truth, I hate BS. I know most of the reason I am where I am is is due to luck.
As I get older I have come to realize this may have held me back, I see BS everywhere, it seems to drive society, you might call it belief, but I would call it delusion. The thing is if you can get enough people to believe you can get a lot done, its all about motivation.
I would prefer a society where we embrace truth above all and accept that luck is mostly what the universe is about (Quantum uncertainty, ie the universe is trying to kill you) and that the purpose of society is to reduce the influence of luck in a successful life.
The belief in a higher power would certainly help stay motivated.
Your initial dice roll is the most important factor in success beginning from t=0.
A child growing up with parents that own a home in London has a better shot in life than one growing up in the desert.
However, there are many people who grew up in a household like yours, with a talent like yours, with the level of wealth you had, and so on and so forth.
The distribution of outcomes of your adult life; e.g. the delta on that initial point; is not primarily due to luck. People don't act as if they're likely to be hit by a bus or win the lottery tomorrow, because they're not.
It depends upon how one defines success. If you mean Bill Gates or The Beatles level success, I will agree that luck plays an integral role.
If you just mean a successful career that takes care of your needs and much of your wants, provides for a comfortable life and a family, I would argue motivation, dedication and skill play far larger roles.
In fact I would say extreme success requires some extreme good luck, whereas a more "standard" success requires good luck less and is more about not having bad luck to counter your abilities.
I think you can make your own luck. Studying, moving to a high tech area, networking, working for a YC company, applying to YC all of those things increase your luckiness probability. Luck is being prepared right?
‘Compounding success (which means “growth” in the case of an early-stage start-up) solves almost all internal problems, particularly hard ones.’
I’d say that growth can compel you to ignore internal (and external) problems more than solve them. You don’t develop the right culture that can stand up to adversity or attract the right talent, your growth (and success) isn’t sustainable.
The reason Shopify is so successful is that they have 0 morals as to who they host. They run a whole slew of shops for white power/neonazi pages and don't care at all. They run shops for Rebel Media, a Canadian neonazi page, and Breitbart. If you get rich by enabling Nazis you can talk about easy working hours all you like, it's all BS.
>Getting caught up in the parts of a job that don’t matter is a dangerous trap and for some reason one that a lot of people fall into. Let other people play political games and avoid them as much as you can.
My experience at big companies is the inverse. The people who advance are the ones who spend 80% of their time focused on politics, while the heads down engineer will get a thank you and inflationary raise.
It seems to me that you have to be really good at politics in order to avoid politics. If you don’t understand politics you usually get taken advantage of. You don’t have to play the game all the time but you need to understand it.
+1. Maybe this is more important at a big company that at a startup where your business model and your tech is either good enough or it isn't. But even then you still have backers, etc.
Some people understand this stuff, and some people don't, and I don't see a lot of ways for someone who doesn't get it to become someone who gets it.
They have a lot of books on the subject. Many of the articles in eg Harvard Business Review are about it. Who knows whether someone without the natural skill will ever become great, but I am convinced it can at least be learned to competency.
No, but you need political capital even if your goal is making cool shit and not moving up the corporate ladder.
Human interaction is political - unless your work is entirely self sustaining, you have to be able to navigate the politics of human interaction. These get worse when money is involved, and all of the other competing interests at a company. I'm not saying focus on politics to the exclusion of directly productive work, but this idea that you can ignore politics and still accomplish things larger than one man projects seems incredibly naive. I don't buy for a minute that Altman hasn't engaged in plenty of politics over his career.
It seems like the kind of advice that's meant to correct against bad tendencies. I know people who'd spend 100% of their time on politics if they didn't control themselves, because their instinct is to resolve all personal conflicts they see.
“I don't buy for a minute that Altman hasn't engaged in plenty of politics over his career.”
He is probably a natural at it so he doesn’t even notice that he is doing it. Reminds me a little of Steve Jobs. He was able to cut through bullshit but he was also naturally a world class bullshitter himself.
Would you characterize his success since starting Loopt as being primarily about "working on things that matter" or strong relationship management and "political" skills? He managed to exit a failing startup with 5mil then get several much richer people to give him seed capital to invest (which he did fantastically) if I understand correctly. The man is clearly successful, but this type of maneuvering is definitely what I'd call "being good at politics" if you want to use that term.
