3 ms·

From your earlier post: while people who want to strike out will, and figure out how to make it work. You claim that anyone who wants to be self-employ

by wtracy 16y ago

From your earlier post: while people who want to strike out will, and figure out how to make it work. You claim that anyone who wants to be self-employed is able to do so. The next post provides a counterexample to your blanket statement. Then you get angry that he's telling an "anecdote"?

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Let me see if I understand what you're saying. I make a generalization that people who want to will form a startup regardless of circumstances. The counterpoint to that was providing an example of somebody who didn't form a startup because of some condition. That's known as a counter-factual: taking what actually happened and changing something and saying that it would come out differently had this one thing changed. Sure, the person in question says that's the reason, but my entire point rests on the fact that people will rationalize. I, on the other hand, provide a _real_ example of somebody without insurance who has formed a startup, and on top of that I'm the one saying that both of these stories don't tell us much. So where am I in error? Counter-factuals are horrible ways to argue, and anecdotes don't get us anywhere, no matter which point they support, and the conversation isn't really going anywhere. In fact, this entire sub-thread started when I announced that this looked to me like a fruitless line of discussion. I flagged the story. So you agree, right? Or are you trying to say that somehow there is some progress being made that I missed out on?
- davidw 16y ago
  > I flagged the story. Thanks! In terms of actual data, I believe that countries like Germany have more small businesses than in the US, so I think that, at the margin, health care probably is important to potential founders. I know it's one reason against moving back to the US for me, although probably not the deciding one for or against.

by wtracy 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. I make a generalization that people who want to will form a startup regardless of circumstances. The counterpoint to that was providing an example of somebody who didn't form a startup because of some condition. That's known as a counter-factual: taking what actually happened and changing something and saying that it would come out differently had this one thing changed. Sure, the person in question says that's the reason, but my entire point rests on the fact that people will rationalize. I, on the other hand, provide a _real_ example of somebody without insurance who has formed a startup, and on top of that I'm the one saying that both of these stories don't tell us much. So where am I in error? Counter-factuals are horrible ways to argue, and anecdotes don't get us anywhere, no matter which point they support, and the conversation isn't really going anywhere. In fact, this entire sub-thread started when I announced that this looked to me like a fruitless line of discussion. I flagged the story. So you agree, right? Or are you trying to say that somehow there is some progress being made that I missed out on?

davidw 16y ago
> I flagged the story. Thanks! In terms of actual data, I believe that countries like Germany have more small businesses than in the US, so I think that, at the margin, health care probably is important to potential founders. I know it's one reason against moving back to the US for me, although probably not the deciding one for or against.

From your earlier post: <i>while people who want to strike out will, and figure out how to make it work.</i> You claim that anyone who wants to be self-employ

From your earlier post: <i>while people who want to strike out will, and figure out how to make it work.</i> You claim that anyone who wants to be self-employ