I don't disagree with the point on overconfidence but it is a bit exhausting to be surrounded by 10,000+ overconfident CEOs of 3 person companies in Silicon Valley, most of whom will never succeed. It contributes to a culture that can be toxic and alienating for other personality types. Maybe that is the price we pay for innovation.
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Of course, there's no telling how much extra baggage you've stored in the word "overconfidence" here, but without overconfident risk takers, there aren't many people left to do the job.
Perhaps we don't need as many overconfident risk takers, and I think of this whenever I read about the quiet millionaire or people who have a flourishing business that is not sexy.
I think that's more the product of VC culture; as a founder you're in a constant case of "selling your company" which in most cases is also selling yourself to people, i.e. investing in a startup is tantamount to investing in the person in the early stages. I haven't seen this mentality nearly as much in folks that are bootstrapping without the "extreme growth" required by VCs.
And, although PG is in the Silicon Valley bubble (where only cool things happen, and it's the hub of cool in tech, duh), the advice he has is fairly general. In the board game creator community there's a lot of advice on making things that fail and making things that don't sell "for the fun of making the thing," because let's face it... most of your shit doesn't sell and never has any market value, but that doesn't make it any less useful or instructive.
TL;DR: Being okay with "failure" is a major part of any profession or hobby, and isn't intrinsic to Silicon Valley or VC backed startups...
I have the same reaction. Also, there's definitely a local optimum for being surrounded by people who are all trying to hock their crazy "world-changing" dreams at the same time.
A population of 10% crazy dreamers is inspiring. A population of 90% crazy dreamers is maybe inspiring in limited doses. Being surrounded by that kind of person, every day, all the time, is tedious and uninspiring. I can see how it's great for investors (who only really care about that 1 success in 100), but for the other 99 people involved, it's enough to make you very cynical.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being confident and contrarian, as look as you have some type of validation, or driving force, grounded in a reality. Often founders, especially those with less founding experience, over-value confidence "hustle" and under-appreciate experience and advice; I don't have much empathy when dealing with that particular cohort.
