TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Young entrepreneurs' advantage: ignorance
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Young entrepreneurs' advantage: ignorance

Young entrepreneurs' advantage: ignorance

Clay Shirky's latest thought-provoker posits that young people make better entrepreneurs because they're too inexperienced to know that their ideas are silly:

"The mistakes novices make come from a lack of experience. They overestimate mere fads, seeing revolution everywhere, and they make this kind of mistake a thousand times before they learn better. But the experts make the opposite mistake, so that when a real once-in-a-lifetime change comes along, they regard it as a fad. As a result of this asymmetry, the novice makes their one good call during an actual revolution, at exactly the same time the expert makes their one big mistake, but at that moment, that�s all that is needed to give the newcomer a considerable edge."

LINK: http://many.corante.com/archives/20...ge_of_youth.php

SOURCE: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/1...epreneurs_.html

You can only get away with being stupid and taking risks while you're young. The smart ones know that they should expect to fail multiple times before risk actually pays off. It's all part of the game.

There is definitely some truth in that article. I would equate that observation to the "Bite off more than you can chew and figure out how to chew it later" mantra.

quote:

Originally posted by slingshot You can only get away with being stupid and taking risks while you're young. The smart ones know that they should expect to fail multiple times before risk actually pays off. It's all part of the game.

Being stupid and taking risks are two different things. Failure is definitely part of the learning process and consider yourself lucky if you find yourself in a position where failure is not only accepted, but encouraged.

With regards to ignorance, I am always amazed by people (regardless of age) who are new to a position (or a company or an industry) have their best insights within the first few weeks or months on the job. I have witnessed the "advantage of ignorance" numerous times, from both sides of the fence, and I must say it is a thing of beauty. Once they have been "assimilated", more often than not they stop thinking and challenging how things are done.

In my books, there is nothing more rewarding than taking a risk and doing something that people told you was impossible. Regardless of age.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo With regards to ignorance, I am always amazed by people (regardless of age) who are new to a position (or a company or an industry) have their best insights within the first few weeks or months on the job. I have witnessed the "advantage of ignorance" numerous times, from both sides of the fence, and I must say it is a thing of beauty. Once they have been "assimilated", more often than not they stop thinking and challenging how things are done.

It's the rules. People are ignorant of the rules and nuances of a particular job. It's part of their attempt to understand the "science" of it. Once they begin to understand the rules of the game, or "assimilated", they start thinking more conventionally.

I totally agree with you though. When a person has no base set of rules they make'em up as they go.

There is some sort of middle ground though...

Having the courage to move forward with a new idea is one thing, what makes it a good decision is applying proper business sense to the idea. Making a good business plan, and paying attention to things like having the capital to support yourself for a significant time before starting the business are ways of determining whether your good idea is actually a sustainable one.

Take my past for example...

I had an for a new business...

1) Josh's Extra-Lickable Lollipops

The Pros

-obvious increase in quality will attract Lollipop connoiseurs from all four Lollipop eating regions
-rather than have sticks be whistles, they will be kazoos, which attracts the big boys(since big boys use kazoos as their noisemaker of choice)

The Cons

-increased lickability means less lollipops need to be purchased which decreases ROI and could cause stocks to plummet to near record lows
-never ending pressure from Tootsie Roll Pops, which combine the succulent chocolatey centres with candy coating second to no other hard-candy-shelled-device

The Reality

-my history as a semi-nude entertainer would cause many people to not want to lick Lollipops in the shape of my chiseled upper-body

For that reason, this could never be a sustainable enterprise. Maybe had I not decided to use a sexually suggestive candy as my extre-lickable device the idea could have worked.

These are just some of the things that need to be taken into account during business-reality planning.

Kind of a silly article, really. He's trying to explain a phenomenon that doesn't exist, with evidence that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Young entrepreneurs have made some important contributions but not nearly as many as the grizzled veterans. Most of the time, even if they have a great idea, they're too inexperienced to execute it properly and either fail or have to rely on the old masters to keep it together. And very often, what the younger guys come up with are fads: pet rocks, hula hoops, magnetic bracelets. They were profitable fads, to be clear, but still passing fads.

Sure, the barrier to entry is lower today for a lot of technological innovations; in many cases it's possible to "invent" something with virtually no resources at all save for one's personal time. And younger people have an advantage here because they've been exposed to the technology since birth and know it more intuitively than their older counterparts. And they also have nothing to lose, as opposed to trying to bring up kids and put away for the college fund.

