2 ms·

The facts presented here are OK, but the facts would be even stronger if they were about: "Don't build a hundred million dollar company; don't get traction or l

The facts presented here are OK, but the facts would be even stronger if they were about: "Don't build a hundred million dollar company; don't get traction or leave an indelible imprint on humanity." (i.e. many of us here are doing far less justified things, statistically speaking, regarding career choices as entrepreneurs. Rather like the physicists discussed in the article.) Maybe none of us should be building anything. The facts are pretty strong toward that one, as well, and most readers building a company would have a much safer path coding at Microsoft. It just doesn't matter. Did you know Fermat was an "amateur mathematician" and Wikipedia introduces him as such, after giving his introduction as "a French lawyer." So what? Was mathematics a waste of his time - certainly. Would you have advised him not to squander it doing that? Would you have told him not to actually study mathematics formally and devote his profession to it? Who knows what we could have gotten. Thankfully these arguments are never going to affect the bright minds of our or any generation, and people will go and do whatever fascinates them. Planck, too, was discouraged from studying physics: "The university's professor of physics, Philip von Jolly, discouraged the young student from studying physics because—as Jolly told him—it was very nearly a closed subject with little left to discover. Luckily, Planck disregarded his professor's advice." [1] Basically that's all you need to know about the current blog post as well :) :) [1] http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Pl-Pr/Planck-Max.html http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Pl-Pr/Planck-Max.html

logicallee 13y ago
I should clarify that I mean that the argument and facts that the article uses are OK. It starts: >Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it! and ends >What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career. But the very same argument would apply to: "Are you thinking of founding a company? Do you want to build value and change the lives of millions of people, getting rich in the process? Forget it!" We could then go on to state why entrepreneurship has an even lower success rate than that talked about in the article. For every one hundred people who set out to change the world by founding a company, how many succeed? The truth is that the average founder's prospects are, rationally, miserable. That does not stop the best and brightest from going into entrepreneurship, building companies and actually changing the world. In the exact same sense that Planck was not discouraged by his university's professor of physics stating that he should not study physics, and should concentrate on something else. Likewise Von Neuman's father insisted he study chemistry (which he did, along with mathematics.) The facts presented in the article just don't matter to those who have a true passion for science, just as the statistics don't matter for those of us building companies. They will study mathematics, or physics, or start companies, regardless of the odds. It's not a rational decision so much as a passionate one. If I've missed something please do tell me.

logicallee 13y ago

I should clarify that I mean that the argument and facts that the article uses are OK. It starts: >Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it! and ends >What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career. But the very same argument would apply to: "Are you thinking of founding a company? Do you want to build value and change the lives of millions of people, getting rich in the process? Forget it!" We could then go on to state why entrepreneurship has an even lower success rate than that talked about in the article. For every one hundred people who set out to change the world by founding a company, how many succeed? The truth is that the average founder's prospects are, rationally, miserable. That does not stop the best and brightest from going into entrepreneurship, building companies and actually changing the world. In the exact same sense that Planck was not discouraged by his university's professor of physics stating that he should not study physics, and should concentrate on something else. Likewise Von Neuman's father insisted he study chemistry (which he did, along with mathematics.) The facts presented in the article just don't matter to those who have a true passion for science, just as the statistics don't matter for those of us building companies. They will study mathematics, or physics, or start companies, regardless of the odds. It's not a rational decision so much as a passionate one. If I've missed something please do tell me.