​​Startup Narcissism
​​Let's illuminate toxic behavior for what it is, to help people protect themselves against it. (No, trying to change the instigators won't work, but we can keep draining their supply.)
​​ 
​​My theory: All the *isms people accuse 'tech' (startups especially) of having are not causes, but symptoms. The deeper problem: Narcissism.
​​ 

​
​How would you describe the startup industry?

​​Like this, perhaps?
​​ 
​​Nota bene: grandiose negative self-images can often be a sign of depression, not narcissism. Never, ever judge on this alone. However, depression does not make a depressed person use other people like objects.
​​ 
  • ​​Full of grandiose claims — e.g. "disrupt the x industry," "change the world", "rockstars", "eating the world", claims of special insight or ability, holding themselves up as the ideal example, startups can/will do anything better, conflating temporary diversions with systematic change,  etc…
  • ​​fantasies: consumed with images or tableaus or mental montages of being the star of achievement or success; for some reason the startup industry has seized less on the fantasy of brilliance, wealth and admiration as Changing The World (which is itself an grandiose thing to admit to wanting to do, much less to claim you are already doing)
  • ​​…the opposite of reality: typically the more grandiose, the less competent, because grandiosity is a sign of being incapable or unwilling to judge work (especially one's own work) on an absolute scale 
  • ​​equally grandiose, but negative: whipsaw self-image, "if my startup doesn't take over the world, I'm worthless", "this idea is the best, i'm the best; it's shit, i'm shit", "the world is against me", "nobody can see my genius", "nobody understands me"  
  • ​​subtly grandiose: 16-hour work days, "I'm so important I have to make every decision personally", "if I can weigh in on you with my judgment, that means I am above you", "only I see things how they really are", "only I am brave enough to say what everyone else only dares to think", "work more, cry less"
  • ​​grandiose belief in their ability — did they make a successful app? well, they are now totally legitimate experts on the economy, governance, education, interpersonal relationships, and nutrition
  • ​​story spinning: turning a regular story, e.g. "something annoying happened to me" or "I had to shut down my business because it didn't make money" into an epic tale with heroes and villains, and of course, blame
  • ​​Superficial, self-congratulatory — will take any "win" at all, as long as it looks good — e.g. pitch contests vs acquiring customers, feedback from peers on your app instead of feedback from would-be customers 
  • ​​perverse incentives: will aggregate the appearance of "wins" at any cost, e.g. celebrate the exact opposite of a "win," claiming that it is, in fact, a win, and that they wanted it all along and you should want it too ("celebrate failure") 
  • ​​Exceedingly self-referential — relabeling everything as "hacking," must be rebranded for startups, citing only other startup industry members vs the broader history/world of business
  • ​​Very concerned with labels — people very deliberately label themselves with the in-group by use of "hacker," "founder", etc; people with other labels are thus devalued
  • ​​Focused on reinforcing image — people can "look like" (or "sound like") founders, "hackers" in regular employment are like "caged lions," "real entrepreneurs do/don't do x"
  • ​​Incredibly destructive in defense of image & labels — all narcissists have is their grandiose self-image, so if you are perceived as threatening that with your words, deeds, results, or existence… prepare for war.
  • ​​"a real ________": from "real men don't eat quiche" to "real feminists do/don't x" to "traits of true entrepreneurs" — real startups take funding, real founders work 16 hour days — a sign of preferring image over substance, caricatures over individuals, and also the grandiose feeling of being qualified to sit in judgment; 
  • ​​fetishization: turning things into symbols with power far beyond their actual relevance and/or perverting their original purpose in order to use it like a badge of identity; there's nothing wrong with using or enjoying things… but when they are used like duplo blocks to build an identity there is a problem. (related: over-personalizing, hero worship)
  • ​​example: holy wars about platforms, programming languages, frameworks, business structures, "the internet" etc., all spawn what looks like insane behavior… but it's "sane" (at least, coherent) when you realize it's because those people are threatened not only by others who "attack" their their fetish objects, but also by anyone who doesn't "like" the fetish object (or like it enough), or give it the same significance as the narcissist… because to the narcissist, it is an attack on them
  • ​​example: using a personal choice like a limited wardrobe color palette, minimal belongings, tracking data about one's self, hours worked, etc., for more than just discussing the benefits or costs of those choices… to use these irrelevant details to build up an image of moral superiority and fitness to rule in a totally different realm (e.g. if you are exceedingly tidy, that gives you authority on being tidy, but not startup authority; if you have raised money, you may be good at raising money, but that doesn't qualify you to design an economic system)
  • ​​Hero worshipping — heroes are seen not as people, but avatars, manifestations of the narcissist's own desired image; by worshipping heroes, the worshippers feel as if they get to take on that success themselves; ergo, if you attack a hero, you attack them; expect retribution
  • ​​example: when Paul Graham writes "I am a bad speaker, ergo being good at public speaking = you must be bad at having ideas" (paraphrase) or "I can be tricked by anyone who looks like Mark Zuckerberg" (direct quote), you will find many ardent defenders of these totally illogical statements who will spin extended narratives not supported by the original text (or even its author) to explain what he "meant" or how it might "make sense" 
  • ​​Shockingly unaware of the larger world — due to self-involvement, disinterest in other people (objects) and history, and grandiose ideas about themselves and their choices (e.g. their chosen field, an identity proxy)… which manifests in a lot of statements/beliefs such as 
  • ​​"people still use x?" 