But these aren't revelations, they're obvious, and people have known them for years. I don't find Clay's alternative pseudo-mathematical explanation very thought-provoking or even interesting, and his nonsensical application of Bayes' theorem to the discussion is, well, nonsensical.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Kind of a silly article, really. He's trying to explain a phenomenon that doesn't exist, with evidence that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Young entrepreneurs have made some important contributions but not nearly as many as the grizzled veterans. Most of the time, even if they have a great idea, they're too inexperienced to execute it properly and either fail or have to rely on the old masters to keep it together. And very often, what the younger guys come up with are fads: pet rocks, hula hoops, magnetic bracelets. They were profitable fads, to be clear, but still passing fads. Sure, the barrier to entry is lower today for a lot of technological innovations; in many cases it's possible to "invent" something with virtually no resources at all save for one's personal time. And younger people have an advantage here because they've been exposed to the technology since birth and know it more intuitively than their older counterparts. And they also have nothing to lose, as opposed to trying to bring up kids and put away for the college fund. But these aren't revelations, they're obvious, and people have known them for years. I don't find Clay's alternative pseudo-mathematical explanation very thought-provoking or even interesting, and his nonsensical application of Bayes' theorem to the discussion is, well, nonsensical.

Yeah, maybe you're right, Clay Shirky is a total hack. Zero credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo Yeah, maybe you're right, Clay Shirky is a total hack. Zero credibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky

Your "appeal to authority" argument needs some work.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Your "appeal to authority" argument needs some work.

Clever.

So, just so I understand where you are coming from, you believe it was of little value to provide additional information about the author of the original article? Interesting.

DigiNut challenged the rigour of Shirky's analysis and conclusions. Fair enough. But don't you think it would make sense to understand how much the author knows about the subject, what bias (if any) he has, and how much credibility he has?

I'm not asserting that Shirky's views shouldn't have been challenged, but I would say that not all opinions should be treated equally. And, for the record, I think it is pretty clear that DigiNut has more more credibility than you.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo Clever. So, just so I understand where you are coming from, you believe it was of little value to provide additional information about the author of the original article? Interesting. DigiNut challenged the rigour of Shirky's analysis and conclusions. Fair enough. But don't you think it would make sense to understand how much the author knows about the subject, what bias (if any) he has, and how much credibility he has? I'm not asserting that Shirky's views shouldn't have been challenged, but I would say that not all opinions should be treated equally. And, for the record, I think it is pretty clear that DigiNut has more more credibility than you.

I believe it is of no value to try to argue against DigiNut's whole post by simply providing a wikipedia link to the author's biography. If you're going to argue against what he said, use words.

It's great that the author knows a lot about a subject, but that doesn't automatically make him right. Yes, it makes sense to know the author's background, but it makes even more sense to actually argue against DigiNut's criticism's.

And yes, he does have more credibility than me. That's why I like it when he posts. I actually learn shit from him.

As someone who has made a convention in doing the unconventional, I can agree with the statement that taking (educated) risks results in greater outcomes.

My entire career has been built on taking the more unconventional (riskier?) route in an attempt to achieve the bigger win, reach the more difficult outcome, win against the odds (or conventional wisdom).

Overall - I have accomplished much more that I ever thought I would and have ended up in a position well beyond that I though was possible.

Andrew isn't talking about being cavalier, he's talking about dreaming big, recognizing opportunities and making a decision (which means disregarding all other alternative outcomes) and working towards an end.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur I believe it is of no value to try to argue against DigiNut's whole post by simply providing a wikipedia link to the author's biography. If you're going to argue against what he said, use words. It's great that the author knows a lot about a subject, but that doesn't automatically make him right. Yes, it makes sense to know the author's background, but it makes even more sense to actually argue against DigiNut's criticism's. And yes, he does have more credibility than me. That's why I like it when he posts. I actually learn shit from him.

WTF? You're hilarious. How do you know if that was all I had to say on the subject? Sometimes I need time to think about a response (or a non-response, in most cases). Sometimes these threads take time to unfold, so relax man.

It's great that you learn from DigiNut. I'm sure his nuts are tingling with excitement.

I learn from Shirky, among many other authors/journalists that I follow a regular basis. I was simply trying to share an article that I thought was interesting, and that might be useful to a couple of people that read these boards. If not, such is life.

Next.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker As someone who has made a convention in doing the unconventional, I can agree with the statement that taking (educated) risks results in greater outcomes. My entire career has been built on taking the more unconventional (riskier?) route in an attempt to achieve the bigger win, reach the more difficult outcome, win against the odds (or conventional wisdom). Overall - I have accomplished much more that I ever thought I would and have ended up in a position well beyond that I though was possible. Andrew isn't talking about being cavalier, he's talking about dreaming big, recognizing opportunities and making a decision (which means disregarding all other alternative outcomes) and working towards an end.

