This is a good point, but I'd argue survivor bias doesn't really apply here - successful startups often have naive founders because they are otherwise considere

This is a good point, but I'd argue survivor bias doesn't really apply here - successful startups often have naive founders because they are otherwise considered 'too hard' by most people to start. It is simply hard to take down a massive incumbent, for example, so most people don't try. Lots of startups fail, and a few succeed. I find it an interesting leading indicator that most startups who succeed have founders that are naive in some way. Doesn't mean you can't win and not be naive, and obviously correlation doesn't imply causation, but the phenomenon is frequent enough that I don't think it's entirely baseless either.