  • ​​"nobody pays for y"
  • ​​"everybody will want z…"
  • ​​"why don't you just …?" 
  • ​​"this has never been done before" (and yet it has, many times)
  • ​​"I'm going to kill _____" 
  • ​​"meetings are toxic"
  • ​​"management layers are worthless"
  • ​​"you can't possibly mean/believe/feel that…"
  • ​​Consumed by an ouroboros of its own needs — next up: an app generator for generating app generators for the local shareconomy! an app for laundry pickup! an app to collect your apps!, etc., a spiral of navelgazing is the logical extreme of "scratch an itch" (see also me-izing below)
  • ​​Viewing other people as mere objects, tools, stepping stones — whether cofounders they stab in the back, employees they use & abuse, people who "aren't like them" whom they denigrate, or "users" whose best interests they violate
  • ​​relationships: if people are just objects, you aren't concerned about your relationship with them, or need to spend time with them unless they are reinforcing your self-image or giving you what you want; another facet/reason for workaholism
  • ​​stereotyping: if you do not see people as individuals, with differing histories, desires, feelings, skill sets, but only props in your movie… you can only see stereotypes (e.g. typecast characters, potentially identified by superficial features such as appearance or accent)
  • ​​me-izing (vs otherizing): while some narcissists seem to have enough empathy to know exactly how to hurt people the most or make them believe a lie, the knowledge appears to be situational, because the same narcissists may seem to have little to no conscious knowledge of other people's actions, behaviors, beliefs, etc., they assume everyone is like them (e.g. the racist who doesn't realize his nasty jokes will not go over well in company; the manipulator who stabs you in the back "before" you stab him in the back; "you would have done the same")
  • ​​para-ego defense: defending other people (props) as a proxy for defending themselves; see hero worshipping
  • ​​Over-personalizing — acting as if they believe that everything must be / is about them, including everything you do, the way the world works, etc. 
  • ​​example: you create a web page that lists a certain type of resource, for a specific use case; someone who created a resource that does not fit that the criteria… takes the entire project as a personal attack, designed to hurt them, then slanders you in public forums, questioning your abilities etc. (real life example of what happened when my husband created a web page for JavaScript libraries under 5kb that made no mention of "larger" libraries, whose maker took it as a personal attack against him and his large library, and thus "revenged" himself with personal attacks on my husband)
  • ​​example: reacting to a sob story with "Shut up! I have it worse!" (it's not just a lack of empathy, but reacting as if someone else's life were an insult)
  • ​​example: serious, burning "offense" at something that has nothing to do with them whatsoever, no impact on their life or friends' lives, no root in shared sentiment 
  • ​​Role playing: slipping into whatever role suits their mood or occasion, to get them what they want (which is the corollary to using others as tools), a fluid identity…
  • ​​white knight: swooping in to "save" someone — even if it's unwanted —  to bolster their fantasy self-image, either personally or professionally (this fantasy is the origin of a lot of unwanted products for hair salons & music venues etc. here);
  • ​​"helper": a preference to be seen to be "helping" rather than genuinely helping; bonus points if the help is demeaning or delivered with strings; in industry terms, this may mean "helping" — with an app, or something "cool" — rather than investigating the history of attempts to solve that problem and spending their millions of capital in proven approaches (again, image over reality, and the endowment effect); 
  • ​​devil's advocate: even in an argument where it makes little sense, the "devil's advocate" pose is firstly a way to create an argument that focuses on the narcissist (therefore bringing him/her all the attention)… and also a showy way to demonstrate superiority ("I can see both sides, because I'm smarter and better than you");
  • ​​"god": who feels its his/her innate right to judge, torture, terrorize, abuse, threaten, decide who "deserves" what, take whatever s/he wants, etc., psychologically or physically,  sometimes followed by…
