
The Best Entrepreneurs Are Older, Have Less Ego - jonnycombust
http://mashable.com/2013/02/11/entrepreneur-test/
======
grellas
_The best entrepreneurs are ones who work in their field first, gaining
valuable real-world knowledge and experience for a decade or more._

I don't think one can meaningfully say that the "best" entrepreneurs come in
one type or another. Certainly the YC juggernaut tends to confirm that young
entrepreneurs can be extremely able and can lead ventures to spectacular forms
of success.

But the statement above emphasizes for me what has always seemed obvious and
yet has often been brushed aside in, let us say, the impetuousness of youth:
that is, that experience can and often does make a huge difference for
entrepreneurs and it is a mistake to ignore its value in assessing startup
prospects.

 _Someone, somewhere, somehow_ needs to have "been there before" for a startup
to work in a big, complex, and disruptive field such as those targeted by the
most promising startups. If it is not the founders themselves, it is those
with whom the founders surround themselves. If those persons are not there, it
has been my experience (having represented countless founders) that the
founders will tend to stumble around to their detriment. I believe the main
value of the YC network, for example, is that it gives young entrepreneurs
precisely the sort of connections and guidance by which they can connect up
with and be guided or even mentored by those with solid experience in their
respective domains. Without that, their chances of flubbing it are magnified
by a lot. A VC with deep domain experience can add similar value, with or
without YC, but of course its connections with key VCs is one of the ways that
YC links its entrepreneurs with seasoned hands in a given field.

It follows _ipso facto_ that entrepreneurs who are older and can bring direct
experience to a venture will also often have it over younger, inexperienced
ones. The opposite may be true as well and that the value of such experience
in any given case may be limited or worthless. My point is that having key
experience, when it is authentic and coupled with the right level of talent,
is extremely valuable and should be eagerly welcomed when brought to the
venture by older entrepreneurs.

We learn from our mistakes. That is a recurring theme on this forum. Those
lessons don't simply take the form of "fail fast, fail often" because the
virtue is not in the failing as such but in the lessons learned from the
process - and that same virtue attaches to any quality experience by talented
people who have tilled the soil in their areas of expertise for lengthy
periods. That group may or may not be the "best" entrepreneurs but there will
certainly be large numbers of them who will wind up being among the best by
virtue of the depth and expertise that only quality experience can bring.

~~~
freshhawk
> I don't think one can meaningfully say that the "best" entrepreneurs come in
> one type or another

Of course you can, if the data supports it. If they had explicitly added terms
like "the best entrepreneurs _generally_ _tend_ to come from people with
_many_ of these attributes" would that make it meaningful?

They were taking those as a given, since it's obvious that they apply when you
compile data like this.

Just because a map is not the territory doesn't mean the map isn't useful.

And rejecting the data driven answer and then filling in your own
interpretation retroactively is not a good way to arrive at conclusions that
turn out to be correct.

~~~
sirclueless
> And rejecting the data driven answer and then filling in your own
> interpretation retroactively is not a good way to arrive at conclusions that
> turn out to be correct.

That sounds like the scientific process to me. You look at a bunch of data
points and say, "I'm going to reject the notion that this is an arbitrary
correlation, and hypothesize that in fact there is some underlying cause X
that drives the correlation." Then you control for everything else and do an
experiment.

In tech startups, this might mean saying, "I think age doesn't actually
matter, what matters is that someone in the founder's immediate circle
(perhaps oneself) has a wealth of domain information." That's a perfectly
testable hypothesis, even though the experiment would be expensive and
difficult to do cleanly. You just take a bunch of older and younger founders,
and have them found companies outside their domains. Some of them you provide
with VCs and advisors with plenty of domain knowledge, others you just give
money. If the domain knowledge proves more valuable than the age, you have
confirmed your hypothesis. If the age matters more than the domain knowledge,
you have rejected it.

