"What especially bothers me about this sort of trend is that it forces those of us who aren't big on bullshitting to do it anyway."
I can't say I agree with this, the implication is that if you don't do it you will be harmed, which may be true in the short term but not in the long term [1]. I liked xo's reference to the worst argument in the world (http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/) basically if you focus on the lying you miss the argument.
So when someone says "How is your startup going?" you provide the most positive answer you can come up with. This is a lie of omission if there are big clouds gathering over it, but if what you say is truthful then you've met the social obligation of responding. I've got a friend who is explicitly complete when you ask them how they are doing, with comments like "well my hemorrhoids have flared up and all the fruit I ate gave me diarrhea so my arse is pretty painful at the moment." which people find a bit off putting. You don't have to be graphic like that of course and so if you're omitting details on the principle that this other person is just making 'small talk' then I would argue that is Ok.
Now if you have a potential investor ask you "How is your startup going?" and you say "Great! Adding users like crazy, totally crushing it!" when you know you won't make payroll next month if you don't get some more money in, that is lying with an intent to deceive the investor. The goal being to get them to invest before they really find out what is going on so that afterwards it will be fine. I've known people who do this, they rationalize it by thinking "Lets assume this person has just invested the money I need, what would the status of my startup be then?" and they answer that way, because that statement will be true in the future if they invest, and if they don't invest the startup will be dead anyway so who cares. But it robs the investor of the data they need to ask critical questions. It could be that the startup really does just need a bridge investment to cross the 'chasm' (in the Geoffrey Moore sense), but it also might mean there is fundamentally something wrong like a dysfunctional engineering or marketing team. This sort of 'loose relationship with reality' is just wrong.
So pulling it back to the 'forcing' thing, this behavior erodes trust. And in so doing puts folks who engage in it at a disadvantage against those who do not. So choosing not to engage may lose you a deal today, but longer term will make you more respected which will get your more business later. And the best thing about it is you don't have to keep remembering what you said to be sure and not contradict yourself.
[1] I get the point where you don't survive to the long term which is bad.
> So pulling it back to the 'forcing' thing, this behavior erodes trust.
Yes, absolutely.
> And the best thing about it is you don't have to keep remembering what you said to be sure and not contradict yourself.
For me the most important part is maintaining self-respect. Not contradicting yourself doesn't hurt either.
What concerns me, though, is the seeming rampancy of this behavior. I wasn't in the industry for the aftermath of the first dot com bubble, so it's possible that this behavior will go away, and I just haven't seen it happen before. I'd be interested in your take on it, since your resume indicates you were in the middle of it.
It is entirely a function of fashion + money. I know that sounds stupid but it is.
The fashion part comes from what it means to be 'hip' which entirely driven by the flavor of the hour. We've talked about it on HN a bit but the best analog is that the coolness factor of 'doing a startup' got to be high enough that we got a huge influx of people who "want to do a startup" which is distinct and different from folks who "want to do X, this is the company I created to do that."
Too many people these days are doing startups like they used to do rock bands.
The second part is money. When rich people do it, especially people who were "like you" before but are now "rich" it creates a sense in folks that don't know any better that it is easy, or that anyone can do it. It is what causes people to move to LA from Nebraska to make it big in the movies.
So no, it is not a new phenomena. And the proportion of the bullshit to actual content is proportional to the fashion + money aspect. In 2000-2001 after the dot com bust was settling, none of the cool kids wanted to be startup people any more, so the people you ran into who were doing startups were more likely to be doing it because they believed in what they were doing. Now with Facebook and Google and the newly minting of a bunch of fresh twenty-something millionaires (or billionaires in some cases) the folks that mercifully left have unfortunately returned.
Spot on. Those who see a startup as the purpose of doing one are soon going to find out how hard this stuff is. Even being a freelancer is pretty tough. Its not all nice and easy. Takes a lot of work and commitment to be able to pull anything off. Thats why everytime somebody wants me to be their co-founder I tell them I already have enough of those. What I'm looking for is work of the paid variety. Something that most of these dreamers lack. :)
Off topic:
Chuck, I'm still waiting for that datacenter in my pocket idea to launch. ;)
I can't say I agree with this, the implication is that if you don't do it you will be harmed, which may be true in the short term but not in the long term [1]. I liked xo's reference to the worst argument in the world (http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_worst_argument_in_the_world/) basically if you focus on the lying you miss the argument.
So when someone says "How is your startup going?" you provide the most positive answer you can come up with. This is a lie of omission if there are big clouds gathering over it, but if what you say is truthful then you've met the social obligation of responding. I've got a friend who is explicitly complete when you ask them how they are doing, with comments like "well my hemorrhoids have flared up and all the fruit I ate gave me diarrhea so my arse is pretty painful at the moment." which people find a bit off putting. You don't have to be graphic like that of course and so if you're omitting details on the principle that this other person is just making 'small talk' then I would argue that is Ok.
Now if you have a potential investor ask you "How is your startup going?" and you say "Great! Adding users like crazy, totally crushing it!" when you know you won't make payroll next month if you don't get some more money in, that is lying with an intent to deceive the investor. The goal being to get them to invest before they really find out what is going on so that afterwards it will be fine. I've known people who do this, they rationalize it by thinking "Lets assume this person has just invested the money I need, what would the status of my startup be then?" and they answer that way, because that statement will be true in the future if they invest, and if they don't invest the startup will be dead anyway so who cares. But it robs the investor of the data they need to ask critical questions. It could be that the startup really does just need a bridge investment to cross the 'chasm' (in the Geoffrey Moore sense), but it also might mean there is fundamentally something wrong like a dysfunctional engineering or marketing team. This sort of 'loose relationship with reality' is just wrong.
So pulling it back to the 'forcing' thing, this behavior erodes trust. And in so doing puts folks who engage in it at a disadvantage against those who do not. So choosing not to engage may lose you a deal today, but longer term will make you more respected which will get your more business later. And the best thing about it is you don't have to keep remembering what you said to be sure and not contradict yourself.
[1] I get the point where you don't survive to the long term which is bad.