[phoenixstrike]

...including this article, which pivots from Cernovich to Silicon Valley to politics and Trump.

A far more interesting discussion would have been about the rampant neurosis of above-average (nationally speaking) educated young people in tech that rate themselves as being better than they actually are, leading to a deathly fear of failure and accountability (leading to "pivoting"), perhaps (IMO) coming from the psychological reluctance to take a good hard look in the mirror and admit that they are not as good/better than others as they think they are.

[nostrademons]

Neither of these are particularly useful worldviews.

Just do things, observe how they turn out, and then try to do them better. The reason "pivot" has spread throughout the lexicon is because it better describes reality today. What does "failure" even mean, that you ceased to exist when things didn't work out? No, of course not - when things don't work out, you're still here, you go and do something else, hopefully with the benefit of experience.

And similarly, what does it even mean to be "better than they actually are"? As if there's this national ranking scale of people from bad to good? The idea is nonsensical - people have different standards for what constitutes "good", and your only responsibility is to lead a life that you can feel good about by your standards.

[phoenixstrike]

I'm sorry, but your response is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about, it almost seems scripted.

"What does 'failure' even mean..." Really? Seriously? Failure means admitting and acknowledging that you were wrong, that you things didn't work out the way you expected them to, and taking responsibility for it, instead of treating it as just another tick in a line of never-ending experiences that you "learn" and "iterate" from. I'm not disparaging learning from mistakes, but a more subtle difference: that sometimes you just have to admit that you were totally off course and that the only thing you can learn the situation is that you should throw away everything you thought you knew and go back to square one. You say "pivot" better describes reality? That is the problem. In your worldview, it is acceptable to just change direction in the face of failure. No, sometimes you have to go backwards, and the inability of young people to admit this or understand this is the problem.

I don't even know where to begin with your second point. Suffice it to say that the world is not some cuddly place where everyone is a winner and everyone gets an award for participation. To think otherwise is to live in fantasy -- indeed, a fantasy world where you can always feel good about your life according to your standards.

[nostrademons]

"Failure" usually has a connotation of finality that's unnecessary today. You can admit that you were wrong and adjust course without being a failure.

I recognize that you probably think I'm an idiot or terribly misguided or just denying of reality. In my mind, you just haven't gotten it yet - I didn't always think like this, but I came to accept it after much effort, both because it makes me happier and because it's actually led to more success, by your definition, than believing that some people are just smarter and more capable than others. But that's okay - either you will or you won't come to accept it, and either way it doesn't really affect me, and that's the other half of my point: we each set our personal standards and have our own lens through which we see the world, and that's fine.

[phoenixstrike]

Fair enough, and for personal ideologies, you are right that it doesn't matter. But I don't think it's a futile conversation to talk about the how one mindset vs another has effects at the collective scale, e.g. when it comes to social development or politics, etc.

[smallnamespace]

Seems like you guys are talking past another a little bit and just having a semantic debate when you both largely agree.

You're both describing the same concept -- taking a 'non-success', learning lessons from it, and then using those lessons to do better things in the future.

It's just one of you is OK with continuing to describe that situation with the term 'failure', with all the existing negative connotation baggage, while the other prefers to find a new word to describe it.

[sharkmerry]

if you are changing or pivoting a business plan, because one wasnt successful. The first plan was a failure and you pivoted/changed to a new one. I think both terms are applicable and can be used together.

[nostrademons]

You can also re-cast the process of founding a startup as searching for a business plan and the goal as discovering information about what the market will bear that nobody else has. In fact, several prominent startup methodologies (Lean Startup & YCombinator's process) recommend doing so. Then you haven't failed at all, because the goal wasn't to execute on the business plan (which you just made up anyway), it was to discover what the actual facts were.

The advantage of this, from a purely utilitarian perspective, is that you don't feel the emotions of shame & disappointment that "failure" usually connotes. And so you can jump into the next idea more quickly, with an open-mind, and pursue it with the same thrill of discovery.

[gozur88]

Or maybe the first one wasn't successful yet, or you realize your upside is capped, and you've identified an opportunity that will be potentially more lucrative or have a smaller downside risk. Changing what you're doing doesn't necessarily mean you can't make the original plan work - it might just mean you came up with a better place to put your effort.

One of my favorite business stories is that of the Nintendo Playing Card Company of Kyoto, whose CEO came to the US to visit the US Playing Card Company. He realized that even if he captured the entire world market for playing cards (this is before MtG) he still wouldn't have a very big business, and set out to find something better.

[OtterCoder]

I'm sorry, you just come off as grouchy. People who screw up deserve to keep trying, just like first timers have a right to get their feet wet.