A heads down, passion-driven, "no politics" founder would likely have gone down with the Loopt ship; Sam adroitly found a way to turn a failure into a success. That's politics.
He sold his startup at a loss to investors and walked away with millions of dollars and a plum role at YC. That’s not moving up the corporate ladder, it’s jetpacking up it.
This ignores the principle to avoid being constrained by illusionary local maxima. Why is the person still at a company where politics takes up 80% of day instead of "important" work? Although as other commentors have mentioned, climbing the corporate ladder to regional/country manager probably isn't the kind of success the author is talking abou.
Why there is politics? Because resources have to be optimized based on fuzzy future estimations and non deterministic outputs?
There is always politics but in smaller ventures its unimportant due to the bounded description of the end product and the simplicity of the teams vision.
Politics is more of an end result than a specific ooerational design of any business.
It is not that 80% is politics fir everybody but only for the decision makers with cross department visibility.
As a technical person, you have actual work to do, and you have to keep your skills current, and then you have to go to all the meetings and provide info for the non-techs.
They on the other hand, have all their time to think and scheme on how to sell themselves and get ahead. They even have time create meetings and ask for reports.
If you are a technical person you need to be will to spend as much time as they do, and forget about your technical work. You is ok if that is what you want. Otherwise you will be in the short end of the stick.
“However, they are willing to work on something for a long time even if other people don’t get it. "Important" does not mean "popular".”
I don’t like this one. On the one hand you have some people who are successful with a lot of persistence but then you have probably many more who fail after being persistent. If you win you are being celebrated but if you fail you get accused of wasting your time. I think there is a lot of luck and timing involved when people succeed after working on something for a long time.
I think Sam Altman is a smart guy and he's definitely an example of someone who has met with success but I don't know that he's actually had a 'career' yet. That being the case, I'm going to take anything he says about how to have a successful career with a large grain of salt.
Wow, not one positive comment so far. I guess the American dream really is dead. Feels like Eastern Europe.
A man goes to hell and upon arrival sees two giant boiling
cauldrons - one with a large detail of devils, and one completely unattended. The man inquires about the cauldrons and a helpful devil explains: "One is a Russian cauldron, another one is American one. The American one needs serious attention, because when Americans try to escape, they all start helping each other,and it really is a bitch trying to beat them back in. TheRussian one, we just leave it alone, when a Russian tries to escape - the other Russians pull him back in.
You may well be assured Eastern Europe seems quite different at present moment from what you described now with lots of IT money pouring in nearly every single EE country, many countries tax less than 30% on salaries, and less than or around 20% in corporate tax. So maybe pick another place to relate with.
Does not being positive about the sort of self-help drivel everyone has seen a million times before equate to being "like Eastern Europe" (which is apparently based on old state propaganda in the guise of a joke)?
I'm thinking, a more accurate picture would be that the American cauldron also doesn't need any devils: the few that manage to get out will conspire to make sure the others stay in.
Most of this advice is not actionable. It falls into the category of such advice as "take breaks and have fun, but not too much" when the initial question was how much is too much. That is to say, you don't know more after hearing the answer than you did before.
I disagree, he says do things that are important but not popular. This could mean asking to be put on an older legacy project that provides a ton of value that people are scared to touch.
Part of success is choosing the right tools for the job. Twitter is not a blogging platform, and posting 15 times in a row just looks silly, imho. Link a blog FFS.
> If there is a single key to success, it is the trait of being able to make things happen in the world—willfulness, determination, execution focus, not giving up when you hit a roadblock, the ability to solve any problem that comes your way, and self-belief.
This is a great distillation of what's needed to make it in America. It's missing one vital ingredient-- the ability to take on risk, both by having the actual means (money, time) and the mental fortitude.
Wow after reading the comments I feel I should not have posted this here. This is crazy! Do some people really think he was just lucky or he just had money to try all these things. These people take real risk and are smart enough to see the world as it is. There are few things to be learned here. How does these negative comments help in any single way ?
88 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 187 ms ] threadIf you say so. Bit of a weird definition of success though, no?