Now of course you wouldn't find older entrepreneurs who would willingly forgo
VCs and advisors with domain knowledge, and most founders choose industries
they are familiar with. But maybe you could find some markets where this
happens naturally. Maybe you could do an analysis of some industry like online
education or fashion or something where you have a mix of types of founders,
and see who has success. In any case, rejecting correlational data in favor of
testable underlying causes is fundamental to scientific induction (it is only
the difficulty of actually controlling ancillary variables that makes this
practice hard to apply to sociological hypotheses).

~~~
freshhawk
> That sounds like the scientific process to me.

> Then you control for everything else and do an experiment.

What grellas was doing was coming up with alternate explanations based on
intuition and rejecting the conclusions of those that did do an experiment.
And he was doing so retroactively. That makes it not science, but what is
often called a "just so story" and is technically called the ad hoc fallacy.

Speculation about how to do a better experiment is a great discussion to have,
but both yourself and grellas are moving towards a perfect solution fallacy,
where you are ignoring the data you have now, that tells you something
interesting in favour of waiting for some ideal study in the future (that can
somehow test underlying causes in a sociological problem, which is, as you
say, extraordinarily difficult).

This is a normal reaction to cognitive dissonance, find a flaw in the source
that contradicts what you believe (it's correlational) and then you don't have
to change your mind while you wait for a perfect solution. Seems to make sense
but what you are actually doing is believing the narrative that has less
evidence and then rationalizing that belief.

The idea of an accelerator actually running a controlled study is an
interesting one, but the structure of such a study would mean that you would
be very confident in getting lower returns than normal for that cohort. Maybe
you would discover something that made it worthwhile from the data, but likely
you would not. It would be great for everyone if someone did it, but no one
wants to literally sabotage young entrepreneurs in order to maintain valid
controls. Maybe you could use the same ethical arguments that medicine uses
... but it would be a hard sell.

------
dpiers
I'm 23.

I don't like people my age, including myself. We are inexperienced and
foolish, and think much too highly of ourselves. The only cure for our folly
is experience, which I believe does not temper ambition, but instead directs
it towards wiser pursuits.

I know I will soon reflect on the things I create now and realize how flawed
they were, but I've decided not to let it stop me. I know I will make
mistakes, I know I will chase the wind, and I know that five years from now
all of my running may leave me tired and broke, but what choice do I have?

The best things I create in my life will likely come ~15 years from now, but
in the meanwhile I am left to do what I can with the resources I have, which
are currently youth and ambition.

I will be a better entrepreneur when I am older, for now I will be the best I
can be today.

~~~
tesmar2
I'm 27 and so much this. If I could find a 45 year-old wise person who can
redirect me to work on something awesome in his area of expertise, that'd be
awesome.

Perhaps a new site to connect would-be 45 yr old entrepreneurs with
20-something hot shot programmers?

~~~
DigitalJack
Time passes faster the older you get. It's something you ought to be noticing
by 27, but sometimes it takes people a little longer.

Your 30s are going to go by in a flash, and when you are 45, you are going to
chuckle at what people in their 20's think old is.

~~~
Xcelerate
I'm 22 and I've noticed this trend when I was 10. It depresses me quite a bit
actually, and I constantly check up on the latest research involving this
phenomenon to see if there's a way to make time "seem" to go slower at least.

I asked my grandparents the other day if this acceleration of time kind of
levels off once you reach old age, and they said nope, years go by in what
months used to be.

~~~
DigitalJack
One way to slow down the perception of time is to embrace the schlep.
<http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html>

Working on things that are tedious or generally unfun, can make the clock tick
by slower.

Workouts slow the clock down for me.

However, instead of trying to slow down the perception of time, think about it
trying to leverage it:

If you know that the days, weeks, years, etc., are only going to pass faster,
it becomes easier to visualize the end results of cumulative effects.

Always wanted to learn a new language? Spend 30 mins a day on it. When those 2
years have flown by, if you were disciplined, you will reap the rewards.

Same for working out. If you have always wanted to be more fit, or stronger,
or whatever, nothing can be as intimidating or embarrassing as struggling to
lift the bench press bar before putting the weights on.

And at the end of the workout, especially in weight lifting, you can feel like
it will never get better or take forever to get results.

But if you bank on the ever increasing speed of perceived time passing, add a
dash of discipline, and before you know it, you will have achieved your goal.

Really the advantage is two fold, during the workout time slows to a crawl, so
you have achieved goal one, slowing down time perception.

And the rest of your life blazes by, so in seemingly little time, you will
have worked out every day for 2 years and trust me, you will see results you
wouldn't believe.

------
stcredzero

        Bad Founder DNA:
    
        - Predatory Aggressiveness
        - Excuse Making
        - Deceit
        - Emotional Instability
        - Narcissism
    

I see much more than I'd care for, of the above in the Bay Area, most of which
manifests as a doppelganger of good qualities and/or ideas. There's a lot of
Predatory Aggressiveness which takes the form of scoring points or humiliating
others, deniably disguised or justified by some principle like "Just Say No,"
but which comes with a degree of smugness more suited to Reality TV than to a
group of intellectuals genuinely trying to change society. This is often seen
in combination with Narcissism and Deceit, where a self conception as a
superior entitles someone to receive good fortune and to mete emotional abuse
to others, and justifies (at first) small lies so long as they serve an
ultimate "good" goal.

You see this happen with "scenes," like a music scene or an art scene. When a
scene is new and truly obscure, everyone is genuinely open and supportive.
Newcomers are welcomed and encouraged, as colleagues whom one can talk in
common with about generally misunderstood ideas. When success and significant
money starts to ramp up the competition, things change. Values change. Much of
this isn't really "bad" so much as necessary: Fame and money invariably
attract undesired attention.

------
salimmadjd
Age discrimination is a major issue in the valley but no one wants to admit to
it since everyone is violating it.

For example, why does YC application asks for Age?

