6 ms·

While the author does quote the very low odds of success, I think he does readers a disservice by minimizing that risk. Very few people have the right dispositi

by matrix 10y ago

While the author does quote the very low odds of success, I think he does readers a disservice by minimizing that risk. Very few people have the right disposition, the right partners, the right idea, and the right skill set to launch a startup. Being a freshly minted PhD doesn't change that. Failing at a startup sucks, and sucks really hard. But of course, its not in a VC's interest to tell you the pain that comes with a startup. Better advice: if you want to do a startups, get some experience, find some good partners, test out ideas in your own time, and when you have enough runway and something that looks solid, only THEN make the leap.

__mbm__ 10y ago
> Failing at a startup sucks This. I have a PhD and a failed startup. It felt real bad, and I didn't get that far with it (9 months before calling it quits). Creating a successful startup requires significantly more energy and stress than most science jobs, even for pre-tenure professors. It requires different skills than science. Few introverts will succeed at founding a company, for example. Moreover, you have to produce actionable results quickly, and you have very different success metrics. I'm one degree of separation from a PhD startup founder that literally killed himself as his startup imploded, when the company was 5(?) years old. Severe depression, loss of all semblance of a life... these are standard in the world of startup founders. The risk that you destroy your life is real.
- pb 10y ago
  Many of the most successful founders are introverts. Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Bill Gates, none of them are very extroverted, but they've started some of the most valuable companies in the world. Of course if you are so introverted that you are unable to make eye contact or talk to people it will be a problem, but most of us are not that extreme.
  - gohrt 10y ago
    Why do you think they are not extroverted? Bill Gates was a famously in-your-face person when dealing with employees, partners, and competitors.
    - lukeHeuer 10y ago
      Being an extrovert or an introvert has nothing to do with shyness. You can certainly be introverted and not very shy. Bill Gates is a great example of that.
    - fsloth 10y ago
      Introvert vs. extrovert has more to do how much energy being with a crowd gives or takes, or do you prefer your own company over that of others if given the chance. Any social skill, unless natural, can be acquired.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > Any social skill, unless natural, can be acquired. How?
        xj9 10y ago
        The same way all skills are acquired: practice.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        Practicing does not help for me. I am rather a lone wolf, but not because I want to be, but because I simply fail completely, so I find it a little bit unfair to downvote the above post.
        xj9 10y ago
        Practice is the only way to learn anything, but you can practice in a lot of different ways. Everyone has different learning styles, you should find yours. Don't give up. Shit is hard.
        50CNT 10y ago
        Might you be doing it wrong then? Effective practice requires you to stretch far enough, but not too far, lest you become panicked. It's better focused than "general". It requires concentration, effort and introspection. If you fail completely, you might be trying things too far out of your confidence zone. A mousy introvert isn't going to morph into a charismatic rockstar within a single leap, no matter how much the introvert might want that to be the case. Odds are, he'll seize up and freeze, in which case the only thing he practices is the act of freezing.
  - brightball 10y ago
    I hear things like this about Zuckerberg all the time and he did one singular thing that made Facebook take off more than all of the other social networks that were out there at the time (Classmates, High School Alumni, My Space, etc). He made it exclusive. You had to have a .edu address to sign up so the people ON the network were initially only your peer group. You couldn't get in without that .edu address and therefore you WANTED to get in if you couldn't. This created a steady user base that didn't have to be EVERYBODY (as long as people at your school were on you didn't care) and a natural spam filter as there were controls on access to those email addresses. Once those people graduated from college they got to stay on the site. Zuckerberg succeeded specifically because of the exclusivity that Facebook grew from during a time where every other service was just a spam mine.
    - skewart 10y ago
      You're absolutely right. Though I'd argue the real value in that exclusivity was not only exclusivity itself making people want to join (though I'm sure that was part of it), but also in enabling a culture of honesty about names, interests, and life. That honesty was only possible at the time through exclusivity. When FB started there was a long-standing cliche about social interaction on the internet: everyone lied about or exaggerated who they were. Facebook encouraged people to use their real name and share real information. Of course that honesty made it all the more fascinating to look at - you got to see who people really were. The honesty was only possible because it was a small network of more or less peers with a high level of trust.
    - amyjess 10y ago
      > He made it exclusive. You had to have a .edu address to sign up so the people ON the network were initially only your peer group. You couldn't get in without that .edu address and therefore you WANTED to get in if you couldn't. Don't forget that each college's network was segregated from each other's. You couldn't view the full profiles of people at other schools unless you were friends with them, but by default, you could view the full profiles of everyone else at your school (you could set your profile to friends-only, but most people didn't back then). I know that I didn't care that everyone else on my network could see my home address and my phone number on my profile, because I knew that they were all classmates (or professors, but very few of them were on Facebook). After I graduated and networks became less prominent, I locked down my profile to friends-only. Groups were restricted to single schools (and Pages didn't exist): this kept group sizes small and made them feel cozier. Pretty much every school had a group for most fandoms, and it was a big deal if you were able to be the person who got to create your school's group for your favorite subject. There were a number of groups that were basically memes; I forgot what they all were, but no real discussion happened in the group, and their only value was to be listed on your profile. They were classified as "Facebook Classics", and what would happen was that the meme would take off at one school, then the members' friends at other schools would notice them on their profiles and create versions at their schools, and so on. Again, there was some prestige in being the first person to spread the meme to your school. And there were some college-specific things on your profile, too. There were fields for your class schedule, and you had a separate "mailbox" field for colleges that had dorms.