What entrepreneurs can learn from regular people (2016) | Hacker News Reader

What entrepreneurs can learn from regular people (2016)

studio.ribbonfarm.com

37 pointsivank15 comments

"I've learned something that utterly astonished me when I first recognized it: with rare exceptions, entrepreneurs in general are not curious people."

I have met hundreds of entrepreneurs at Bootstrappers Breakfasts over the last years and this description and taxonomy bears no relationship to my experience.

I haven't met as many as you have, but the ones I have worked for have mostly been bored trust-fund kids whose only motivation is to have something to brag about.

There may be a self-selection filter at work driving whom you are meeting--you may not be aware of it. That being said the promise of the Bootstrappers Breakfast is to join other entrepreneurs who eat problems for breakfast in a serious conversation.

We don't attract a lot of the "make money while you sleep" or "four hour work week" folks--but I don't consider them entrepreneurs. I think there are two critical elements of an an entrepreneurial disposition:

1. Commit to the exchange of value for value, of quid pro quo. This does not preclude acts of generosity and kindness.

2. Cultivate the capability to take prudent risks to explore and learn. It embeds the realization that failure is a real possibility and a plan that anticipates how to survive a sequence of small failures (of “affordable losses”) is far preferable to incurring a substantial loss that bankrupts you.

I'm not super familiar with Bootstrappers Breakfast but it seems like it would be pretty self selecting. I think tech can be a bit of a bubble, and he could just as well be talking about the owner of the local jet-ski dealership.

There is a massive audience for "grindset" content that has imo has very little curiosity to it outside of ways of acquiring wealth, I think that may be some level of evidence for his argument.

Even more anecdotally, when I scroll LinkedIn I constantly see extremely successful people making posts that massively simplify complex and interesting topics into painfully one-dimensional problems with easy answers. Some of that is definitely politically driven but either way its those people that I thought of while reading the piece.

Looking at "entrepreneur porn" for insight into entrepreneurship works about as well as using porn as a guideline for a satisfying romantic relationship or marriage.

Are people with unrealistic ideas about relationships categorically excluded from consideration as being in a relationship?

Does watching "entrepreneur porn" automatically mean you aren't a "real" entrepreneur? Or is entrepreneur porn a reflection of the values of some entrepreneurs?

We don't have to consider it to be a good thing to use it as a data point, and what you are saying aligns well with the OP, entrepreneurs should strive to be curious as it will make them happier, if not more successful.

I like to watch movies about space, astronauts, and travel to other planets. I don't know that that they provide a realistic view of what it means to live in space or to be an astronaut.

I like to read urban fantasy like the "Rivers of London" series by Ben Aaronovitch, which offers--as far as I can tell--a realistic depiction of police work, London history, and a hypothetical system of magic. I have not tried any of the spells Aaronovitch details but I suspect I won't be able to make them work.

People with unrealistic ideas of about relationships should broaden their information diet beyond porn. If they are repeatedly frustrated that their partner does not respond in the same way as actors do in a movie they should re-assess and realize they are not watching a documentary or training film.

I think reading "entrepreneur porn" is a waste of time--or perhaps the source of a rich fantasy life in the same way I enjoy science fiction and urban fantasy. But I don't try to act either out.

Entrepreneurship is not like algebra: the methods are not permanently settled and amenable to classroom instruction. It's a practice that--like learning how to ride a bike--involves making your own mistakes and mastering a specific local situation (at least initially).

Are people at Bootstrappers Breakfast's the median entrepreneur? I assume this is a tech thing, which already makes them significantly rarer (More to entrepreneurship than tech) and then they're bootstrapping and also self-selecting to go to this event.

Many are in tech but we increasingly see artists and other disciplines. I fully acknowledge that are messaging for the event, and the promises we make (e.g. a serious conversation) bias who shows up.

But it's also likely there is considerable selection bias in Rao's sample and he should be cautious to generalize to all entrepreneurs. I recently re-read

McDonald's: Behind The Arches by John F. Love https://www.amazon.com/McDonalds-Behind-John-F-Love/dp/05533...

Sam Walton: Made in America by Sam Walton with John Huey https://www.amazon.com/Sam-Walton-Made-America/dp/0385426151...

I was struck by how curious Walton and Kroc were about the competition and about how much they listened and incorporated feedback from store managers and suppliers into their business. The ideas that propelled expansion all came from others as both firms scaled up. And they discovered those ideas because they were curious, they solicited them, and they listened.

The title alone is enough to tell that this article will be trash (and it is). Founders are regular people, and regular people are founders.

Some founders are irregular people and some irregular people are founders.

Being a founder is not somehow a class above, any more than being a politician, a soldier, a cop, or whatever else. We may afford such people greater status, but they are just regular people with a particular career.

No, successful founders are by definition not 'regular', since the vast majority of startups don't become unicorns, or even plateau at a comfortable lifestyle business.

Founders that don't see noteworthy success are more likely to be 'regular' people, but even then that's likely a minority. As the majority probably have way above average risk tolerance.

I got to be honest, this whole thing of the 'founders' persona is utter bull. I have met many, and know many very well and they tend to be all sorts.

What a shitty post. 41 lines of shit.

Like "entrepreneurs" (whatever the author makes as a definition) are fundamentally not "regular people" (whatever the author etc.). What kings can learn from peons ? Everything, kings know nothing and rely on other people to do everything. They only have the means (the money) to motivate them.

Shit we all lost 5mn.

Perhaps it depends on who you're labeling as "entrepreneur"

or "regular people"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com