~~~
jiggy2011
Perhaps being younger is an advantage in the sort of "go big or go home" swing
for the fences entrepreneurship?

Lack of experience is probably helpful if you are doing something which is
basically a bad idea but because of a bunch of factors clicking into place
ends up being an awesome idea.

When you are older you are probably not in such a position to just run with
some crazy idea.

~~~
mindcrime
_Perhaps being younger is an advantage in the sort of "go big or go home"
swing for the fences entrepreneurship?_

Counter-scenario: Perhaps being older is an advantage in the "go big or go
home" scenario, since the older person feels like they have less time left to
achieve their dreams?

Personally, as a 39 year old, I feel like I hear the clock ticking pretty
loudly and that motivates the hell out of me. I use a lot of sports analogies,
and the way I look at it is this: It's like I'm down by 6, with 1:37 left in
the 4th quarter, and have the ball on my own 20 yard line. That means it's "4
down territory" and maybe time for a "hail mary" or two. It's do or die time
here.

(Apologies to anyone who isn't a fan of American football, if the above
analogy makes no sense).

Seriously, I don't feel like I have a lot of "at bats" (to use a different
sports analogy) left, and I'm feeling a strong sense of 'do it now, or "the
water under the Golden Gate is freezing cold"'.

~~~
hef19898
Being just shy of 31, and I feel something like that coming. Kind of depresed
me lately.. Especially after I started loosing to 20-somethings in BJJ quite
regularly :-)

What I realized can be a problem when you are acting out of age is the
reaction of others. Even if no one thought I'm in my 40ies yet, I do act
differently than others in my age (for various reasons). The point is that
people expect you to act like other people in the early thierties. Sometimes
in big corp world that can pose problems.

Guess it's the same when you ARE 40 and still act like you were 20.

~~~
mindcrime
_Being just shy of 31, and I feel something like that coming. Kind of depresed
me lately.. Especially after I started loosing to 20-somethings in BJJ quite
regularly :-)_

FWIW, you're probably in your physical prime right now, barring weird
circumstances. The "losing to 20-somethings" is probably just a run of bad
luck, or you happened across a particularly talented group by happenstance, or
you're losing focus for some reason, etc.

For most men, you don't really start declining physically until your late 30's
or even into your 40's. Then you start getting drops in testosterone, etc.
But, the good news is, men (and probably women to, not sure on this point) can
gain strength and muscle mass well into their later years. You may have to
work harder in the gym to keep up, but don't feel like you became a frail old
man at 30 or anything. I'm pretty sure I know some 50 year olds who could kick
all our asses at BJJ. :-)

~~~
hef19898
That's what I keep telling me!

------
dvanduzer
I'd like to read more background on the graphic's apparent contradictions.

It calls IQ irrelevant, but values a metric of "high fluid intelligence"
including logic, pattern recognition, and abstract thinking which... IQ is
supposed to measure? If they've developed a more effective measure of general
intelligence that correlates to _actual success_ then why isn't this huge
news? Why hasn't IQ already been supplanted by this metric?

And more personally relevant, what is the difference between "project
completion skills" and the supposedly irrelevant "conscientiousness" metric?
Something to do with intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation?

~~~
stcredzero
_> It calls IQ irrelevant, but values a metric of "high fluid intelligence"
including logic, pattern recognition, and abstract thinking which... IQ is
supposed to measure?_

Do you know any persons who have scored or would score high on IQ tests who
are ungraceful and awkward in social situations? Have you seen such persons
unable to take advantage of their abstract thinking ability to avoid
awkwardness in social situations? (Example: Failing to realize what they said
implied about someone present.) Have you seen such persons persist in making
logical arguments concerning a certain point, long after it should be obvious
that the audience has ceased to care? Have you sat by and watched someone on
your team do that in an important meeting?

 _> The difference between stupid and intelligent people - and this is true
whether or not they are well-educated - is that intelligent people can handle
subtlety. --Neal Stephenson_

I've scored decently high on IQ tests and have been plenty stupid nonetheless.