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    To be fair you cited a pretty tiny sample size; I'm not sure if anyone actually has compiled the appropriate statistics to prove whether or not introverted people have a harder time creating a successful company. Those could be the outliers. Or maybe not I'm not sure as I lack the data.
  - abraae 10y ago
    Introverts often perform brilliantly when pitching or persuading. Being out in front of others is not their relaxing place, so they focus, pour their energy into it and succeed at it. Then they withdraw to some solitude to recharge.
    - Ma8ee 10y ago
      Or they panic, or blank out, or more likely, find a way not to be in front of others in the first place.
      - ssharp 10y ago
        I think with all the real and pop science done the past few years on introversion and it's subsequent rise in awareness, far too many people conflate social anxiety and introversion. They may be related but they're not the same thing.
  - cbhl 10y ago
    This eventually became a liability for Mark Zuckerberg; some of his earliest TV interviews went really, really badly. IIRC, Zuck hired a public speaking instructor, had Jesse Eisenberg open various internal and external speaking events for him (such as the keynote for F8 around this time), started having lunches with employees to practice talking to them in Chinese, etc.
    - kornish 10y ago
      Sorry to nit; it was actually Andy Samberg from The Lonely Island who opened F8, which was actually hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_vz6Me_TIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_vz6Me_TIY. Jesse Eisenberg played Zuck in The Social Network.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    Don't confuse introvert with shy. they are different things.
  - jasoncchild 10y ago
    >Many of the most successful founders are introverts. Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Bill Gates, none of them are very extroverted, but they've started some of the most valuable companies in the world. And none of them were/are phds
    - noobermin 10y ago
      pg has a PhD but is not an introvert.
      - jasoncchild 10y ago
        I stand corrected :)
  - leksak 10y ago
    Out of the Fortune 500 companies I'd argue that most of their founders are not introverts, but some of them comes from money which helps. Just because some introverts have seen success does not mean that all introverts starting a company will share in the same amount of success. It can, just as being an extrovert can, enable you or inhibit you.
- rl3 10y ago
  >The risk that you destroy your life is real. Especially so for PhD recipients. Unless they're from money, they've probably already spent their post-grad years living very modestly. Starting a startup just extends and amplifies that, which can be dangerous.
- meowface 10y ago
  On the bright side, at least you didn't spend 3+ years on it like some people do before realizing their idea or model is fundamentally flawed. That fear is one of a few reasons why I don't think I'll start a startup any time soon.
- vintermann 10y ago
  > Few introverts will succeed at founding a company, for example. This is comically obvious when you look at some successful startups... My brother joined one (not technically as a founder, but he left the same company as them to join as a day 1 employee). They occasionally post PR pictures of themselves. They all look ridiculously like successful, smiling, talented and dynamic people, the kind of people a VC probably likes to see. Except my brother, who looks totally like the bookish introvert that he is. Well well, I figure smart VCs knew that they have good reasons to have that one guy around.
- alimw 10y ago
  I'm sorry to hear about your friend-of-a-friend†, but it's crazy to suggest that's meaningful data in isolation. Most of us have known people, or know people who have known people, who have killed themselves; they come from all walks of life. († I suppose that's what you mean by one degree of separation?)
drbojingle 10y ago
I don't disagree with you completely, but as a guy working for a start-up I would say that no matter if we find success or failure I'm going to personally walk away with good memories and a hell of an experience. There's more to it than success.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  How many times can you afford to be unsuccessful? I am not advocating an aversion to risk, mind you. I am simply asking the question. My guess is that it is deeply personal and has more to do with life goals than that of work/career goals.
- bdcravens 10y ago
  So if you were faced with a nice fat exit, or could continue running the company with the day to day grind, would you continue to pick the journey over the destination?
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    You may want to look up Gary Vaynerchuck on youtube for that
    - bdcravens 10y ago
      I'm well aware of Gary's attitudes on the subject, but I wasn't looking for general thoughts, but what an individual thinks. In general, I've found that that those critical of the financial rewards typically sing a different tune once success becomes an option.
michaelchisari 10y ago
the right disposition, the right partners, the right idea, and the right skill set Or the social and economic safety net.
leksak 10y ago
I agree, going after a professorship after getting a PhD is unlikely to cause you personal bankruptcy but creating a start-up might. Also, if your product is similar to another you may get caught in costly legal battles but this is unlikely to occur as a scientist. It will most likely "just" tarnish your reputation. While the monetary rewards of creating a successful company exceeds a good academic career it is, as the author points out, high risk. I wouldn't call a high risk gamble that has possibly detrimental long-lasting effects over your life and your co-founders life "sensible". I'd call it a gamble, as that is what it is.