  • ​​"victim": slipping into the victim role can be another way to go on the offense, e.g. a troll blames his/her target for his inability to "control" himself, a con artist blames his/her victim for begging to be taken advantage of, a person who called account for his/her actions pretends to be the victim of the people talking about his/her behavior, a person in power claims that s/he is the one without power despite a total lack of evidence;
  • ​​any time somebody actively describes themselves in terms either incredibly good or incredibly bad (a hero, a lone voice, the only person who x, the best y, terrible, a villain the most hated, the worst z)… watch out
  • ​​Manipulation — using all the "tools" (e.g. people, individually, or group sentiment) at their disposal to get what they want, and what they appear to want… manipulation may be overt or subtle: 
  • ​​controlling others:
  • ​​overtly, with power or force
  • ​​covertly, by playing on an emotion to either create a desired action or reaction, e.g. fear, rage, blame, pity, admiration
  • ​​manipulative argumentative tactics
  • ​​backstabbing, gossip, character assassination, slander, calumny (2 for 1: manipulates the person being slandered and the person who believes it)
  • ​​Covert motives — are the only types of motives narcissists have; the claim is that they desire "success" but actually what they crave is feeling envied or feeling powerful or feeling martyred; chasing a feeling created by others' reactions, instead of facts, leads to manipulation of feelings (others) and image (as seen by others) becoming paramount over realities. 
  • ​​conversations can seem unreal, because narcissists don't talk to communicate, but to build an image… including storytelling and fantasies, starring the narcissist of course
  • ​​if they…then i: success, to take one example, is just the tool by which they get their psychological reinforcement: 
  • ​​"if they envy what I have, I must be valuable"  
  • ​​"if they fear me, I must be powerful" 
  • ​​"if they hate me, I must be important";
  • ​​emotional pickpocketing — using an overpowering song & dance (topic change, topic reversal, flattery, attack, outrage, even a pity play or other performance) to distract you while they covertly attack you in another arena, slander you to others, or manipulate you
  • ​​projection (is another symptom of this; more below)
  • ​​flattery is just a sign the narcissist is going to use you
  • ​​Preciousness — the endowment effect is in full force ("if I bought it, made it, thought it, or said it, it's extra special/worth more to the world at large"); me-too products abound; this applies equally to behavior as well as things the narcissist makes, ergo "if I do it, it must be good"  
  • ​​Incapable of deeper arguments — the vast majority of startup writing does not include argumentation, which requires empathy skills, but only frenzied emotional manipulation (CHANGE THE WORLD) and/or bald statements the author assumes the reader will accept as fact (e.g. misuse of the "Classic Style", a writing style in which there is no exploration, only things declaimed as facts); this also ties into me-izing, the assumption that readers are "just like you"
  • ​​logical errors: part and parcel of the incapable-debaters' toolkit, e.g. straw man, red herring, loaded question, begging the question, false dichotomy, tone argument, "that is illogical," labeling. 
  • ​​projecting of logical errors: the next time somebody uses Paul Graham's "How to Argue" to shut down your argument, remember that PG loves to use ad hominem attacks while simultaneously claiming that any questioning of the speaker's gains or motives is not allowed
  • ​​Insistent that you see things their way — they need other people to "buy in" to their choices in order to feel validated; e.g. a workaholic will be "happier" if she can convince other people that hers is the only way, because of mob rule; she will feel personally attacked if you do or believe otherwise (despite wanting to be seen as special snowflakes, narcissists are very concerned with conformity…)
  • ​​example: what would motivate a person to not only act in a racist or sexist (or other evil) way to people, in real life, but hang out on forums and talk about it all the time? to aggressively justify it at every turn? to pick fights deliberately? it’s just as self-serving and self-aggrandizing as hurting someone to feel powerful — the beating was never the point, the reinforcement was. The excuse (hating minorities, women, whoever) is just a smoke screen.
