I think the author falls into the narrative fallacy here.
He's the same guy leading two companies. The success of Twitch is one survivor among a sea of startups who failed, but it does not mean that Twitch or it's founder are particularly clever or unique, but that among the hundreds of possible leaders in streaming, Twitch won by random chance.
By virtue of his success being luck rather than talent, Justin's next company failed, again by random chance, but rather than accept that he just got lucky he'd rather narrate after-the-fact why it is that his second company failed because a suitable narrative allows him to cling onto the idea that Twitch's success was a result of his own talent which leaves open the possibility that he can tap into that talent to be successful again (at whatever he attempts next) despite his recent failure.
Instead he should consider himself lucky to be on the winning side of survivorship bias and acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of start-up founders just as smart as himself who did not get so lucky.
His conclusion that he wants to focus on doing what he enjoys (i.e. not being a CEO) is wise, but it does not abandon his narrative which is still false.
Same for me, but that's probably the reason I've never sold a company in the first place;-) The term "serial entrepreneur" exists for a reason, and I guess it applies to some and not to others.
He's the same guy leading two companies. The success of Twitch is one survivor among a sea of startups who failed, but it does not mean that Twitch or it's founder are particularly clever or unique, but that among the hundreds of possible leaders in streaming, Twitch won by random chance.
By virtue of his success being luck rather than talent, Justin's next company failed, again by random chance, but rather than accept that he just got lucky he'd rather narrate after-the-fact why it is that his second company failed because a suitable narrative allows him to cling onto the idea that Twitch's success was a result of his own talent which leaves open the possibility that he can tap into that talent to be successful again (at whatever he attempts next) despite his recent failure.
Instead he should consider himself lucky to be on the winning side of survivorship bias and acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of start-up founders just as smart as himself who did not get so lucky.
His conclusion that he wants to focus on doing what he enjoys (i.e. not being a CEO) is wise, but it does not abandon his narrative which is still false.