by matrix 10y ago

__mbm__ 10y ago

> Failing at a startup sucks This. I have a PhD and a failed startup. It felt real bad, and I didn't get that far with it (9 months before calling it quits). Creating a successful startup requires significantly more energy and stress than most science jobs, even for pre-tenure professors. It requires different skills than science. Few introverts will succeed at founding a company, for example. Moreover, you have to produce actionable results quickly, and you have very different success metrics. I'm one degree of separation from a PhD startup founder that literally killed himself as his startup imploded, when the company was 5(?) years old. Severe depression, loss of all semblance of a life... these are standard in the world of startup founders. The risk that you destroy your life is real.

pb 10y ago
Many of the most successful founders are introverts. Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Bill Gates, none of them are very extroverted, but they've started some of the most valuable companies in the world. Of course if you are so introverted that you are unable to make eye contact or talk to people it will be a problem, but most of us are not that extreme.
- gohrt 10y ago
  Why do you think they are not extroverted? Bill Gates was a famously in-your-face person when dealing with employees, partners, and competitors.
  - lukeHeuer 10y ago
    Being an extrovert or an introvert has nothing to do with shyness. You can certainly be introverted and not very shy. Bill Gates is a great example of that.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Introvert vs. extrovert has more to do how much energy being with a crowd gives or takes, or do you prefer your own company over that of others if given the chance. Any social skill, unless natural, can be acquired.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > Any social skill, unless natural, can be acquired. How?
      - xj9 10y ago
        The same way all skills are acquired: practice.
        wolfgke 10y ago
        Practicing does not help for me. I am rather a lone wolf, but not because I want to be, but because I simply fail completely, so I find it a little bit unfair to downvote the above post.
        xj9 10y ago
        Practice is the only way to learn anything, but you can practice in a lot of different ways. Everyone has different learning styles, you should find yours. Don't give up. Shit is hard.
        50CNT 10y ago
        Might you be doing it wrong then? Effective practice requires you to stretch far enough, but not too far, lest you become panicked. It's better focused than "general". It requires concentration, effort and introspection. If you fail completely, you might be trying things too far out of your confidence zone. A mousy introvert isn't going to morph into a charismatic rockstar within a single leap, no matter how much the introvert might want that to be the case. Odds are, he'll seize up and freeze, in which case the only thing he practices is the act of freezing.
- brightball 10y ago
  I hear things like this about Zuckerberg all the time and he did one singular thing that made Facebook take off more than all of the other social networks that were out there at the time (Classmates, High School Alumni, My Space, etc). He made it exclusive. You had to have a .edu address to sign up so the people ON the network were initially only your peer group. You couldn't get in without that .edu address and therefore you WANTED to get in if you couldn't. This created a steady user base that didn't have to be EVERYBODY (as long as people at your school were on you didn't care) and a natural spam filter as there were controls on access to those email addresses. Once those people graduated from college they got to stay on the site. Zuckerberg succeeded specifically because of the exclusivity that Facebook grew from during a time where every other service was just a spam mine.
  - skewart 10y ago
    You're absolutely right. Though I'd argue the real value in that exclusivity was not only exclusivity itself making people want to join (though I'm sure that was part of it), but also in enabling a culture of honesty about names, interests, and life. That honesty was only possible at the time through exclusivity. When FB started there was a long-standing cliche about social interaction on the internet: everyone lied about or exaggerated who they were. Facebook encouraged people to use their real name and share real information. Of course that honesty made it all the more fascinating to look at - you got to see who people really were. The honesty was only possible because it was a small network of more or less peers with a high level of trust.