  • ​​Duplicitous, shifty — will change goal posts, positions, arguments, "definitions" at the drop of a hat, to justify and defend their self-image-fortress; doesn't matter if it is contradictory to the past (even immediate past), because if all that matters is appearance, pictures are static, the past is irrelevant…
  • ​​deflection (aka projection): accusing someone of trickery, dishonesty, manipulation, etc, which are the things they themselves appear to be perpetrating (even right that very second) — this is deflection (psychological term: projection), e.g. they are assigning their negative traits to other people, in order to escape blame and also to look good…
  • ​​example: I have tweeted negatively (but calmly) about people who contribute to taking away gay people's civil rights (e.g. marriage); people who identified with that image then called me a "fascist" and a "nazi" (who's more fascist, somebody who tweets "this is wrong", or somebody who actively tries to remove rights by force and law?)
  • ​​example: woman* achieves something (x) the narcissist wants; in the narcissist's eyes, this does him* grievous harm. they then accuse her of achieving it "by trickery," but what they are really saying is "I use trickery too, but it didn't work that well for me, UNFAIR". — the narcissists' outrage stems from the fact that there's something about the woman's success that challenges his self image, which is the worst thing you can do to a narcissist;
  • ​​important: * woman here could be anyone, of any category or type, because narcissists see all other people as props, any seemingly *ist stereotyping is incidental to their overall goal, which is ego-defense… 
  • ​​example: which is why the startup industry loathes 'suits' and 'marketers' but embraces 'venture capitalists' and 'growth hacking'… 
  • ​​and thought/thinks that 'designers' are either useless success vampires or the Second Coming, depending on if they're in the position to use them…
  • ​​very subtle example: someone barges into your personal conversation, uninvited, acts offended by your discussion (that was happening before they arrived), then stomps away, saying, "Talk to me when you have something serious to say." this is exceedingly subtle projection, because they are trying to make it appear as if you were the one who barged into their conversation. (real life example: Brendan Eich did this exact thing to me when I was tweeting about the new JavaScript specifications! years before it came out about his anti-gay-marriage fiasco… surprise)
  • ​​Boundaries — if you view other people as props, the idea of boundaries means nothing to you; narcissists lack boundaries, big and small, and this shows in many small ways… here are just a few:
  • ​​social norms: social norms are viewed as rules for other people; only they are so special as to "see through the rules"; regular people feel awkward, uncomfortable, or "wrong" breaking these rules, but…
  • ​​examples: everyone "knows" that if a speaker is presenting on stage, even if you disagree, you should keep it to yourself at least until they're done; if you believe the world is just a set for you, on the other hand, you may boo (even in a professional environment), heckle, or even get up on stage to interrupt the speaker (real life, specific examples from the tech world)
  • ​​ignoring social signals: just one example: the pile-on, when you clearly are not interested in engaging, they will try harder and harder to get you to acknowledge them, to make you listen (if a narcissist has only others' reactions to him/her to create a sense of self, they can't bear it if you refuse to acknowledge them at all…)
  • ​​extreme reactions to others' boundary enforcements: any person who sets a clear, firm, no-bending boundary policy with a narcissist will often find himself the target of fuming invective… why? it's easy to understand: imagine how you'd feel if your tv said, "No. You may not watch this channel. I will not allow you to push those buttons on my remote";
  • ​​control of others: a "scorched earth" policy to eliminate everything that bothers them personally; feeling they "deserve" to have the world exactly as they want it (because, of course, it's their show, everyone else is just a prop, why wouldn't they then?)
  • ​​Easily manipulated — if you can appeal to the manufactured self-image of a narcissist, or help them build one — "you're a hacker! a caged lion! you're destined for greatness! nobody understands you like I will! it's not your fault! celebrate failure!" — they will be putty in your hands; firstly because their perceived (by others) self-image is their entire control panel; secondly, because they view other people as props, not as independent beings with their own feelings, thoughts… and that includes malicious agendas (irony!)
  • ​​Never satisfied — there's never enough money, or fame, or press, or recognition, because those things are poor substitutes for a strong sense of self. Narcissists are always chasing someone else's impressions of them… but that can't be caught. 
  • ​​Empty — if you don't see other people as people, but objects, then you don't feel a need to spend time with them, to build relationships, to nurture them… including your own relationship with yourself…  
  • ​​so what's to stop you from working 16 hour days, forever? 
  • ​​which sets a bar for everyone else?
  • ​​who, if they object, will be massaged with grandiosity ("changing the world!" "elite hackers!") first… 
  • ​​and if that doesn't work, which will flip seamlessly into attacks ("you're not a real founder!" "work more, cry less")
​​ 

​
​It's not just a group of pathological individuals, it's a pathological industry

​​Given the lengthy list of symptoms ^ above ^ — and how frequently they appear in "our" "industry" — that is my proposition.
