I wouldn't call PG's data biased in the sense that he has personally injected his own opinions into it. It's just data. And YC has a lot of it on the companie

I wouldn't call PG's data biased in the sense that he has personally injected his own opinions into it. It's just data. And YC has a lot of it on the companies they've funded. The data is valid and the conclusions reached after looking at the data are just as valid. I am not disputing that at all in any way whatsoever. I also think that it is very important to understand that this data set is about investors risking their money on complete strangers with ideas. That's an important distinction when compared with, say, you risking your own money (or family money) on a venture. I have navigated business long enough to know that most people have absolutely no problem burning through someone else's money and delivering absolutely nothing in the process. So, yes, I think that if I were in their shoes I would probably want to increase my odds of getting a return on my investment. And, if the data showed that single founders of the kinds usually populating these young-founder tech startups tend to fail I'd be just as biased against the whole concept as they might be. What I have attempted to argue to some degree is that the solo founder experience might be very different when the company is not the result of a relationship between people who might have nothing to loose (young college-age founders) and an investment group. I would be curious to see if a larger data set exists somewhere that might cover all types of startups --not just tech-- and have enough information to be able to see what factors might influence success and failure. I would suspect that the number of founders is less of a driver than one might think. > It seems that you are feeling the same way I do sometimes when I read HN. That there is this great injustice in that young readers are somehow being brainwashed into believing there is only one way to be in business. I don't think in terms of injustice. HN is a forum. In the end it matters not. People tend to learn when life and reality touches them. Reality is hard to argue with. One of the best examples I have of this is the son of a good friend of mine. As he went through college he bought into an extreme liberal point of view that even his moderate liberal father was uncomfortable with. He did absolutely nothing about it. The kid graduated, got his very first job and was elated. A couple of weeks later he is over at his dad's house irate about the amount of money the government took out of his paycheck for "all kinds of crap that makes no sense; and they waste most of it" --as he put it. Needless to say, Dad had a conversation with him. The kid's political and social views changed almost 180 degrees when he actually experienced real-life. On HN I can always tell when someone is voicing opinion without ever having started and run a business. It is obvious to anyone who has been in the trenches. People say really stupid shit about business and business owners when they don't have a clue. On sites like HN, Techcrunch or Mixergy it is easy to feel like you setup shop on Friday and by the next Friday you should be funded and at a run rate of $1MM per year. The reality is that you are far more likely to fail ten or twenty times before you succeed. This, to get back on topic, is where a multiple founder team might --huge emphasis on "might"-- do better than a single founder. A lot of people are not wired to endure the extreme pain and agony of a business that is failing or not doing well. A small group of people who mesh very well and have common goals could help each other endure these events. One of my favorite quotes: "Someone holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" --Mark Twain.