~~~
dvanduzer
I love Stephenson more than the next guy, but the subtleties of intelligence
you're inferring aren't at all hinted at by the graphic. Well rounded people
can handle ambiguity, but intentional ambiguity in communication needs to be
less vague to be effective.

------
danielpal
I am not sure if this study is accurate. It seems like 675+ companies is a
good sample size, but I have yet to see a very successful Founder Institute
Company, maybe Udemy?.

If this test is so accurate why aren't there bigger successes in Founder
Institute?

I am not pro or against age. I actually believe it's probably not a very good
indicator of success or lack of it. Age is probably a very weak indicator.

~~~
anewguy999
Founder institute has the worst terms of all. You give them equity for no
investment. So I wouldn't expect entrepreneurs with options to apply.

------
mhartl
The lack of correlation between success and IQ is interesting, but I suspect
it's only true on the margin, and is largely the product of selection bias.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised to find that, among full professors of
physics, there's negligible correlation between IQ and Nobel Prizes. Of
course, that doesn't mean that a high IQ doesn't help you win a Nobel Prize in
Physics—it simply means that _all_ physics professors already have high IQs,
and on the margin it's not an important factor in winning a Prize. Similarly,
my guess is that virtually every entrepreneur in the OP's sample was already
smart enough to succeed. In particular, I'd wager that IQ is still helpful in
entrepreneurial success—I'd be very surprised if the average IQ of their
sample wasn't substantially above average.

~~~
crucialfelix
There is another selection bias: the companies that are declared successes are
those that went through the FI 4 month boot camp and founded a company.

But they have a 60% drop out rate.

Why do people like myself (and several very intelligent people in my session)
dropout of FI ? We all dropped out because we found the course wasn't well
planned, the weekly assignments were often annoying and non-sensical and got
in the way of doing important work on developing the company. They dump
surprise assignments on us during Christmas while we are at our relatives. I
wasn't getting important questions answered and found better info elsewhere.

So intelligent people are dropping out and then FI reads this as: intelligence
is not correlated with success. So they reduce IQ from the entrance test.
Correlation does not imply causation.

------
dmk23
Ego is usually the bigger issue than age, though typically there is a relation
and experience moderates ego.

Age is just a number, ego is something that could cause self-destructive
behavior and bad decision making.

------
arbuge
My takeaway on this subject is that if you're in good physical and mental
health, you have a chance. If health isn't an issue, it's been done at pretty
much any age, from the teens up.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Next month: "Studies show the most successful entrepreneurs are young,
narcissistic, 30 somethings with a chip on their shoulder." (Which is what so
many VCs have been saying)

There's good points. But this feels like a bad case of "blind eyed data
worship". That's like saying "the best entrepreneurs are women" because when
you compare data, female entrepreneurs grow their companies faster, with less
risk, and are profitable sooner (all true facts, go ladies!). Yet when we look
at startups and businesses we see men all over the place, at the top of
billionaires lists, with massive companies, worldwide reach, huge patent
portfolios. All despite there being 10+ million female entrepreneurs in the
US. This is another case of the data not matching up to real world results.
Maybe because there's more to being an entrepreneur than the data recorded.
Like aggressiveness, risk, market, idea, management style, etc...

Every time an article like this comes up I can always think up of numerous
examples that prove the exact opposite. From Egotistical Puppet-master Steve
Jobs (RIP), to Numerous VCs that have stated over and over that they find
"young, narcissistic guys with a chip on their shoulder" to be really good
entrepreneurs, to real world examples all around me. Can someone explain this?

Because my explanation is that data patterns like this only explain: "what has
happened, not why it happened or what will happen." Sometimes, numbers and
data are only as useful as the places and methods you use to collect them, and
the way you re-arrange and present them. Which very often is "poor".

TLDR: The Best Entrepreneurs are people who adjust to change and get shit
done.

------
tehwalrus
The phase "Entrepreneur DNA" in the article is a shame - Entrepreneurship is a
behaviour, and behaviours are learned, not inherited.

