The Right Kind of Stubborn

Paul Graham’s essay The Right Kind of Stubborn draws a crucial distinction between persistence and obstinacy—two traits that look similar from the outside but lead to very different outcomes.

Persistence vs. Obstinacy

The central insight: The persistent are attached to the goal. The obstinate are attached to their ideas about how to reach it.

Graham uses a boat metaphor: “The persistent are like boats whose engines can’t be throttled back. The obstinate are like boats whose rudders can’t be turned.”

Persistent people maintain drive but adjust direction based on feedback. Obstinate people refuse to pivot, even when evidence suggests their approach isn’t working.

Why This Matters for Research

In research, this distinction is critical. Many PhD projects fail not because the goal was wrong, but because researchers became attached to their initial approach.

I’ve seen this pattern repeatedly:

• Insisting on a particular method when simpler alternatives exist
• Refusing to pivot when experiments consistently fail
• Defending a hypothesis past the point of evidence

The best researchers I know are fiercely persistent about their goals but remarkably flexible about methods. They’ll try ten different approaches to solve a problem, discarding nine without ego.

The Five Components of True Persistence

Graham identifies five interconnected qualities:

1. Energy - Active trying, not mere resistance
2. Imagination - Generating new approaches to attempt
3. Resilience - Recovering from setbacks without losing resolve
4. Good judgment - Rational evaluation and strategic pivoting
5. Goal focus - Specific enough to motivate, broad enough to allow discovery

This framework is useful for self-diagnosis. When I’m stuck, I ask: Which component am I missing? Often it’s imagination—I’m pushing the same approach harder rather than stepping back to generate alternatives.

Why Obstinacy Persists

Graham makes an interesting observation: obstinacy works for simple, one-path problems. If there’s only one way forward and the only alternative is giving up, then stubborn refusal to quit is the right strategy.

But research problems are complex. There are many possible approaches, and the initial idea (formed with the least information) is rarely optimal. Obstinate adherence to first ideas becomes increasingly costly as problems get harder.

The Rare Combination

The rare combination of all five persistence qualities produces remarkable results. This is encouraging—it suggests that great achievement isn’t about raw talent but about cultivating a specific set of attitudes and skills.

It also explains why obstinacy is more common: it requires only one quality (resistance), while true persistence requires five working together.

My Takeaway

When facing obstacles in research, I now try to ask:

• Am I attached to the goal or to my current approach?
• Have I generated enough alternative approaches?
• Am I recovering from setbacks or just resisting feedback?

The goal is to build the engine that can’t be throttled back while keeping the rudder that can turn.

How do you distinguish persistence from obstinacy in your own work? I’d love to discuss at persdre@gmail.com.