YHK - yet another hacker news clone

I can see this. In the areas in my life that I have been most intense, I have been most successful (despite not being the most talented at it relative to other areas in my life).

I think the causal relationship is often the reverse: When things are going well your limiting constraints move from outside the company (e.g. long sales cycles) to inside (e.g. engineering, operations). That feels a lot more intense because founders / board / investors are focused internally and driving up intensity, as that is the limiting factor for company success. When it’s not going so well the intensity stays more in the board room.

Seems like a lot of survivorship bias here.

I think intensity is a symptom of circumstance not a cause for them.

If you're a startup that's on the verge of transitioning from broke to huge success, I'd imagine everyone would be bringing a lot of intensity to push it over that line.

If you're an established company with a track record of responding to record profits with layoffs, then I don't think it's fair for you to expect your employees to share your enthusiasm.

If you're a founder with a significant equity stake in your company then by all means, go balls to the wall. It's pretty dumb to expect employees with a significantly more capped upside to do the same.

Intensity = Discipline + Focus + Perseverance + Speed + Attention to Details + …?

I sympathize with the author, but instead of intensity, I would describe it as externally-observable emotional engagement (though that is a mouthful by comparison). Success follows founders who care deeply about their mission, customers, product, and people, and who succeed in getting other people to care deeply as well.

It is such a stark contrast from corporate culture, where you survive and get promoted by learning to disengage from the mission, customers, and product, and focus on being quietly, not intensely, useful for your boss.

If you choose to define intensity as the ability/willingness to turn other knobs to 11 (which is what the author does), then its not unexpected to see correlation of "intensity" and "success".

As long as the other knobs show a generally positive relationship between input and output, then obviously turning the knobs up will generally result in higher output.

The questions are:

* What are the downsides of turning up the knob? Both in terms of the specific knobs you're turning, as well as "going to 11" in a more general sense.

* Why do people and organizations find it difficult to turn the knob to 11?

My take is that intensity is painful. This brings two things that have to be overcome:

You must somehow build a pain tolerant organization. You can do this by selecting for pain tolerant people, by inoculating a mission/message that positively improves pain tolerance (make people believe that it's worth it), by creating organizational structures that attenuates the pain feedback loop (ie, somehow insulate decision makers from the pain, while finding ways to mitigate or work around the pain where it is felt... ie, probably just accepting the churn) or other means.

The other thing to overcome is that pain is supposed to be instructive, and provide useful negative feedback. As you build up your pain tolerance, you ideally are still able to extract real information from the pain signals. If you achieve pain tolerance through blocking off or ignoring all pain signals, then you are probably at higher risk of just... doing stupid things.

The linked tweet about remote vs in-person is hilarious to me.

I've never witnessed anything else affect intensity in my teams as negatively as forced RTO did.

I mean of course it is fully dependent on personalities and roles, and totally anecdotal, but in my experience, work was certainly *much* more intense when people had conditions for deep focus. I was literally just thinking about how slow everything feels nowadays, with everybody struggling to get focus time in a crowded office full of distractions.

There's a problem where intensity can easily slide into ruthlessness. Cultivating a society of impact that degrades overall flourishing seems like a bad recipe to me. Even if it works out for some by the usual measures.

In Buddhism, there's a saying: "though the view should be as vast as the sky, keep your conduct as fine as barley flour" - Padmasambhava. Having that attitude combined with an intensely focused engagement in building is an overall better path.

The hardest thing with intensity is narrowing the focus, which Slootman notes as important. The best intensity is extremely focused. Which, ironically, in my experience, doesn't even feel that intense in the moment, time just flies.

Fooled by Randomness

I've worked remote for the last 6 years, at startups or otherwise.

This is somewhat written for a CEO: "you must bring intensity and instill it on your blank-slate employees". In one case there's the assumption that onsite startups work better, and that assumed-to-be-true mystery is explained as being from on-site being higher intensity.

I somewhat caution against that mindset. I find myself frequently more intense about driving feature timelines and rollouts than my colleagues, even when I'm remote. It's part of the nature of me not my office chair.

I can not hear my own thoughts around "intense people". Usually it means hours of emotional labour and office drama, on top of heavy development work. It is the main reason I refuse to work in office now.

The article quotes Apple like 5 times, and the only "non intensive" counter example is DMV office.

My take is that "intensity" is toxic, and Musk and Jobs succeeded DESPITE of it. Because both were technicality brilliant people, that offsets their "intensive" toxicity!

There are many roads to succes, and I think a sort of single-minded ruthlessness (or, yes, more charitably “intensity”) can be a fairly simple one.

But I believe that that ruthlessness is the source of a lot of suffering caused by, and happening inside of, companies.

I think it’s really important to try to find a way to be successful that doesn’t just involve being obsessive and single-minded, and if you’re unwilling to do that you’re letting yourself off the hook in a bad way.

From my 15 years being involved in startups, I would agree with this. Especially in marketing teams, which has been my area. There is no right answer which can be confirmed easily so you just have to really really care.

I will also say this is not the same as hard work. Hours and intensity is not the same. I would be considered a very successful person by most, but I have never "worked" more than 30 hours a week. But I've cared very very intensely about the results of the work that I'm doing.

You also can't expect it of employees unless you're paying them a fuck ton/have incentives.