21–30 of 64 posts
older guys have a better chance of starting successful companies because of their experience
younger guys have a better chance of starting fundamentally disruptive companies PRECISELY because they have no experience.
'It's not the age honey, it's the mileage'
Wasn't there a big to-do at Revenue Bootcamp with PG and Mike Moritz? Didn't Moritz dismiss/dodge questions about "older" (> 30) founders? (see: http://www.thefunded.com/funds/item/5749 ) Aren't most YC founders It's curious.
from pg:
"There are quite a lot of founders over 30. I don't know exactly how many because we don't keep track of ages. The sharp falloff is around 35, but we've had a handful of founders over 40. None over 50 though. I think our age distribution is probably close to the age distribution for startups generally. We've funded more founders who are 27 than 20 or 35 because more people start startups at 27 than at 20 or 35."
"..showed that the average founder of a high-growth company launched his venture at age 40." Have not read the paper but this sounds like survivor-ship bias. The number you'd want is what percentage of old guy companies succeed.
Not to derail the conversation but when did 40 become 'old'? I'm just a decade and a half from that age and that isn't long. I'd probably consider 60 or 70 to be old. Not 40.
what is the argument about? older guys have a better chance of starting successful companies because of their experience younger guys have a better chance of starting fundamentally disruptive companies PRECISELY because they have no experience.
The more interesting question to me is which age demographic does better with less funding. Web 2.0 companies may be just "features" but the great thing about them is that they require barely any investment. In fact, a young person without any commitments (family, mortgage, etc.) and enough determination could figure out a way to do a startup with no VC investment at all. Could an older entrepreneur with a lot of com…
Word to the wise. Discount the old guys at your own peril. Discount anyone at your own peril. These days, things are often not as they appear.
Classism, ageism, racism...all prejudices are to be avoided, regardless of the era.
And, any person can do so, not only special people. This is because people have free will and intelligence (i.e. are intelligent agents) and machines do not. Thus, it is mathematically provable that prejudice is always wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classism, ageism, racism...all prejudices are to be avoided, regardless of the era.
According to intelligent design theory (IDT), everyone is very capable of providing good advice, and people are always better than anything else at giving you information. This is because IDT shows no computational device or mechanism can actually create information, only people can do so. And, any person can do so, not only special people. This is because people have free will and intelligence (i.e. are intelligent…
How does it show this? And for what definition of "information"?
it is mathematically provable...
The first step of mathematics is to define your axioms and then your terms. IDT doesn't seem to do either.
"..showed that the average founder of a high-growth company launched his venture at age 40." Have not read the paper but this sounds like survivor-ship bias. The number you'd want is what percentage of old guy companies succeed.
Not to derail the conversation but when did 40 become 'old'? I'm just a decade and a half from that age and that isn't long. I'd probably consider 60 or 70 to be old. Not 40.
I have a theory why successful 'old' guys come as such a surprise. It is because a 'young founder' is largely a product of propaganda. Young guys are mercilessly exploited by VC crowd. Venture Capitalists and startup-buying companies like Google (should I also add incubators like YC?) need to maintain 'young is good' thesis to attract the supply of fresh cannon fodder. The truth is that a VC sits on a portfolio of un…