I can't tell if this is literally talking about people who compete in physical activities or not. I feel like you could replace every instance of the word "athlete" with "ninja" or some other term and it would make just as much sense. Am I missing something?
Same here. I'm pretty sure he isn't talking about actual athletes, but is using that term to describe "self-directed generalist workers", because that's the only way the text makes sense.
But then the whole issue is confused by "athletes" being a a terrible term for "generalist" because while real athletes are certainly self-motivated, they tend to be extremely narrowly focused on a very specific role in a very specific activity (with a few exceptions that prove the rule), which doesn't mesh well with what the article is saying about hiring them as generalists for startups.
The definition of "athlete" as it is used in this article is most popular in college football. There are a variety of set positions (jobs) in football and each player generally only plays one or two positions. The term athlete is used to describe a player who doesn't have one particular set position. This is either because of their versatility or a lack of any specific specialized skill. More often than not, a player will be labeled an athlete as they enter college but will quickly be assigned a position in order for him to focus his training.
The idea is that athletes are rawer, more malleable, more flexible, but riskier and generally less skilled (therefore probably cheaper) employees when compared to true specialists. This makes them good hires for startups.
The article could have benefited from actually saying this.
One of the decisions we made early on was to only hire athletes. Metaphorically speaking, that is. I don’t mean athletes as in people who play sports. Athletes, as in people that can play any position within your startup. It means someone is first and foremost a generalist. They are guys that think and act like founders because they’re not so locked into one individual role that they lose track of the wider needs of the company. They have lots of good skills that can be applicable all over the company but may not be the very best at any particular one skill.
So no a ninja would not necessarily be a generalist if we were to talk about ninjas...
Yikes this is a bad article. The author makes no connection to how the attributes he describes are more commonly found in athletes. What makes them generalists? Why are they adaptive? Why are they 'makers'?
And even worse I think he missed a good opportunity to talk about what kind of attributes an athlete may bring to the table in general, or specifically at a startup. Attributes I have noticed:
-An ability to take criticism. Usually coaches don't hold back telling you what you're doing wrong and how to fix it. I've had a lacrosse coach go through every player on a team and publicly tell them what they do poorly. I'm not saying that is the best coaching style, but it gets you used to handling criticism and responding to it.
-An ability to face failure. At one point or another everyone fails at sports. Usually it happens a lot. Being able to respond and grow from those failures can be really important, especially at a startup.
-Competitiveness. Obviously by competing a lot athlete will have a desire to win. In addition, I've found they have a "do anything to win" attitude that can be great at a startup when you need people to fill in rolls that may not be glamorous or cool but are integral to success
these attribues aren't only found in athletes, but I have found them more often with athletes more than the general populous
I don't understand why so far (6 comments) people are commenting seriously on this essay.
This essay looks like a somewhat mechanical prank to me, as if someone decided to:
1. Assemble generic hacker news style article about why hackers are good. For example, "Hackers are always making things, they can't help themselves". [RE-EDIT: This is an actual quote from the essay, except that the word "athletes" was used instead of "hackers".]
2. Make it stupid by substituting "athlete" for "hacker". Maybe they thought this would be an obvious absurdity because they think hackers are "nerds", and that "nerds" and "jocks" are obvious opposites?
3. Make it slightly less obvious by dressing it up with a little extra athlete-related stuff, like the cartoons about athletes.
I would also like to suggest that "Jason Freedman" is an obvious parody substitution for "Jason Fried." Also, "42floors" <--> "37 signals" [EDIT: My God, it turns out these are supposedly a real person and his real company. Coincidence, or convenient choice to surf on the influence of similarity?]
My take: do you spend too much time reading "Hacker News", so hurriedly that your credulity muscles get too much exercise?
Nothing you say here is substantiated. Why is it bad to laud hackers? Why is the term "athlete" more "stupid" than "hacker?" How do sports cartoons make the "parody" less conspicuous?
On you final note, both 42floors and Jason Freedman are real entities:
I don't understand why you think the name Jason Freedman is suspicious. The name Jason is common. The name Freedman is common. God forbid they appear in tandem and vaguely resemble the name of another entrepreneur.
This piece doen't read as a prank in any discernible way. It might be preaching to the choir to an extent, but it's not suspicious.
There's nothing inherently bad about lauding hackers. But the essay as published said, "Athletes are always making things; they can't help themselves". That makes no sense. What makes some sense is if someone started with text about hackers, and substituted the word "athletes".
