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.

___________________
We are the kids of the quiet revolution, and we fight for a new quiet concept of evolution. We play house music.

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.

___________________

Check out more of my ramblings at:
http://thedailyuniverse.blogspot.com/

Where Are The Tunes?
Good things happen to good people

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
I'm the trouble starter, fuckin' instigator.
I'm the fear-addicted, danger illustrated.

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.

___________________
I'm the trouble starter, fuckin' instigator.
I'm the fear-addicted, danger illustrated.

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.

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

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.