​​ 
​​Not only is the "startup industry" full of narcissists, it's full of narcissists because it is pathologically narcissistic:
​​ 
  • ​​The idea that you "deserve" lots of money not as a result of achievement, but for something you have not even done yet;
  • ​​that businesses, industries, and people, who have money and power now didn't "earn" it — the history, details and procedures are irrelevant — so you should "disrupt" them;
  • ​​that "entrepreneurship" (and keyboard-jockeying, of all things) is the arena where heroes and villains are forged;
  • ​​that startups (by dint of …what, exactly?) will eat the world and inherit the earth;
  • ​​that greed — for attention, for recognition, for "impact", for importance, for historical significance, and also for money — is good;
  • ​​that programmers are special, gifted creatures, like lions on the savannah, or like artists but without all the pesky painting and apprenticeship, or engineers without the need for pesky actual engineering qualifications
​​ 
​​These are the types of submerged beliefs you'll find all over the "startup industry" (such as it is).
​​ 
​​It's not an accident.
​​ 
​​Venture capitalists by definition play a numbers game. They need a big pool of investments to increase their chance for a 10x return; they need as big a pool of candidates as possible, so they can pick and choose.
​​ 
​​That means that they need an enormous audience of people who believe that giving up control is "worth it". Not as a grudging sacrifice, but a boon, a sign of success. 
​​ 
​​But, giving away control — shares of your future — and sovereignty… that's not something people typically desire. They'll do it, but they don't dream about it. 
​​ 
​​So, short of an incredible value proposition, how can you persuade them to? How do you make somebody want something they don't want?
​​ 
​​One strategy is to flip it on them:
​​ 
​​The question people would ask about something they don't want to (but might) do is a question of trade-offs: 
​​ 
​​Is it worth it? 
​​ 
​​That leaves the desired end result — taking the money, giving up the control — in question. Will I… or won't I? Should I?
​​ 
​​But, if your goal is to ensure the answer is yes a thousand times over, this won't do. So with a little work, you flip it; you figure out how to take the original question and contort it. Until it becomes:
​​ 
​​Are you worth it? 
​​ 
​​This is a classic loaded question. The desired end result — taking the money — is no longer in question, it's presumed (loaded). Now your target is the one in question:
​​ 
​​Do you deserve it? 
​​ 
​​Well, do you?
​​ 
​​Then, you subtly chip away at them until they believe that you are the one who can answer that question; you the judge of their worth. 
​​ 
​​You've tricked them into walking onto a rug, then you rip it out from under them.
​​ 
​​… 
​​ 
​​If you read venture capitalists' blogs, you'll find many are full of self-aggrandizements… and full of flattery, too. 
​​ 
​​Subtly, these VCs position themselves as people uniquely skilled to inform, groom, and spot future success (despite the reality of the VC industry success rate (very very low)). With vague but continual pronouncements, they position themselves as special. 
​​ 
​​And to take advantage of the Halo Effect, they persuade their targets, e.g. gullible software developers, to see themselves as unique creatures deserving of… well, everything, but particularly the VC's special, unique attentions:
​​ 
​​They [group of programmers] looked familiar. I spend nearly all my time working with programmers in their twenties and early thirties. But something seemed wrong about these. There was something missing… 
​​ 
​​The guys on the scavenger hunt looked like the programmers I was used to, but they were employees instead of founders. And it was startling how different they seemed…
​​ 
​​I was in Africa last year and saw a lot of animals in the wild that I'd only seen in zoos before. It was remarkable how different they seemed. Particularly lions. Lions in the wild seem about ten times more alive. They're like different animals. I suspect that working for oneself feels better to humans in much the same way that living in the wild must feel better to a wide-ranging predator like a lion. Life in a zoo is easier, but it isn't the life they were designed for.
​​ 
​​Translation: You're special, and I'm the one who sees it. [1]
​​ 
​​Flattering with attention is a classic move, because it isn't pure flattery, which is permanently attached to the subject: "You're great. QED! Have a nice one!" 
​​ 
​​Flattering with attention is conditional, take-back flattery: "You're great… as long as I look at you."
​​ 
​​The question remains: Do you deserve it? 
​​ 
​​The answer morphs: Yes, but…
​​ 
​​And with that… you've got 'em hooked. Just like slot machines and Twitter, variable intermittent attention and approval is addictive. 