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    > He made it exclusive. You had to have a .edu address to sign up so the people ON the network were initially only your peer group. You couldn't get in without that .edu address and therefore you WANTED to get in if you couldn't. Don't forget that each college's network was segregated from each other's. You couldn't view the full profiles of people at other schools unless you were friends with them, but by default, you could view the full profiles of everyone else at your school (you could set your profile to friends-only, but most people didn't back then). I know that I didn't care that everyone else on my network could see my home address and my phone number on my profile, because I knew that they were all classmates (or professors, but very few of them were on Facebook). After I graduated and networks became less prominent, I locked down my profile to friends-only. Groups were restricted to single schools (and Pages didn't exist): this kept group sizes small and made them feel cozier. Pretty much every school had a group for most fandoms, and it was a big deal if you were able to be the person who got to create your school's group for your favorite subject. There were a number of groups that were basically memes; I forgot what they all were, but no real discussion happened in the group, and their only value was to be listed on your profile. They were classified as "Facebook Classics", and what would happen was that the meme would take off at one school, then the members' friends at other schools would notice them on their profiles and create versions at their schools, and so on. Again, there was some prestige in being the first person to spread the meme to your school. And there were some college-specific things on your profile, too. There were fields for your class schedule, and you had a separate "mailbox" field for colleges that had dorms.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  To be fair you cited a pretty tiny sample size; I'm not sure if anyone actually has compiled the appropriate statistics to prove whether or not introverted people have a harder time creating a successful company. Those could be the outliers. Or maybe not I'm not sure as I lack the data.
- abraae 10y ago
  Introverts often perform brilliantly when pitching or persuading. Being out in front of others is not their relaxing place, so they focus, pour their energy into it and succeed at it. Then they withdraw to some solitude to recharge.
  - Ma8ee 10y ago
    Or they panic, or blank out, or more likely, find a way not to be in front of others in the first place.
    - ssharp 10y ago
      I think with all the real and pop science done the past few years on introversion and it's subsequent rise in awareness, far too many people conflate social anxiety and introversion. They may be related but they're not the same thing.
- cbhl 10y ago
  This eventually became a liability for Mark Zuckerberg; some of his earliest TV interviews went really, really badly. IIRC, Zuck hired a public speaking instructor, had Jesse Eisenberg open various internal and external speaking events for him (such as the keynote for F8 around this time), started having lunches with employees to practice talking to them in Chinese, etc.
  - kornish 10y ago
    Sorry to nit; it was actually Andy Samberg from The Lonely Island who opened F8, which was actually hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_vz6Me_TIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_vz6Me_TIY. Jesse Eisenberg played Zuck in The Social Network.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Don't confuse introvert with shy. they are different things.
- jasoncchild 10y ago
  >Many of the most successful founders are introverts. Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Bill Gates, none of them are very extroverted, but they've started some of the most valuable companies in the world. And none of them were/are phds
  - noobermin 10y ago
    pg has a PhD but is not an introvert.
    - jasoncchild 10y ago
      I stand corrected :)
- leksak 10y ago
  Out of the Fortune 500 companies I'd argue that most of their founders are not introverts, but some of them comes from money which helps. Just because some introverts have seen success does not mean that all introverts starting a company will share in the same amount of success. It can, just as being an extrovert can, enable you or inhibit you.
rl3 10y ago
>The risk that you destroy your life is real. Especially so for PhD recipients. Unless they're from money, they've probably already spent their post-grad years living very modestly. Starting a startup just extends and amplifies that, which can be dangerous.
meowface 10y ago
On the bright side, at least you didn't spend 3+ years on it like some people do before realizing their idea or model is fundamentally flawed. That fear is one of a few reasons why I don't think I'll start a startup any time soon.
vintermann 10y ago
> Few introverts will succeed at founding a company, for example. This is comically obvious when you look at some successful startups... My brother joined one (not technically as a founder, but he left the same company as them to join as a day 1 employee). They occasionally post PR pictures of themselves. They all look ridiculously like successful, smiling, talented and dynamic people, the kind of people a VC probably likes to see. Except my brother, who looks totally like the bookish introvert that he is. Well well, I figure smart VCs knew that they have good reasons to have that one guy around.
alimw 10y ago
I'm sorry to hear about your friend-of-a-friend†, but it's crazy to suggest that's meaningful data in isolation. Most of us have known people, or know people who have known people, who have killed themselves; they come from all walks of life. († I suppose that's what you mean by one degree of separation?)

