<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Understanding Ignorance and Humility</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/11/understanding-ignorance-and-humility.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/11/understanding-ignorance-and-humility.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:36:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jay_Levitt</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/11/understanding-ignorance-and-humility.html/comment-page-1#comment-9737</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay_Levitt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/11/understanding-ignorance-and-humility.html#comment-9737</guid>
		<description>Hear, hear! 
 
I get annoyed by certain very bright entrepreneurs, because all they talk about is what worked for them.  Who cares?  &quot;This worked for me&quot; doesn&#039;t mean &quot;the true path to success&quot;; it doesn&#039;t even mean &quot;important&quot;.  (In &quot;Founders at Work&quot;, half the founders swore that Aeron chairs were critical; half swore that plywood desks were critical.  Talk about a distinction without a difference... 
 
Success is nice, but I&#039;d much rather hear about what didn&#039;t work, and why.  Only then can you start comparing successes to failures, and find out what&#039;s important.    
 
Richard Satava gave a great talk at BIF-4.  He said that DARPA had a rule: If more than 10% of their projects succeeded, they considered it a problem; clearly, they weren&#039;t taking enough risks. 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hear, hear! </p>
<p>I get annoyed by certain very bright entrepreneurs, because all they talk about is what worked for them.  Who cares?  &quot;This worked for me&quot; doesn&#039;t mean &quot;the true path to success&quot;; it doesn&#039;t even mean &quot;important&quot;.  (In &quot;Founders at Work&quot;, half the founders swore that Aeron chairs were critical; half swore that plywood desks were critical.  Talk about a distinction without a difference&#8230; </p>
<p>Success is nice, but I&#039;d much rather hear about what didn&#039;t work, and why.  Only then can you start comparing successes to failures, and find out what&#039;s important.    </p>
<p>Richard Satava gave a great talk at BIF-4.  He said that DARPA had a rule: If more than 10% of their projects succeeded, they considered it a problem; clearly, they weren&#039;t taking enough risks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smurchie</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/11/understanding-ignorance-and-humility.html/comment-page-1#comment-9755</link>
		<dc:creator>smurchie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/11/understanding-ignorance-and-humility.html#comment-9755</guid>
		<description>Truly successful people appreciate the value of luck in their careers.  Take two equally smart, driven, capable people; put them in the same start-ups or corporate environments at the same time; set the timer and say &quot;go&quot;.  After an arbitrary period, it&#039;s very unlikely they will be in the same places, respectively.  Does that make the more successful one smarter, more driven and more capable?   
 
So timing and other exogenous factors play a huge role for the entrepreneur, and the same is true for investors.  A single success as an investor or entrepreneur doesn&#039;t make one an expert.  Even a &quot;string&quot; of three or four doesn&#039;t.  I like to see a few failures mixed in: makes for that all-important self-awareness and humility. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Truly successful people appreciate the value of luck in their careers.  Take two equally smart, driven, capable people; put them in the same start-ups or corporate environments at the same time; set the timer and say &quot;go&quot;.  After an arbitrary period, it&#039;s very unlikely they will be in the same places, respectively.  Does that make the more successful one smarter, more driven and more capable?   </p>
<p>So timing and other exogenous factors play a huge role for the entrepreneur, and the same is true for investors.  A single success as an investor or entrepreneur doesn&#039;t make one an expert.  Even a &quot;string&quot; of three or four doesn&#039;t.  I like to see a few failures mixed in: makes for that all-important self-awareness and humility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