​​ 
​​…
​​ 
​​This same reversal/flattery tactic is used to sell all kinds of worthless things, from commodity college degrees to beer, from cars to hair dye: "Because you're worth it… if you have it."
​​ 
​​In fact, very use of identity to sell a thing should trigger a warning klaxon: It's toxic, you don't want it. Good beers, good colleges, good cars, good hair dye… they can all sell on their own merits. They don't need to manipulate you.
​​ 
​​Identity plays are one of the nastiest exploits in the human psyche. Everyone will fall for this at least some of the time. Nobody is immune. 
​​ 
​​But the people who fall for it always, who will defend it no matter the cost, no matter the results, are of course the people who are the most susceptible to it… people who have no source of internal self-worth, who have nothing but how other people see them, judge them, and who naturally try to fill that gaping void with acts of astonishing ego & entitlement. 
​​ 
​​In short, narcissists.
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 
​​[1] If you google this essay, you'll find the first two paragraphs I quoted (plus the bit between them) have since been removed by Paul Graham. Here is an accurate record of how it was written.
​​ 
  • ​​Things to read about narcissism/startups/narcissism+startups…
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 

​
​Questions…

​​ 
​
​Do you believe there are no good investors, or investor outcomes? 
​​ 
​​Of course there are. It'd be crazy to claim otherwise. Definitely some VCs are good at their jobs and some founders with investments are happy with their results. But unfortunately that seems to be the exception rather than the rule, and the "system" is set up so that positive results are not necessary for positive image. 
​​ 
​​(Also: I don't consider it a good outcome if the customers get screwed, e.g. a business built up with many dependent users which just shuts down for an acquihire, barring total financial distress; which dramatically lowers the "good outcome" rate even further below the rate of good financial returns for everyone else involved.)
​​ 
​
​Are you saying there's no purpose for investment? 
​​ 
​​Not at all. Many different types of value-producing businesses can use capital to expand, and venture capital is one way of getting that capital. But the number of businesses that fit that description is tiny compared to the number of "startups" that get funded; the businesses that actually need, and can use, the capital to create results aren't plentiful enough that they need all this flattery and cultural structures. 
​​ 
​​And it seems like those businesses often can't find investment because the founders do not fit the reductionist, narcissistic image of a founder (and now you know why that is).
​​ 
​
​Why are you attacking…? 
​​ 
​​First off, I'm not attacking anyone; I'm making an argument for a way to look at an industry. I'm not suggesting any course of action, including ostracism. Criticism does not equal attack.
​​ 
​​I'm writing this because I see a problem, and there's very little criticism out there, and the criticism that is out there is often half-formed, mostly-felt, poorly argued, etc. (Including things I myself wrote with more feeling than argument.)
​​ 
​
​Why do you hate Paul Graham? 
​​ 
​​I don't hate him; his older business writing definitely helped me in the past. 
​​ 
​​But when it comes to this topic at hand, he's very quotable, e.g. he's the origin of the popular resurgence and dilution of the word "hackers", and the flattery of hackers=painters, hackers=lions.
​​ 
​​And… much of what Paul Graham has written for the past few years has been seductive ego-fortification:
​​ 
  • ​​he keeps writing about what founders "look like" (the Zuckerberg line was no isolated incident)
  • ​​and sound like  (his bit about how founders with "strong accents" don't succeed and his follow-up pretense that it's just unbiased facts)
  • ​​he demonizes skills he lacks (e.g. his claim that if you are a good public speaker, that ipso facto you are unable to have good ideas, because those things are "orthogonal"… coincidentally, Paul Graham is an atrocious public speaker)
  • ​​he is ahistorical, and self-referential (his opinions typically seem to spring from his forehead a priori, he writes them in Classic Style as if they are facts; e.g. when he wrote that ditty about public speaking, he ignored the use & purpose & criticism of public speaking from Aristotle onwards)
  • ​​he has deliberately set up groupthink in Hacker News:
  • ​​banning of criticism of YC companies — without transparency
  • ​​banning anyone who distracts from his intended purpose for the audience as potential investment vehicles (aka lots of bootstrappers) — without transparency
  • ​​and, most recently, with the new high-karma-approval-only process for adding any comment
  • ​​…meanwhile claiming that it is the most open-minded community, full of the smartest, most open-minded people
​​ 
​​Additionally, he is the VC who started the VC-as-father-figure movement; he's the one one with the largest, most cult-like following. This is no coincidence.