Obviously, people have varied aptitudes for behaviours, based on a whole set
of genetic and environmental factors (especially early developmental
environments) _BUT_ , anyone can practise at entrepreneurship and get better,
which is why I'm not surprised older people with business experience are more
successful.

------
larsonf
I wonder what this means:

'The best entrepreneurs are ones who work in their field first, gaining
valuable real-world knowledge and experience for a decade or more.'

The definition of 'best' here is massively important. If 'best' means 'has an
operating business with ~1 million in revenue', then perhaps no one will doubt
that a slightly unconventional, experienced, agreeable, 34-year old is
predictive.

Maybe I'm totally wrong on this but I feel that not many people are selling
their things, moving to silicon valley and missing a good deal of their youth
in order to have a successfully operating business in which they hold a little
equity, thus putting them in the ranks of perhaps a certain type of 'best'
entrepreneurs. I would go even so far as to say that SV's 'best' is massive
success--like 'billion is cool'--where perhaps you couldn't even do a
predictive test because the outcome is that rare. I mean how many people are
really set out to achieve non-power-law-type success if they are in the
'founder' game? Are angels looking for that? Perhaps picking founders by
lowest car insurance premium? VCs?

------
benaiah
I just posted a long comment that's apropos to the discussion, relating to the
young Silicon Valley types who categorically dismiss "old people". I won't
repost it here, but here's a link:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5203133>

------
anonuser15243
This article is way too full of generalizations to really say anything about
what it takes to be a "successful entrepreneur."

My personal anecdotal experience is that older entrepreneurs tend to be better
at certain types of entrepreneurship -- I know several older folks who are
renowned in a particular very technical area of innovation. There are probably
10 people in the world that could found a company in their space and it takes
years to develop that level of specific domain knowledge.

On the other hand, when it comes to building a consumer-focused app targeting
20 year olds, it's going to be difficult for a 40 year old to relate.

As far as ego goes, my experience is that SV CEOs tend to be some of the
biggest ego driven maniacs on the planet. Not all, but I would certainly say
more likely than the population at large.

------
dylangs1030
I would agree it's a myth that being 20 years old and ignorant of your own
inexperience is a formula for success in Silicon Valley.

That being said, this article seems to have a bit of a slant _against_ that
demographic. I think it's a wonder so many of the people that age succeed the
way they do, given their competition.

I'd also point out that Paul Graham has a good point when he talks about some
of the advantages being under 25 has if you make a startup - for instance,
that you're more likely to learn more tools and not become "set in your ways"
so to speak.

------
mindcrime
Great, I've got the "older" part nailed (turn 40 this year), but the other
bit... um... yeah. I think my ego is about the size of the Death Star, so that
might be a problem. :-(

Still, it is encouraging to see any research that dispels that idea that you
_have_ to be a 20-something to succeed as an entrepreneur.

~~~
callmeed
Well, you can't get younger but you can always work on taming your ego :)

I'm 37 and have had moderate success as an entrepreneur. I would consider
myself _competitive_ but not really egotistical. I just try to hire/work with
people who are smarter/better than me so I can always be learning.

~~~
mindcrime
Eh, I may be overstating things a little bit. I definitely have a substantial
ego, but I don't _think_ it's too the point that it's damaging to me. I'm
definitely competitive, but I also value being humble. Certainly I acknowledge
that there are plenty of people around who are smarter than I am.

Maybe it's not even so much ego, as it is a crazy high sense of self-efficacy.
I still buy into that "I can do anything, if I'm just willing to work hard
enough" mindset.

------
virtualwhys
The best entrepreneurs are dead.

They have less ego than anyone living and a great deal more experience to draw
on.

Young people should therefore consult the dead first, resorting to their older
counterparts only as a means of last resort.

------
stretchwithme
Its probably a normal curve peaking in the thirties or forties.

Energy and ability to learn and change peak early. But our experience and deep
understanding of things can keep expanding for many years.

------
alan_cx
Or, young entrepreneurs should hire older staff. They provide a lot of calming
stability and bring so much experience that the young "leader" can make great
use of.

------
neltnerb
I love that reading things like this makes me think in sequence:

1\. Awesome, because I barely think I can accomplish even the simplest of
goals!

2\. Wait, but I'd better not let that make me overconfident.

Hah!

------
cupcake-unicorn
What?? What about Christian Grey? This has totally thrown off the book's
realism for me.

------
hef19898
Like my grandmother said: Being too young is a flaw that corrects itself over
time.