Not trying to be cheeky, but that you understand immediately that I’m not talking about happiness here tells you that success =/= happiness. We can argue over what we should consider successful, but in the context of what Sam Altman is saying it’s unproductive: we all know Sam is talking about professional success, and most of us also know there is more to life than professional success, but we (collectively) have been so burned out (either by not achieving it, or by missing out in our lives achieving it) chasing after professional success that have a knee jerk reaction to anyone talking about it.
I also think it’s presumptuous of us to think Sam and whoever else did pursue success ambitiously are not happy - everyone’s definition of happiness is their own.
Bob Dylan
Maybe a better title for everyone that is responding negatively to this might be: “How to slightly increase your chances of success”
Step 1: Have a lot of money. Especially family money.
Step 2: Start a business with family money.
Step 3: Fail.
Step 4: Goto Step 1. Repeat 5 times.
...
Step 5: Maybe.. success?
Step 6: Write a book on how to be successful. Sell for $50.
Make sure your family owns Emerald mines in Afrika.
Not successful people have many problems like hunger, self-doubt, laziness, distraction.
I think first step is very difficult. Most people like me do not know what to do. What will bring success?
Is there really a secret?
Advantage of this view of success depends far less on luck besides where you are born (or able to immigrate to).
However, most people will not objectively describe their failures, instead they will blame their shortcomings on other factors. Thus, to get the data to train yourself is hard.
Desire / Curiosity is #1. (Not “I want money” — I must do X, solve Y, create Z) Discipline is probably number #2.
(This other front page article really nails the wrong kind of desire: https://www.bennettnotes.com/post/obsessed-with-success-and-... )
Some people have 1, and little to no 2. Some people have 2, and have completely lost all 1, preferring to learn to love and appreciate what they have, which is great.
Some people’s 1 is shallow and fleeting and changes daily.
The ones who have both find a way to align what they like doing with what makes them money and devote more time and effort to that than anyone else. This leads to an exceptional individual, who might do something great, if they can apply their 2 to things that capitalize on their exceptionality — ultimately, they need to be exceptional enough that others recognize it and start to take on work for them / propel them towards further capitalization for their own benefit.
If you’re exceptional and no one can see it, you’ll never clear that last bar. You have to apply 1 and 2 to figure out marketing and networking and be seen, or find someone who believes in you enough to do that part for you. You might have to move. You might have to face embarrassment and/or ridicule. You will face all manner of headwinds, and most people will fail not because they don’t know the steps, but because there are some steps they refuse to take (probably for very good reasons).
And yes, I do believe everyone has it within themselves to be exceptional at something — they just need to find the right thing. Today, more than ever, exceptionality pays.
If twitch and competitive gaming had been a thing in my childhood, I’d probably be a pro gamer. I was wiring my PS2 through capture cards and uploading gameplay videos online before YouTube existed, standing out in wars against the perennial top 5 clans on the Socom GameBattles ladders. There was no money in it back then. I was just obsessed. Now there’s money everywhere, hunting for exceptional individuals who have mastered a thing, so they can convert them into more money.
In summary, be exceptional and then show people.
—— I just pulled this out of my ass, but I kinda like it. Happy to discuss and have it picked apart.
Shit, today you can literally be exceptional at showing people your path to trying to be exceptional at something else. There are loads of people doing that really well.
Stow the angst everybody.
"Chance" encounters at e.g. a conference or a great company are far from just chance. I fear here once again the playing field is quite unequal.
Being prepared is important, for sure, but if being prepared always or even usually meant desired outcomes in business, our world would look much different than it does now.
I feel that luck is important, but also understanding the situation fully and having a positive point of view. Basically the mental state of the person is important.
Everything else is very minor but yes it makes a difference.
If those things are good from the start, you don't have to spend years correcting them.
It makes far more sense to compare amongst individuals in a peer group.
Luck is massive. Hardwork is also massive. Luck towers over hardwork, but if you want to be somewhere other than you are you better not be coasting.
There is, in fact, a central government of the Federal Republic of Somalia, and it does issue passports.
And I would add to that "...oportunity, and you act upon it". Internal locus of control fella.
As I get older I have come to realize this may have held me back, I see BS everywhere, it seems to drive society, you might call it belief, but I would call it delusion. The thing is if you can get enough people to believe you can get a lot done, its all about motivation.