​​ 
​​Do I think he set out to do all this, calculatedly and on purpose? Probably not. But he's not stopping it, either. 
​​ 
​​PS: I totally respect the right of a publisher to control what's published on their platform. I, for example, delete off-topic or destructive comments on my blog. But, I don't pretend my blog is a "community" or anything but my own platform. It's not the act of banning & deleting itself, it's the pretense that makes it dishonest.  Hacker News promises itself as a gateway to greatness (e.g. funding), and so it dangles the spectre of financial exclusion to force compliance.
​​ 
​
​What's the big deal about narcissists? Isn't it just self-absorption?
​​ 
​​Narcissism is not self-absorption. It's not about wanting to talk about yourself all the time, or even thinking that you're awesome. 
​​ 
​​The core behavior of narcissism is manipulation and control. Neither of these lead to anything good.
​​ 
​​In short: The narcissist lacks an internal self-image, but still has the need to know "who they are." They can't look inward. So, they look outward, for a mirror to gaze into, to know themselves. 
​​ 
​​That means your face.
​​ 
​​If you look at them with envy, admiration, or awe… they will infer that they are great. But they'll settle for your facing showing them fear and hatred, because those are typical reactions to power and importance. Just like you will angle a mirror to get a grooming job done, they will angle the mirror (you) in order to see themselves in the best possible light. And if the mirror shows them something they can't handle, they'll smash it.  (Or occasionally smash themselves.)
​​ 
​​That's why everything you read about narcissists, from support communities to academic research will say: The defining characteristic is that they don't view people as individuals, but objects, tools… mirrors. And their MO includes tearing people down, even destroying them, to look better by contrast. (In other words, narcissists cheat… at life.)
​​ 
​​Everything they do is designed to elicit a specific, calculated reaction, and thus they are fundamentally dishonest, in word and deed.
​​ 
​
​Are you saying that this manipulation is conscious and premeditated? 
​​ 
​​No, at least not mostly. Although you can never really know exactly what's going on inside another, based on my observations & reading, I believe a lot of it is semi-conscious. A coping mechanism, a way of interacting with the whole world. Doesn't change the result, though. 
​​ 
​
​Does the industry create narcissism in the people who join it? 
​​ 
​​Yes, and also no. My answer is half opinion, half based on my reading/study:
​​ 
​​No: All the psychological research & opinions I've read seem to agree that narcissism (as described above) is a case of arrested emotional/moral development, so unless 5-8-year-olds are joining the industry, no. It's not a cause, imo, it's a matter of "birds of a feather flock together" (or are lured in by tasty worms). 
​​ 
​​Narcissists do, however, respond to outside punishment for their visible behaviors. They don't change, but they will act better "in public" if they are punished often enough. So, that might be a factor, too, in why it seems so prevalent. There's not a lot of punishment in our industry for being an asshole. 
​​ 
​​But, yes, kinda: Social contagion is a very real factor for people's behaviors. If you are surrounded by people who act a certain way, you will eventually start to behave like them. That becomes your norm. 
​​ 
​​example: if everyone around you claims that they work 16-hour days, always think about work, passion passion passion, answer every email, make every decision themselves… that's your model, the only one you have, until/unless you seek out others.
​​ 
​​So, a person can display many traits of narcissism while not being a narcissist. The difference is below under "Narcissists vs Regular People". In the case of harm, however, the victim of an attack doesn't care how the attacker feels, so the difference is irrelevant unless the perpetrator feels sorry enough to make changes and not do it again.
​​ 
​
​Doesn't narcissism really lie in eye of the beholder? 
​​For a lame example, isn't it also grandiose to say "I am unicornfree"? or "bootstrapping is the best way" or anything deterministic for that matter?  
​​ 
​​That's a great question. Here's the way I look at it: You can be proud of your child because he's achieved something and you know that he did the hard work to succeed and he's growing up into a good, strong person. Or, you may be proud of your child because he makes you look good, and alternately hate him when he makes you look "bad." Both are pride, but one is healthy, and one is narcissistic (all about you). 
​​ 
​​The opposite of narcissism isn't to not care about yourself or feel any pride at all; it's to feel healthy, grounded, realistic things about yourself (positive and negative), not contingent on what other people think of you on a moment by moment basis. That means you have see other people as individuals, and you care how your actions affect their feelings and happiness. You don't try to manipulate others to make yourself look or feel better.
