5 ms·

Yes, the author is basically saying that they felt unnoticed and were not receiving enough attention from the VC. Becoming very emotional did capture their raw

by tibbar 5y ago

Yes, the author is basically saying that they felt unnoticed and were not receiving enough attention from the VC. Becoming very emotional did capture their raw attention, but in a way that was probably irrelevant to their goals.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
This is a clear misreading of what is written in TFA. They had lots of attention from the VC, but all the VC did was shoot down their idea(s). The emotional outburst changed the mood in the room, and they got a different kind of response from the VC.
- mdorazio 5y ago
  I don’t think yours is a good reading, either. They had already gotten all the negative feedback so there wasn’t much of that left to get. The outburst also didn’t change the primary outcome (no funding). All it did was open the door to a different set of questions and a potential advisor (in my opinion not very helpful in this case). We’re also relying on the OP to tell us the mood was better when in fact it could have easily been a pity party to the other people there.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    That's a pretty fair reading. I missed out the "wasn't much left to get" part, although mostly because they didn't actually get much more even with the outburst.
  - indigochill 5y ago
    The key point is had the outburst not happened, the author would not have received the insight that "the best ideas address problems with high pain thresholds." By revealing his pain, he learned the lesson which has apparently since served him well. The rest, including the mood, is just background. In other words, if you're weighing two opportunities, one which addresses a minor annoyance or vague concern ("oh no, millenials are withdrawn") and another which fills an agonizing void ("why can't I connect with my niece?"), go with the second one.
- tibbar 5y ago
  Hmm, I think the article shows - to say it another way - a desire for validation from the VC, to be taken seriously. Which is of course a natural thing to want. Instead the VC was casually shooting down their idea. So they wanted a different kind of attention, and acknowledgement that they were different and remarkable (the article is actually pretty clear on this point). They wanted to be remembered, and, well, perhaps they were.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Correct. And after getting that attention they didn’t get funded. Because Michael was likely right and the world doesn’t need yet another urban exploration app. It seems to me that this creates a fun blog post and some long term personal growth but shouting about your niece doesn’t seem like the winning strategy when it comes to VC funding.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I read it as, at first, they had a mundane take on a problem and a mundane solution. Millennials want experiences so we can <do whatever>. Then, the outburst revealed they actually had a more insightful take on the problem, the specific example of difficulty relating to the author's niece. However, they still didn't have insight into the solution. My takeaway is something like it's better to drive from the clearest articulation of the problem to the solution, rather than divert into business-speak and make yourself sound cookie cutter. e.g. "I couldn't connect with my niece. It was isolating. Many millenials feel isolated this way. We solved the problem with my niece by doing X. X can scale to other millienials" is a better type of pitch.

by tibbar 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

This is a clear misreading of what is written in TFA. They had lots of attention from the VC, but all the VC did was shoot down their idea(s). The emotional outburst changed the mood in the room, and they got a different kind of response from the VC.

mdorazio 5y ago
I don’t think yours is a good reading, either. They had already gotten all the negative feedback so there wasn’t much of that left to get. The outburst also didn’t change the primary outcome (no funding). All it did was open the door to a different set of questions and a potential advisor (in my opinion not very helpful in this case). We’re also relying on the OP to tell us the mood was better when in fact it could have easily been a pity party to the other people there.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  That's a pretty fair reading. I missed out the "wasn't much left to get" part, although mostly because they didn't actually get much more even with the outburst.
- indigochill 5y ago
  The key point is had the outburst not happened, the author would not have received the insight that "the best ideas address problems with high pain thresholds." By revealing his pain, he learned the lesson which has apparently since served him well. The rest, including the mood, is just background. In other words, if you're weighing two opportunities, one which addresses a minor annoyance or vague concern ("oh no, millenials are withdrawn") and another which fills an agonizing void ("why can't I connect with my niece?"), go with the second one.
tibbar 5y ago
Hmm, I think the article shows - to say it another way - a desire for validation from the VC, to be taken seriously. Which is of course a natural thing to want. Instead the VC was casually shooting down their idea. So they wanted a different kind of attention, and acknowledgement that they were different and remarkable (the article is actually pretty clear on this point). They wanted to be remembered, and, well, perhaps they were.
IgorPartola 5y ago
Correct. And after getting that attention they didn’t get funded. Because Michael was likely right and the world doesn’t need yet another urban exploration app. It seems to me that this creates a fun blog post and some long term personal growth but shouting about your niece doesn’t seem like the winning strategy when it comes to VC funding.
ALittleLight 5y ago
I read it as, at first, they had a mundane take on a problem and a mundane solution. Millennials want experiences so we can <do whatever>. Then, the outburst revealed they actually had a more insightful take on the problem, the specific example of difficulty relating to the author's niece. However, they still didn't have insight into the solution. My takeaway is something like it's better to drive from the clearest articulation of the problem to the solution, rather than divert into business-speak and make yourself sound cookie cutter. e.g. "I couldn't connect with my niece. It was isolating. Many millenials feel isolated this way. We solved the problem with my niece by doing X. X can scale to other millienials" is a better type of pitch.