|
Young entrepreneurs' advantage: ignorance (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SuperJimbo |
| 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. |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| 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 ty link as a counter-argument doesn't mean I agreed with DigiNut about everything, or at all even. |
|
|
| 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.
Dima, you are clearly playing the devil's advocate here. |
|
|
| SuperJimbo |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| SuperJimbo |
| 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. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| 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. |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| 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. :) |
|
|
| English Rachel |
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? |
|
|
| Misanthrope |
| 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? |
|
|
| andielips |
| 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!!!! :tongue2 |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