Exactly. Thanks RJ. I know we haven't spoken to eachother about this topic, but I have heard through the grapevine about many of your significant risks and accomplishments. Respect.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo WTF? You're hilarious. How do you know if that was all I had to say on the subject? Sometimes I need time to think about a response (or a non-response, in most cases). Sometimes these threads take time to unfold, so relax man.

WTF? You're even more hilarious. You're accusing me of not knowing that you had more to say? If you needed time, take your time, write out the whole argument and then post. It's not necessary that you reply to his argument <5 minutes after he posted.

quote:

I learn from Shirky, among many other authors/journalists that I follow a regular basis. I was simply trying to share an article that I thought was interesting, and that might be useful to a couple of people that read these boards. If not, such is life. Next.

Did I ever say that I found the article to be non-interesting? Just because I called you out on using a shitty link as a counter-argument doesn't mean I agreed with DigiNut about everything, or at all even.

Much respect to R.J and Andrew here. I think it's safe to say that the credibility that you two have in regards to this subject is unmatched in this forum. Excellent thread, and excellent post.

Dima, you are clearly playing the devil's advocate here.

quote:

Originally posted by slingshot Much respect to R.J and Andrew here. I think it's safe to say that the credibility that you two have in regards to this subject is unmatched in this forum. Excellent thread, and excellent post.

Thanks man. Much appreciated.

BTW, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how much I admire the risks that one guy here (Shanny) takes on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Writing-Humour-Fashion-Dancing (Ha)-Career Choice- Etc. The guy never fails to amaze me. Totally original. I know big things are in store for this man. Sincerely.

I wasn't really commenting on his credibility, just pointing out his flawed premise in this particular article.

To be perfectly honest, though, now that we're on the subject, I think he's a bit of a blowhard. A lot of his talks on things like ontology and tagging and categorization are just plain nonsense. Whenever I hear (or read) him I always get the unshakable impression that he's indirectly trying to sell us something.

In any event, Shirky may be an expert on many things, but I think what he's writing about here is well outside that area of expertise. Clay knows a lot about networks and systems, but he very often loses me when he starts getting into the social and economic (or worse, philosophical) aspects. This particular piece was more like metacognitive fluff - it's hard to even understand what his point is, much less what his evidence is.

Just my two cents though.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I wasn't really commenting on his credibility, just pointing out his flawed premise in this particular article. To be perfectly honest, though, now that we're on the subject, I think he's a bit of a blowhard. A lot of his talks on things like ontology and tagging and categorization are just plain nonsense. Whenever I hear (or read) him I always get the unshakable impression that he's indirectly trying to sell us something. In any event, Shirky may be an expert on many things, but I think what he's writing about here is well outside that area of expertise. Clay knows a lot about networks and systems, but he very often loses me when he starts getting into the social and economic (or worse, philosophical) aspects. This particular piece was more like metacognitive fluff - it's hard to even understand what his point is, much less what his evidence is. Just my two cents though.

Thanks for the change. A few random thoughts:

(1) DigiNut, I don't know you at all, but you strike me as someone who may be considered to be a blowhard from time to time. No offense, as you are definitely not alone in these here parts (present company included, at times). Which leads me to point #2.

(2) Blowhards can be entertaining and/or thought provoking. It's a matter of personal preference really, as to how you like your content served. I may not always agree with the opinions and/or the delivery of opinions by blowhards/commentators/entertainers such as Jim Cramer, Richard Dawkins, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, Stephen Colbert, Vince McMahon, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, etc., etc., but I certainly think they are worth listening to every once and while. If only for a laugh.

(3) I find people who are in the business of selling ideas, such as Shirky, interesting. We are all usually selling something, whether we are aware of it or not. I am not sure what you mean when you say you have an "unshakable impression that he's indirectly trying to sell us something." Would you be more comfortable if he were "directly" selling you something, or would you rather he stop selling altogether?

(4) I am not aware of one person that regularly expresses their opinions, regardless of medium, who doesn't open themselves up to criticism. The more prolific a journalist/author/blogger/reporter/member (of a message board like this) is, the more chances that this person has to say something that is confusing, stupid, misinformed, misinterpreted, offensive, etc. Shirky is fairly prolific, and so it doesn't surprise me that there are many things that he has said that you disagree with - especially on topics which you have relatively greater knowledge. You have offered some clues as to your area of expertise, and I'll keep these in mind the next time I am looking for answers.

