This article made me nod and shake my head. I agree that so many people incorrectly think you need an "awesome, completely original, patentable idea" to start a business when you don't. However I disagree that all endeavours that do not push the limits of science should ever be labelled "stupid". Selling bowling balls (an example in the article) might not be academic, but clearing a million dollars in profit annually requires plenty of business intelligence.
It depends on what brings you inner satisfaction. Is it the "stupid" idea (I personally wouldn't use the word stupid) that brings you $$$ or the smart idea that keeps you up all night trying to figure out a solution?
I would state that simplicity does not equate to stupid, maybe less exciting, but not stupid: "Simplicity is boring, complexity entertaining."
Wealth is measured relative to society. Whether you create wealth in devising an innovative yet complex new device that millions of people swarm over, or in selling bowling balls to masses of people - you're still creating wealth by producing value for many or for few that control a percentage of the value of the many.
Simple things are more straightforward to create - usually, only requiring footwork and a solid foundation (generally existing already).
Complex things are not straightforward to create - usually, requiring footwork and the innovation of a foundation upon which to rest.
I don't think this is good advice, and I wouldn't advise anyone to follow in this person's footsteps.
Smart people should think about doing stupid stuff, not necessarily follow through and do it. Selling TV wall mounts online is not a very great contribution to human progress from someone who was experimenting with ferromagnetic fluids. This is advice on how to stay alive and make a living, not advice on how to achieve your full potential and help humanity.
Everything you said is true, but being independently wealthy is a good way to be able to be able to work on the "academic" problems that you want to work on. Not that he couldn't have gone the researcher route at a school or business but that does not afford one as much leeway. After the site is up and running he can hire or outsource much of the day to day stuff if he is not looking to expand much.
Stupid does not mean "not worth it". Stupid means "obvious, and often overlooked".
And plenty of "stupid" things do mankind some good. Amazon invested a whole lot in selling books online, and now they contribute significantly to our quality of life.
That said, I acknowledge in the article that there should always be those aiming higher.
If you mean "obvious" then you should use "obvious" and not "stupid" - - because they are different words with different meaning... For example, selling books online is an obvious idea, but not "stupid" and it isn't easy either. Selling books online and creating Amazon is far from a simple achievement and something you could do without intellectual power or really hard work.
No, I think "stupid" is right because it speaks to the prejudice that bright people hold against these kinds of endeavors. It is social conditioning but rarely examined as such.
...however, what is important advice, is that smart people should not do the first thing that associates to "smart people stuff", like string theory. Also don't do the first thing that associates to "altruistic" or "unconventional" or "entrepreneur". Do a smart thing that most smart people aren't doing.
Selling TV wall mounts online is not a very great contribution to human progress
You speak like a person who has never had a grant proposal turned down. Congratulations! May you continue to enjoy your life in the ivory tower until retirement.
However, for better understanding of how other people's lives work you may want to google Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where you will encounter the observation that a person who doesn't have a secure source of food and shelter often has a lot of trouble caring about their contribution to "human progress".
A lot of people will hand you money in exchange for TV wall mounts. There are a lot fewer people who will hand you money in exchange for research data on ferrofluids, and there are a lot of people in line for that money.
Selling TV wall mounts online is not a very great contribution to human progress
It doesn't seem like it is, but it may very well be a great contribution. If you make it easier for many people to find something, what do they do with the aggregate free time they now have on their hands? If you make it cheaper, what do they do with the aggregate 'unused' money? If the time and money enables yet another 'simple' contribution to freeing up time and money, then how far does this snowball roll? Perhaps it will end up freeing us to do humanitarian work, because there is really nothing else that requires our time and money?
It's a similar question to: "What most reduces human suffering? If Eliezer keeps doing what he is doing or if he goes to Africa and helps people survive in a refugee camp?" It may turn out you are wrong about everything and helping in a camp would have been better for humanity. Hindsight is 20/20 here and the scale of effects does not allow one to properly estimate them.
I think doing 'stupid' stuff to gain a first successful venture is a good strategy because it may a)make you financially comfortable and therefore can focus on difficult stuff b)give you better access to capital when doing something more difficult
Partly to self-promote but my easiest and more profitable business is a funny shirt site. http://BangBangPanda.com. I just put up the design and an company do the hard part of making the shirts, taking the payment, and shipping.
Since you've eaten some of our time with your promotion, will you tell us a little bit about the economics of your business? Are you ramen-profitable off of it? How long did it take to build? How severely do shipping costs eat your margins?
First off I don't think that doing anything with a lava lamp
as referenced in the article qualifies as "high achievement".
But the author does have a point that has been played out in business over and over and that is: Find a niche market and
do it well, become the dominating player in that niche and you
can make a good living.
I've got to agree with that, myself. I guess my point is, the chemistry that went into the ferrofluid project wasn't trivial. And I could have made many "greeting card companies" in the time it took to develop one ferrofluid company.
PG says this in one of his essays, I think the example was basically that the secret to making money is getting someone like Einstein to do something like designing refrigerators.