The term "athlete" is not a stupid term. But substituting it for "hacker" sometimes produces absurd results.
This metaphor will probably fly over most people's head.
It makes perfect sense to me if you can imagine the progression of a beginner entering any sport
When you try to become more athletic do you shoot more free throws or run more passing routes ? Neither. Your goal is to build a strong foundation in strength, speed, agility, and power up to an elite level and then specialize once you've decided what sport or position you want to play to tailor your training appropriately.
"Metaphorically speaking, that is. I don’t mean athletes as in people who play sports. Athletes, as in people that can play any position within your startup. It means someone is first and foremost a generalist. "
12 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 33.2 ms ] threadBut then the whole issue is confused by "athletes" being a a terrible term for "generalist" because while real athletes are certainly self-motivated, they tend to be extremely narrowly focused on a very specific role in a very specific activity (with a few exceptions that prove the rule), which doesn't mesh well with what the article is saying about hiring them as generalists for startups.
The idea is that athletes are rawer, more malleable, more flexible, but riskier and generally less skilled (therefore probably cheaper) employees when compared to true specialists. This makes them good hires for startups.
The article could have benefited from actually saying this.
One of the decisions we made early on was to only hire athletes. Metaphorically speaking, that is. I don’t mean athletes as in people who play sports. Athletes, as in people that can play any position within your startup. It means someone is first and foremost a generalist. They are guys that think and act like founders because they’re not so locked into one individual role that they lose track of the wider needs of the company. They have lots of good skills that can be applicable all over the company but may not be the very best at any particular one skill.
So no a ninja would not necessarily be a generalist if we were to talk about ninjas...
And even worse I think he missed a good opportunity to talk about what kind of attributes an athlete may bring to the table in general, or specifically at a startup. Attributes I have noticed:
-An ability to take criticism. Usually coaches don't hold back telling you what you're doing wrong and how to fix it. I've had a lacrosse coach go through every player on a team and publicly tell them what they do poorly. I'm not saying that is the best coaching style, but it gets you used to handling criticism and responding to it. -An ability to face failure. At one point or another everyone fails at sports. Usually it happens a lot. Being able to respond and grow from those failures can be really important, especially at a startup. -Competitiveness. Obviously by competing a lot athlete will have a desire to win. In addition, I've found they have a "do anything to win" attitude that can be great at a startup when you need people to fill in rolls that may not be glamorous or cool but are integral to success
these attribues aren't only found in athletes, but I have found them more often with athletes more than the general populous
I don't understand why so far (6 comments) people are commenting seriously on this essay.
This essay looks like a somewhat mechanical prank to me, as if someone decided to:
1. Assemble generic hacker news style article about why hackers are good. For example, "Hackers are always making things, they can't help themselves". [RE-EDIT: This is an actual quote from the essay, except that the word "athletes" was used instead of "hackers".]
2. Make it stupid by substituting "athlete" for "hacker". Maybe they thought this would be an obvious absurdity because they think hackers are "nerds", and that "nerds" and "jocks" are obvious opposites?
3. Make it slightly less obvious by dressing it up with a little extra athlete-related stuff, like the cartoons about athletes.
I would also like to suggest that "Jason Freedman" is an obvious parody substitution for "Jason Fried." Also, "42floors" <--> "37 signals" [EDIT: My God, it turns out these are supposedly a real person and his real company. Coincidence, or convenient choice to surf on the influence of similarity?]
My take: do you spend too much time reading "Hacker News", so hurriedly that your credulity muscles get too much exercise?
On you final note, both 42floors and Jason Freedman are real entities:
https://angel.co/42floors
http://www.crunchbase.com/person/jason-freedman
I don't understand why you think the name Jason Freedman is suspicious. The name Jason is common. The name Freedman is common. God forbid they appear in tandem and vaguely resemble the name of another entrepreneur.
This piece doen't read as a prank in any discernible way. It might be preaching to the choir to an extent, but it's not suspicious.
The term "athlete" is not a stupid term. But substituting it for "hacker" sometimes produces absurd results.
It makes perfect sense to me if you can imagine the progression of a beginner entering any sport
When you try to become more athletic do you shoot more free throws or run more passing routes ? Neither. Your goal is to build a strong foundation in strength, speed, agility, and power up to an elite level and then specialize once you've decided what sport or position you want to play to tailor your training appropriately.
"Metaphorically speaking, that is. I don’t mean athletes as in people who play sports. Athletes, as in people that can play any position within your startup. It means someone is first and foremost a generalist. "