(5) It does not bother me when a person delves outside their area of expertise, particularly if they have taken the time to do some base level of reading or research, have thought things through a bit, and are willing to listen and learn. The last paragraph of Shirky's post struck me as being rather humble and informed, not condescending and naive:

"And the hardest discipline, whether talking to my students or the companies I work with, is to hold back from offering too much advice, too definitively. When I see students or startups thinking up something crazy, and I want to explain why that won�t work, couldn�t possibly work, why this recapitulates the very argument that led to RFC 939 back in the day, I have to remind myself to shut up for a minute and just watch, because it may be me who will be surprised when I see what color comes out of the bag next."

(6) How exactly is the topic of entrepreneurship outside of Shirky's area of expertise? I must admit, you've got me baffled on this one. He worked as the CTO of a successful startup. He has worked at an investment firm specializing in early stage companies. He has written extensively about the internet and technology since 1996, which means that he witnessed/experienced/analyzed the internet bubble of the late-90s and early-2000s, a time when more than a few new companies were started. He works as a consultant and a professor at NYU, where he has ample exposure to young minds and entrepreneurs.

Outside his area of expertise? I don't think so, man.

Very interesting thread. Thanks for taking the time to post the link. Just a quick comment; In my -limited- experience, I've found very few corporations that are willing to put enough trust and faith in a younger mind. Startups and small companies may have a different mentality. I'd love an opportunity to find out. But from what I've seen, I have to agree with one comment DigiNut made; that being most young people with great drive and ideas in the first few months will more often than not completely lack the resolve to carry their ideas forward.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo (1) Dima, I don't know you at all, but you strike me as someone who may be considered to be a blowhard from time to time. No offense, as you are definitely not alone in these here parts (present company included, at times).

Jimbo, you can consider me to be a woman if it helps you sleep at night, and I still wouldn't care.

Well, well, well kiddies, I opened this to a complete surprise debate, one that as I read through, made me forget the original comment.

Now I have realigned myself with the point of the story (that young entrenpreneurs have the advantage of ignorance), I agree.

In my business alone, moving from the UK to Canada has shown me that young talents are nurtured far more over there than here. There is a distinct 'agism' that takes place here, far more noticable than I had been aware of previously.

So, here's a question - Is it North America's reluctance to nurture young talent and therefore encourage the advantage of ignorance (sweeping generalization, I know) that results in the perception (not necessarily mine) that North America is a good few years behind Europe?

Re: Young entrepreneurs' advantage: ignorance

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo Young entrepreneurs' advantage: ignorance Clay Shirky's latest thought-provoker posits that young people make better entrepreneurs because they're too inexperienced to know that their ideas are silly: "The mistakes novices make come from a lack of experience. "

do you think this same logic can be applied when it comes to sex?
I hate it when a guy doesn't know and before you know it WHOOSH - it's everywhere. wtf?

quote:

Originally posted by shanny There is some sort of middle ground though... Having the courage to move forward with a new idea is one thing, what makes it a good decision is applying proper business sense to the idea. Making a good business plan, and paying attention to things like having the capital to support yourself for a significant time before starting the business are ways of determining whether your good idea is actually a sustainable one. Take my past for example... I had an for a new business... 1) Josh's Extra-Lickable Lollipops The Pros -obvious increase in quality will attract Lollipop connoiseurs from all four Lollipop eating regions -rather than have sticks be whistles, they will be kazoos, which attracts the big boys(since big boys use kazoos as their noisemaker of choice) The Cons -increased lickability means less lollipops need to be purchased which decreases ROI and could cause stocks to plummet to near record lows -never ending pressure from Tootsie Roll Pops, which combine the succulent chocolatey centres with candy coating second to no other hard-candy-shelled-device The Reality -my history as a semi-nude entertainer would cause many people to not want to lick Lollipops in the shape of my chiseled upper-body For that reason, this could never be a sustainable enterprise. Maybe had I not decided to use a sexually suggestive candy as my extre-lickable device the idea could have worked. These are just some of the things that need to be taken into account during business-reality planning.

Thank you Josh. This totally made my night!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by shanny 1) Josh's Extra-Lickable Lollipops

Josh - they've had whistle-pops for years (I know yours is a Kazoo, but still).

You'd face tough competition entering the market.

The article below outlines a few lessons regarding innovation that fit nicely with the original post in this thread (about entrepreneurship and risk taking). Not the most groundbreaking insights, but valuable nonetheless.

Innovation
Lessons from Apple
Jun 7th 2007
From The Economist print edition

What other companies can learn from California's master of innovation

http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_ID=9302662

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.