I would prefer a society where we embrace truth above all and accept that luck is mostly what the universe is about (Quantum uncertainty, ie the universe is trying to kill you) and that the purpose of society is to reduce the influence of luck in a successful life.
The belief in a higher power would certainly help stay motivated.
A child growing up with parents that own a home in London has a better shot in life than one growing up in the desert.
However, there are many people who grew up in a household like yours, with a talent like yours, with the level of wealth you had, and so on and so forth.
The distribution of outcomes of your adult life; e.g. the delta on that initial point; is not primarily due to luck. People don't act as if they're likely to be hit by a bus or win the lottery tomorrow, because they're not.
If you just mean a successful career that takes care of your needs and much of your wants, provides for a comfortable life and a family, I would argue motivation, dedication and skill play far larger roles.
In fact I would say extreme success requires some extreme good luck, whereas a more "standard" success requires good luck less and is more about not having bad luck to counter your abilities.
I’d say that growth can compel you to ignore internal (and external) problems more than solve them. You don’t develop the right culture that can stand up to adversity or attract the right talent, your growth (and success) isn’t sustainable.
step 2: write bullshit blogpost/ book/ tweets glossing over your dishonesty
step 3: get followers
step 4: $$$
The reason Shopify is so successful is that they have 0 morals as to who they host. They run a whole slew of shops for white power/neonazi pages and don't care at all. They run shops for Rebel Media, a Canadian neonazi page, and Breitbart. If you get rich by enabling Nazis you can talk about easy working hours all you like, it's all BS.
Where nothing matters as long as you can laught all the way to the bank.
Also I like your random triggering strawman... Forgetting the "Don't be evil" and "Sorry we sold your democracy and we lied to congress" companies....
My experience at big companies is the inverse. The people who advance are the ones who spend 80% of their time focused on politics, while the heads down engineer will get a thank you and inflationary raise.
I avoid politics, but in a rapidly changing world politics often find technologists when others are on the side of resisting change.
Some people understand this stuff, and some people don't, and I don't see a lot of ways for someone who doesn't get it to become someone who gets it.
Human interaction is political - unless your work is entirely self sustaining, you have to be able to navigate the politics of human interaction. These get worse when money is involved, and all of the other competing interests at a company. I'm not saying focus on politics to the exclusion of directly productive work, but this idea that you can ignore politics and still accomplish things larger than one man projects seems incredibly naive. I don't buy for a minute that Altman hasn't engaged in plenty of politics over his career.
He is probably a natural at it so he doesn’t even notice that he is doing it. Reminds me a little of Steve Jobs. He was able to cut through bullshit but he was also naturally a world class bullshitter himself.
A heads down, passion-driven, "no politics" founder would likely have gone down with the Loopt ship; Sam adroitly found a way to turn a failure into a success. That's politics.
There is always politics but in smaller ventures its unimportant due to the bounded description of the end product and the simplicity of the teams vision.
Politics is more of an end result than a specific ooerational design of any business.
It is not that 80% is politics fir everybody but only for the decision makers with cross department visibility.
They on the other hand, have all their time to think and scheme on how to sell themselves and get ahead. They even have time create meetings and ask for reports.
If you are a technical person you need to be will to spend as much time as they do, and forget about your technical work. You is ok if that is what you want. Otherwise you will be in the short end of the stick.
I don’t like this one. On the one hand you have some people who are successful with a lot of persistence but then you have probably many more who fail after being persistent. If you win you are being celebrated but if you fail you get accused of wasting your time. I think there is a lot of luck and timing involved when people succeed after working on something for a long time.
A man goes to hell and upon arrival sees two giant boiling cauldrons - one with a large detail of devils, and one completely unattended. The man inquires about the cauldrons and a helpful devil explains: "One is a Russian cauldron, another one is American one. The American one needs serious attention, because when Americans try to escape, they all start helping each other,and it really is a bitch trying to beat them back in. TheRussian one, we just leave it alone, when a Russian tries to escape - the other Russians pull him back in.
This is a great distillation of what's needed to make it in America. It's missing one vital ingredient-- the ability to take on risk, both by having the actual means (money, time) and the mental fortitude.