Look - here's my point sans babble-bot 2.0 software: In ANY new endeavor, you need to have balance. Balance is the pre-requisite to the power you need to make it. The young, naive entrepreneur is supposed to focus on success because this re-weights the equation to give his enthusiasm a higher co-effecient. BUT - this has to be tempered a more mature, wiser presence who builds up your will to overcome and helps you refine your model by discouraging and criticizing you. I know this sounds dysfunctional but it's reality. You don't built muscle by having weights which help you pull them up while writing articles to encourage you to continue. You do so by finding the will to push inside yourself while the weights push against you. If you have a mentor who just blows sunshine and rainbows at you, how will you ever find and develop your entrepreneurial muscles? The other point is that enthusiasm has to be tempered by a cold hard calculation of reality. Not that either is more important - reality is in flux but enthusiasm only goes so far at some moments. Balance. This article just seems to convey a "you think you can do it, we think you can do it, and let's meet every week in a friendly mutual admiration society where everybody thinks they can do it." Cult-like. Aren't you better off in the long run meeting up with people who hate your guts and point out 30 flaws in your idea, so that you can get that much stronger by fixing 20 of them? Sure. It is harsh and brutal. Welcome to the real world of business. The operating motto is, "If you can be discouraged, you should be discouraged." All this article seems to do in my mind is change that to, "If you can be discouraged, well then we'll put you in an artificial environment where you'll receive a lot of outside encouragement at the cost to you of finding ways to develop your own ability to encourage yourself." And it never seems to cover the very real issue of "what if you just don't make it?" You know that venture capital adage of "1 in 10 of our companies go on hit the big time and that's all that matters!"? If that were true, well them we would be awash in thousands of Yahoos and Googles and YouTubes. But we're not. So the odds of making it are at best calculated wrong and at worst lied about. But if you got financing from smart VCs, that means you must have passed many, many prequalifying criteria. So why do you wind up statistically likely to not make it? I'm sure somebody will say, "Well, at YC, OUR criteria is far more clever and wise than any VC, so if you get in YC, your odds of making already are that much greater."
In the end, you need an adult to say - go like gang-busters for 6 months, then if you don't see minimum this that and the other goals met, move on. Leaving it open-ended with a "just keep trying" approach only gives you the impression that if you just hang on, maybe next month will be that special one ... or the next month ... or the next one ... how then do you know it's not next year? Or the one after that? Or next decade? There are plenty of entrepreneurs whose idea was a decade ahead of its time. What happens to them after they maxed out 50 credit cards and mortgaged their homes? Nobody knows because in polite entrepreneurial society, it's best not to talk about very real risks. But ignoring them doesn't make them go away and being really, really committed doesn't reduce them very much. I'm not being pessimistic. I applaud you folks. But I find this go-go cheerleader coaching style dangerous. Hitting the weight room and getting up early in the morning, putting your sneakers on and going for a run will prepare you better for the big game. Listening to the cheerleaders tell you how great you are and how much they believe in you is only setting you up for a rude awakening.