"A few days ago I was sitting in a cafe in Palo Alto and a group of public school kids came in on some kind of field trip.

They looked familiar. I spend nearly all my time working with gifted kids, but something seemed wrong about these kids. There was something missing.

And yet the public school they went to is considered a good one, and from what I overheard of their conversation, they seemed smart enough.

... 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 cheetahs. Cheetahs in the wild seem about ten times more alive. They're like different animals. And seeing those public school kids on their field trip was like seeing cheetahs in a zoo after spending several years watching them in the wild."

Just because their 'public school' (or company or university or whatever) is considered good, doesn't necessarily mean they are good. Conversely, not being gifted, talented, and/or a young entrepreneur doesn't make them bad. But if you spend your time working with people falling in the former category, perhaps you would feel as if the latter category was missing something. That's not criticism, it's just an observation.

And if they are missing something because of their external environment (company, private school, public school, university, or what have you), then, well, as with all analogies, the comparison eventually breaks down. We are humans and not wild animals in captivity. I realize that oftentimes, kids don't have a choice about what schools they go to. But, regardless, that's not really the part I thought was relevant. My point was more that there is a good chance that the people who are unhappy in a large, corporate bureaucracy may be the same people who were unhappy in a public school. Generally speaking, individuals have some capacity or power to change our external environment. And if you're motivated to change your environment, chances are, you will. Books, games, etc., are all great escapes for people/kids who are in a less than desirable (read: less than challenging) situation. Just as start-ups are a great escape for people who are bored to tears in large, corporate bureaucracy.

Shrug. I understand that there are obviously different opinions on this essay, but personally, I just don't feel that what Paul Graham wrote was an attack.

Actually, it resonated quite well with my experiences in public school. Though it would make a better essay targeted towards parents, who actually have a say in where their kids go to school.

Or maybe it is because people truly do not want to work hard. Never in my life have I met someone who prioritizes hacking above all else for more than the time it would take to defeat a small video game.

One question, by "start a startup," would that refer to getting decent investment and living a quality of life overall comparable to that of one's peers, or bootstrapping and every day fighting for survival with a hope that one day the tides will turn? If the later then those outside the valley are going to be inspired with a much stronger "yearning for the sea" before they will make the jump without regret.

1.) One has Marfan's syndrome and needs to work at a place with guaranteed health insurance to cover his medical bills.

2.) Two would like to start a startup in the future, but feel that they don't currently have enough experience. This was also my reason for not founding a startup straight out of college.

3.) One was always interested in startups, but his family background has steered him towards law school, and so he doesn't have the technical skills to start a tech startup.

4.) One has a wife and two stepkids to support.

5.) One (my former cofounder) wants to start a startup, but got into Harvard Business School and figures a bird in the hand is worth 10 in the bush.

6.) One likes working for small companies, but enjoys his work-life balance too much to take the plunge and actually start one himself. He also doesn't desire the financial rewards that come from a successful startup all that much.

7.) One couldn't do it because he's on a student visa and it was doubtful that the visa would let him co-found a company.

They're all good reasons, and you can see that they're a lot more varied than them all being caged animals.

So instead of readers seeing this:

  "MegaCorp programmers looked purposeless and embarrassed, 
   like caged lions, while they were doing the scavenger hunt"

  "MegaCorp programmers who I saw at a scavenger hunt are 
   caged lions with something missing in their lives."

To be fair, the actual line in the essay is this: "And seeing those guys on their scavenger hunt was like seeing lions in a zoo after spending several years watching them in the wild." It's just preceded by lots of prose that reinforce the IS relationship.

I think it's not so much that there's something special about founders as that there's something missing in the lives of employees."

I guess this is what has put off a lot of people, along with the reference to the caged lions, right at the start of the essay.

The key message (as i got it) from the essay was:

"one of the things that convinces me that working for oneself, or at least for a small group, is the natural way for programmers to live."

It is spot on, and i completely agree with it.

In the 'Cliff Notes', Paul summarizes it well, when he writes people are reacting to what they imagine he would be saying in the essay, but yes, i guess the essay intro could have been worded a bit better.

Little what i have read of Paul's essays, it doesn't look like he would be intentionally putting down "any" smart programmer, just based on where (s)he is working, and i would still stick to that opinion about him.