Peter Thiel on "Founder as Victim, Founder as God"

I am still thinking whats true and whats not in the text though...

Modern day scapegoats e.g. founders are just humiliated (Gates) and fired (Jobs) but not killed compared to earlier times scapegoats, who were actually sacrificed. So the question is, what kind of forces brought about the changes that made present times more civil?

So in a guaranteed civil environment, where the sacrificial lamb will never actually be sacrificed, but the most likely risks are not being able to make it (failed venture) or getting blamed and fired in a venture going downhill after hitting a peak, won't it make the averages go and try out things with a mind set 'if it works great, if it doesn't well the next time...'?

Heck even Google founders did try to sell it to Yahoo very early on. That's my chosen example of an average behavior, to counter the chosen examples in the OPs text.

So its all very interesting to read. But don't know what to do with it. But one thing I am sure of is that dedicated work and self sacrifice (like not wasting too much time enjoying here, and instead actually coding/working) does pay in some form down the line!

Addendum: Would want to add though, that my take away from the notes was extending the innovation period of a Startup. Not yielding to beaureucracy. If the intrigue was built to just drive in that point, it was well worth then.

It's true that most of these social media startups are overvalued garbage that are going to prove themselves to be career graveyards (or sandtraps, at the least) when the tide goes out. And the people who join these unimaginative VC darlings for 0.02% of the pie (with preferences against that equity) are going to lose big time. That said, the reflexive " isn't a real innovation" attitude when X is the solution to a real problem (e.g. self-driving cars, fraud detection, or even well-designed smart-phone interfaces) is a bit annoying. It may not be the flying car, but this X is usually something that came out of a lot of hard work on a problem that's just much more difficult than it seems it "should" be.

I think there's a resentment that builds in a lot of people due to a discrepancy between the real forces that produce technological improvements and the popular press. Reality: technological innovation is slow and incremental, with one seemingly insignificant change making another step possible, and that making another step feasible... until there is eventual macroscopic change, over time. It's gradual and, on the surface, doesn't appear that interesting. Popular depiction, for a contrast: visionary businessmen and "technologists" and "hackers" are driving the future. The backlash against that is that people single out these "visionaries" (many of whom are overrated) and denigrate everything they've accomplished as "not a real innovation". There's truth in the matter of these "visionaries" being overrated, but on the other hand, that doesn't mean that technological progress isn't happening. It's just gradual and unpredictable, and often fails to emerge where we want it. Technological progress actually pushes through on its own terms, rather than being pulled where wanted. For example, human transportation has been stagnant in price and quality (in the US) since 1960. That's a real morale problem on a national scale. But to single out Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg as "not real innovators" because they haven't cured cancer or delivered $40 worldwide airfares is a big of a leap.

Early in a startup, founders will attract other who are like them (paypal a documented example). However, when the startup is big enough the perception of the founder compared to everyone else in the company has the naturally emergent property that the founder will be seen as different than everyone else. Now, the tipping point of this difference becoming a "dislike" could be company performance or bad luck. So the theory all seems to come together in V.B and V.C in article.

I did however, find some of the background to be confusing, particularly section I.D seems to make the case that king-ship is a matter of perception outside of the organization.

http://www.jonathanlipps.com/blog/2008/07/the-dark-knight-an...