I posit that the majority of the entrepreneurial community misconstrues the specific traits needed to be a successful founder and it baffles me that each founder that I talk to who should not be a founder (Which happens to be a large majority) conforms the traits to fit their exact personality. What is even more frightening is that these false founders have told themselves that they fit over and over so that they actually believe it.
I was never one to hold sweeping generalizations tightly, but the sweeping generalization that there is a specific trait check list that only successful, world-changing founders have is the only one that I do not hold loosely. One could argue that it’s out of stubbornness or that I’m afraid to be wrong, but what to do I have to lose by being wrong in this situation? I’m not currently a founder, and I’m no longer scared of not being the real founder type.
This is actually what frustrates me the absolute most about society as a whole — The general bias adopted is to do absolutely anything you possibly can to *NOT* be wrong. Where does this come from? Why is it still so prominent? How can it go about being changed? There’s multiple answers to each question, but the question that confuses me the most is as follows:
Why is it appealing to never be wrong?
People don’t realize that every instance of model building (Learning) can be reduced all the way down to just straight up being wrong — In the exact same series of events that the now God-like figure Elon Musk took to reduce and rationalize his fear of the dark down to the absence of photons and being scared of an absence of photons is ludicrous.
Let me explain. Say you are learning a brand new concept, you currently have an empty box in your mind titled what ever the concept is. Clearly an empty box is not a representation of the given concept and provides absolutely no insight, meaning that it’s wrong. The mind subconsciously accepts the fact that the empty box is wrong and begins filling up the box.
Where it gets interesting is that the box takes a fractal form that mirrors the form of the concept, which means that there’s concepts within concepts within concepts that you weren’t previously aware of that all had empty boxes meaning that you were initially wrong about every single one of them. As the brain begins to recognize patterns, it takes a simultaneous predictive analysis role that is similar to that of the average machine learning algorithm. These predictions are usually wrong and call for clarification to solidify the topic and further optimize the predictor for the next output.
So, pretty much you’re wrong about everything, but then how does “right” thought come into play? What ever mental diarrhea I just typed out has a first mover fallacy and isn’t 100% accurate, but I guess I’ll just keep it and refine it at some point in the future (Likely never).
I also bet you thought that I was going to talk about my models for real founders, in which case I am sorry. This is a perfect example of how my brain works, but I promise to write out my argument for the rare traits of actual founders and how 99% (Guess) of founders aren’t meant to be so or won’t end up doing anything revolutionary/actually interesting.