​​ 
​
​Do you believe every programmer etc. is a narcissist? 
​​Definitely not. See below.
​​ 

​
​Narcissists vs Regular, Flawed, Immature or Hateful People

​​Everyone, no matter how truly caring about other people, can sometimes display some of these flaws. Everyone can talk too much about themselves, flatter themselves, find themselves seduced by flattery, moan about their terrible lot in life when things aren't actually that bad, use logical fallacies and shifting positions when emotions are high, dig in their heels when they know they're in the wrong, celebrate a fake "win," even look at another person mainly for what they can get from them. And by "everyone," yes, I'm definitely including myself here. We're all at least a little messed up.
​​ 
​​And some people are just hateful and mean, by choice.
​​ 
​​This doesn't let anyone off the hook; we are responsible for our own actions. If you recognize yourself in this list, this is a great opportunity to stop. Life is just one long opportunity to become a better person.
​​ 
​​However, it's important to be able to tell the difference between someone who is (occasionally) a jerk, and a narcissist. One is actively malicious, another is flawed. One views the entire world as a system of knobs and levers to twist and pull to get a reward, the other may simply dislike someone (or everyone). One dehumanizes others — all others — and that's the person you cannot fix, cannot manage, can only escape.
​​ 
​​That one can never be trusted.
​​ 
​​What's the difference?
​​ 
​​The variety, the length, the duration, the degree — and, at heart, the implementation.
​​ 
​​You can spot the difference by asking yourself:  
  • ​​Is this person trying to manipulate others' feelings, or only their own?
  • ​​Does this person treat people as individuals?
  • ​​Does the person act in a consistent manner, every day and in different groups of people… or do they slip into whatever role works at that time?
  • ​​Is this person hurting other people?
  • ​​Is this person using other people as props, including to feel better about him/herself?
  • ​​Do they apologize before the consequences for their actions, or only after?
  • ​​Epic self-justification… do they engage in it? do they never admit they're wrong?
  • ​​Is the malicious behavior pathological? (e.g. systematic, habitual, persistent, hardened)
​​ 
​​So, how can you tell the difference? The presence of boundary violation, slipperiness, manipulation and role playing… or lack thereof. 
​​ 
​​An example: Cranky Pants. Let's say you know someone who is cynical and grumpy. They seem to live to "vent their spleen." They hate everything and everybody.
​​ 
​​They're not a narcissist, just a jerk. 
​​ 
​​Think about it: If you needed other people's faces to reflect that you are awesome, powerful, or important… would you just be grumpy all the time? No, then you'd seem like just a caricature. A less lovable Eeyore. "Don't mind him, he's always like that!" 
​​ 
​​You don't control people by being so consistent they can't help but know it's nothing to do with them personally.  Dismissal is the opposite of awe, fear, or envy.
​​ 
​​No, if you wanted to really control somebody… you'd be alternatingly sweet and terrible, to repeatedly convince them to let down their guard, and then knock them off their feet. The kindness makes the cruelty that much more painful (which makes the narcissist feel that much more powerful). Narcissist are known for their highly changeable, mercurial moods… because they're not moods at all, they're ploys. 
​​ 
​​So, Cranky Pants is consistent, and his/her behaviors may be self-serving, and he/she may even try to get what he/she wants by bitching (e.g. to get refunds, to keep people away, to feel smart). It may even be an act to intimidate people so they don't question Cranky Pants.
​​ 
​​But this is not the kind of manipulation that seeks to control your very feelings, and thus control your reactions, in order to give Cranky Pants a powerful, grandiose reflected-image. (Or if it is, Cranky Pants is really, really pathetic at it.)
​​ 
​​The difference is the same difference between the honest growl of a dog — back off! — versus the duplicitous bleat of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Even if the dog growls all the time, you'd say the dog had a psychological or behavioral problem, but it's not trying to trick you.
​​ 
​​NB: this rule doesn't apply to people who project, ideate grandiosely, etc., and especially not to those who are consistently terrible in an extreme sense. It's one thing to be a constant grump, it's totally another to stalk and terrorize. It's one thing to hate everyone, it's another to hate everyone because of traits you project on them. That very lack of human feeling, that obsession with another person (to the extent that they become some kind of symbol, or fetish object) indicates malignant narcissism.
​​ 
​​Many experts feel that narcissism, sociopathy, and psychopathy are just different spots on the same gradient. Viewing people as things is step 1.
​​ 
​​