drbojingle 10y ago

I don't disagree with you completely, but as a guy working for a start-up I would say that no matter if we find success or failure I'm going to personally walk away with good memories and a hell of an experience. There's more to it than success.

monkmartinez 10y ago
How many times can you afford to be unsuccessful? I am not advocating an aversion to risk, mind you. I am simply asking the question. My guess is that it is deeply personal and has more to do with life goals than that of work/career goals.
bdcravens 10y ago
So if you were faced with a nice fat exit, or could continue running the company with the day to day grind, would you continue to pick the journey over the destination?
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  You may want to look up Gary Vaynerchuck on youtube for that
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    I'm well aware of Gary's attitudes on the subject, but I wasn't looking for general thoughts, but what an individual thinks. In general, I've found that that those critical of the financial rewards typically sing a different tune once success becomes an option.

michaelchisari 10y ago

the right disposition, the right partners, the right idea, and the right skill set Or the social and economic safety net.

leksak 10y ago

I agree, going after a professorship after getting a PhD is unlikely to cause you personal bankruptcy but creating a start-up might. Also, if your product is similar to another you may get caught in costly legal battles but this is unlikely to occur as a scientist. It will most likely "just" tarnish your reputation. While the monetary rewards of creating a successful company exceeds a good academic career it is, as the author points out, high risk. I wouldn't call a high risk gamble that has possibly detrimental long-lasting effects over your life and your co-founders life "sensible". I'd call it a gamble, as that is what it is.