Post contents
I'm often asked how I was able to break into tech. I'm happy to answer this question; I've written and will continue to write about the topic, trying to help others break into tech as much as possible.
But while my story can provide a valuable data point, it's just that: a single data point. This might not sound like a problem, but put in the right context, it can be problematic. To explain how, let's rewind the clock a bit.
There's a story that starts during World War II; engineers were trying to figure out how to reinforce planes to make them more survivable from dogfights. They looked at the planes that returned from combat and saw where the bullet holes were — mostly over the outer edges of the wings and body of the plane. They thought, "Let's reinforce these areas."
To their surprise, however, despite reinforcing the planes, they were still being shot down at the same rates as before. The engineers were baffled; why wasn't it working?
This is because they were missing a crucial piece of information from their original analysis: the planes that didn't return. The engineers realized that they had only sampled planes that had actually made it back. The planes that were shot in the areas without bullet holes were the ones that didn't make it back. The bullet holes were actually indicators of survivability, not vulnerability.
So why is this problematic?
Well, my path into tech has been unusually distinct. I've:
- Done very little education (only completed a single year of high school)
- Landed a position in tech as my first job
- Seen exponential growth throughout the years
As a result, it can be tempting to expect the same results from the same set of inputs. But life isn't deterministic, your mileage may drastically vary from my own.
My lack of formal education, for instance, might look like a 'bullet hole' on a surviving plane. It’s tempting to see it and conclude that a degree is an unnecessary vulnerability or dead weight. The reality is that for every person like me who made it through without that armor, countless others didn't.
I've been extremely lucky along my journey and privilege has absolutely played a part in my career.
It can also be easy to want to compare oneself to someone that has seen success in their lives. I have many friends who — despite working their asses off and strategically approaching problems appropriately — have not seen success in the same way I've been fortunate enough to experience.
I have peers who are vastly smarter than I am, mutuals who have held more prestigious roles before but struggle in the job market; you name a metric and I likely know someone better at it than myself that luck has not graced as favorably.
Sometimes, this comparison turns inwards: "What am I doing wrong?"
While there are instances where one's success is inhibited by other behaviors, sometimes it's just the luck of the draw. As such, it can be unproductive to spend time lingering on this inwards frustration.
This isn't to say that there's nothing you can do to improve your station — I'll talk about how to improve one's "luck surface area" in a future article.
While I've done my best to extrapolate my experiences and compare them against others, you should remain leery of what I have to say and do further research into the topics you find most interesting.
Similarly, I caution you to remain hesitant when someone tries to sell you "success in a bottle" style content. It can be easy to fall into the trap of "well if they did it" style of thinking. While self-motivation can be a strong motivator that should be encouraged and expanded, just know that your constraints may be different from others'.
"So, how should you learn from someone's success?
Well, instead of trying to replicate their exact path — which is impossible — focus on deconstructing the underlying principles. Don't ask "What school did they drop out of?" but rather "How did they demonstrate value without traditional credentials?". Don't ask "What was their first job?" but "What skills did they build that made them hirable?". Look for the repeatable systems, not the unrepeatable story.