This sounds like a different version of smart kids being lazy because they learned that they can get away with it, while those who were taught to work hard as kids become successful.
"Don't think that you can't do what other people can. And I agree you shouldn't underestimate your potential. People who've done great things tend to seem as if they were a race apart. And most biographies only exaggerate this illusion, partly due to the worshipful attitude biographers inevitably sink into, and partly because, knowing how the story ends, they can't help streamlining the plot till it seems like the subject's life was a matter of destiny, the mere unfolding of some innate genius. In fact I suspect if you had the sixteen year old Shakespeare or Einstein in school with you, they'd seem impressive, but not totally unlike your other friends.
"Which is an uncomfortable thought. If they were just like us, then they had to work very hard to do what they did. And that's one reason we like to believe in genius. It gives us an excuse for being lazy. If these guys were able to do what they did only because of some magic Shakespeareness or Einsteinness, then it's not our fault if we can't do something as good.
"I'm not saying there's no such thing as genius. But if you're trying to choose between two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other one is probably right."
In other words, if you are content with being mediocre, there is no problem with being lazy. Lots of people all over the world are lazy. But if want to accomplish something in life, don't rely on "genius" alone--roll up your sleeves and do plenty of work.
In reality, the hardest things to come up with may be the ideas, and he solicits those for free. It's a bit of scam, really.
I don't understand how else an investor-founder relationship would work. Should he pay to listen to ideas/pitches before deciding whether or not to invest? Do you think NDAs should be the industry norm? Please elaborate.
In our culture, laziness and curiosity are considered two of the three virtues of a programmer. (Hubris is the other, but I don't think that's as important)
Anecdotally, I know I for one got away with being lazy in school years. Generally I would do work in class only until I understood what was going on, then stop. Homework was avoided wherever possible. Requests from teachers for repetition of essentially mindless acts was considered a form of condescension and actively subverted wherever possible.
However, my curiosity meant that self-directed learning in my free time outside of school (computing, photography, geography, history, etc.) more than compensated.
My advice to children is this: Spend time on what you feel like (but don't waste opportunities to learn, and don't tread on other people's toes), feel free to ignore authorities (with modes of peaceful resistance), do something physical if you get the chance, but use the internet to satisfy your curiosity about the world. Never let it die. Most adults you see have let it die, and sometimes they are like husks of true people... never a free moment, never an idle thought, never a playful tangent. Avoid that fate, and you will always be knowledgeable, always be fed, always be respected.
While I don't disagree I do think the statement itself is amusing for its inherent assumptions: that we can usefully generalize about all people, that it is logically coherant for strangers or society at large to attempt to value the activity of individuals, and that actions should be directed towards some commonly agreed upon goal. There are many cultures and philosophies out there that would reject such assumptions.
Effort in education and experiences can make all of your future time more valuable.
It depends how you choose to value your future time. Would you value it now, guessing at what you want in the future? Would you value it in the future, admitting that you may be totally ignorant of or worse - outright incorrect - about your future wants and needs, here and now?
If you go the defacto route of economic rationalism, then you'd usually be right (ie. 'education leads to more income' is still true in many circumstances, but more weakly of late) though one could draw in to question the associated costs in non-economically rationalizable experience, skill and thought, such as art and philosophy.
If you just relax about decisions in life, adding effort where curiosity deigns to dangle its carrot, would you be any worse off?