It works for two reasons:
1) The reward for invention and innovation is basically the same, but the ROI on innovation is 10x better than the ROI on invention. (This is one of the main ideas of Seth Godin's book Free Prize Inside.)
2) The best person in a given industry makes 10x as much as the tenth best person, and 100x as much as the 100th best person.
Thus the best way to make money is by innovating, not inventing, in an area that you are way overqualified for. It took me a long time to really understand this, but it's a lesson that's well worth learning.
There is a similar line of thought in how tech people always seem to think their startup idea has to be something completely new. It usually goes like this...
Person A: I got this great idea! If you do X to Y you will get Z which is of huge value for people working in M. Great, huh?
Person B: Yawn. Company SomeCorp did that in 1974.
Person A (spirit broken): Darn...
The idea that a new company has to come up with something completely new must be unique to our business. Even so, the number of successful web companies that did not have a unique idea when they started should be enough to kill the argument, but it lives on.
Probably because of the reason mentioned in this post: smart people just don't think it's smart enough to do something someone else has already done.
The author makes a couple of assumptions that I don't agree with.
The first is that success is measured by the amount of money you earn. For me it is much more rewarding to work on interesting and inspiring problems than having a huge income.
The second is that people that are good at hard science problems are good at solving the "stupid" problems. You need a different set of skills to solve the latter.
30 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 80.8 ms ] threadWealth is measured relative to society. Whether you create wealth in devising an innovative yet complex new device that millions of people swarm over, or in selling bowling balls to masses of people - you're still creating wealth by producing value for many or for few that control a percentage of the value of the many.
Simple things are more straightforward to create - usually, only requiring footwork and a solid foundation (generally existing already).
Complex things are not straightforward to create - usually, requiring footwork and the innovation of a foundation upon which to rest.
Smart people should think about doing stupid stuff, not necessarily follow through and do it. Selling TV wall mounts online is not a very great contribution to human progress from someone who was experimenting with ferromagnetic fluids. This is advice on how to stay alive and make a living, not advice on how to achieve your full potential and help humanity.
And plenty of "stupid" things do mankind some good. Amazon invested a whole lot in selling books online, and now they contribute significantly to our quality of life.
That said, I acknowledge in the article that there should always be those aiming higher.
You speak like a person who has never had a grant proposal turned down. Congratulations! May you continue to enjoy your life in the ivory tower until retirement.
However, for better understanding of how other people's lives work you may want to google Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where you will encounter the observation that a person who doesn't have a secure source of food and shelter often has a lot of trouble caring about their contribution to "human progress".
A lot of people will hand you money in exchange for TV wall mounts. There are a lot fewer people who will hand you money in exchange for research data on ferrofluids, and there are a lot of people in line for that money.
Philip Greenspun says this very succinctly in his article about why there aren't women in science.
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
It doesn't seem like it is, but it may very well be a great contribution. If you make it easier for many people to find something, what do they do with the aggregate free time they now have on their hands? If you make it cheaper, what do they do with the aggregate 'unused' money? If the time and money enables yet another 'simple' contribution to freeing up time and money, then how far does this snowball roll? Perhaps it will end up freeing us to do humanitarian work, because there is really nothing else that requires our time and money?
It's a similar question to: "What most reduces human suffering? If Eliezer keeps doing what he is doing or if he goes to Africa and helps people survive in a refugee camp?" It may turn out you are wrong about everything and helping in a camp would have been better for humanity. Hindsight is 20/20 here and the scale of effects does not allow one to properly estimate them.
But not everyone cares to be intellectually stimulated to be happy.
It works for two reasons:
1) The reward for invention and innovation is basically the same, but the ROI on innovation is 10x better than the ROI on invention. (This is one of the main ideas of Seth Godin's book Free Prize Inside.)
2) The best person in a given industry makes 10x as much as the tenth best person, and 100x as much as the 100th best person.
Thus the best way to make money is by innovating, not inventing, in an area that you are way overqualified for. It took me a long time to really understand this, but it's a lesson that's well worth learning.
http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/bronze.html
Person A: I got this great idea! If you do X to Y you will get Z which is of huge value for people working in M. Great, huh?
Person B: Yawn. Company SomeCorp did that in 1974.
Person A (spirit broken): Darn...
The idea that a new company has to come up with something completely new must be unique to our business. Even so, the number of successful web companies that did not have a unique idea when they started should be enough to kill the argument, but it lives on.
Probably because of the reason mentioned in this post: smart people just don't think it's smart enough to do something someone else has already done.
The first is that success is measured by the amount of money you earn. For me it is much more rewarding to work on interesting and inspiring problems than having a huge income.
The second is that people that are good at hard science problems are good at solving the "stupid" problems. You need a different set of skills to solve the latter.
You really think a brilliant physics PhD can create a network that gets 1,000,000$/year in bowling ball sales ?
Or maybe that PhD should go and work as a lawyer, with his brain he can be the best lawyer ever !
Or he can do what he loves, and if money is an issue, work _in his field_ on something he understands and can contribute to.
Please don't send our PhDs to mend shoes. No matter how good they are at it.