You seem to think there's an element of guilt and extrinsic punishment that needs to be attached to not getting something right the first time. To use a trite analogy, should Edison have been wracked with guilt every time he failed to produce a lightbulb? People who can screw up and immediately pick themselves back up are going to make it farther than even most of the wunderkinds of this world.

The people who really fail, in a terminal sense, are those who constantly flagellate themselves for their mistakes, like you demand, until they're so beaten the refuse to keep trying.

[leroy_masochist]

Wish I could upvote this one twice.

The weight of expectations on the shoulders of talented young people, ginned up by years of ersatz "success" in getting good grades and getting into college and getting more good grades and maybe even getting some seed funding -- this is the real "invisible hand" of SV. I feel like people in my parents' generation were acculturated to be happy with a house, a steady job, a car in the driveway, and beer in the fridge. Our generation by contrast seems as if it is populated by people who will consider themselves a massive disappointment if they don't turn out to be the next Zuck.

[tareqak]

Isn't some of this responsibility upon the shoulders of parents too? It wasn't children who decided that "keeping up with the Joneses" was the way to live [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses

I apologize if my line of questioning comes across as hostile, but I do take issue with the even the whiff of the concept that parents can do no wrong, both personally and conceptually. In contrast, I do think that children shouldn't be held responsible for the mistakes and misdeeds of their parents.

[leroy_masochist]

I think on the aggregate, parents bear a lot of responsibility for my generation being this way, but there are other factors at play as well, the following two being the most significant in my opinion:

- People (somewhat accurately) seeing elite college as the most surefire way to ensure membership in the high end of the earnings spectrum, and therefore organizing their kids' preteen/teenage lives around getting into college, molding kids' psyches into a process-driven, check-the-box orientation (i.e., do the following list of things to a specified standard and you will get into a great school and then everything will be OK)

- The role of social media / constantly sharing details of one's life with one's entire network, which, as the Wait but Why comic posted in this thread eloquently describes, is generally more unhealthy than healthy

[cicero]

Even if the parents are the cause of the problem, it is still better for the children to recognize the problem and change their lives accordingly.

[tareqak]

I agree with what you are saying, but I think that incorrectly attributing the problem to one actor instead of another has chances of:

1) making it more difficult to identify the problem 2) affecting the path taken towards resolving the problem for the worse 3) making the person whose problem it now is to resolve the problem that they grew into less willing to do so.

I think that everyone should honestly own their successes and failures because, quite frankly, there is enough blame to go around, and not enough people willing to take ownership of the failures that they were responsible for.

[PeachPlum]

Or, as my dad has repeatedly said to me "why can't you make something like Facebook and be rich?"

[thomasjudge]

https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-...

[CM30]

Oh hey, it's that comic. Was wondering what it was.

However, as accurate as it is for the overly ambitious (an old saying I had about the social media part was that 'millionaires are overrepresented on the internet'), I feel it (and a lot of people online in general) are a bit confused about how many young people/generation Y folks/millenials/whatever else are super ambitious.

Because I don't think the large majority of young people are all as ambitious as the media likes to make out. I feel a large percentage of them are pretty content with a comfortable life in the suburbs with 2.5 kids and a dog. They're either happy with their decently well yet convenient job or would be quite happy to get one so long as it pays for a beer or two at the weekend.

What I do think is that the 'super ambitious' image is itself filtered by most writers working in a tech or media bubble. Of course they think younger generations are incredibly ambitious and not happy with anything less than being millionaires; they're working in industries where those who go into them have that mindset.

Just keep in mind there still are a decent amount of people who just want to have an enjoyable life with a steady paycheck rather than to gamble everything on the hopes of becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg.

[mjevans]

While I think the infographics of that article are pretty accurate, I believe that this article doesn't benefit from the recent focus on income inequality and the massive schism of the 1% of the 1% from the other 99.99% of the population.

I agree that expectations are a little unrealistic, particularly with anyone born after the early 90s, but also for many born after the late 70s.

However the quality of life, slack time, and slack resources for happiness that other generations did experience during periods of prosperity are measurably lacking today.

It is not unrealistic to feel unhappy about this; but what continues to amaze me is how ignorantly and emotionally many vote. Blatantly ignoring candidates who's platforms are arguably better able to deliver successful change in favor of candidates who sell them an easy bubble of illusions.

[PeachPlum]

Platforms offering change are abundant.

Platforms that delivered change not so.

I'm curious as to how you are so sure you can distinguish illusion.

[_Tev]

You can easily distinguish what is clearly an illusion or lie that is not going to work.

But you're right that recognizing which platform will actually work is very hard.

[morgtheborg]

My entire family speaks of what they'll do with my money when the startup I work at "makes it big". I think they're 90% joking.

But that's still 10%.

I have literally gotten into fights with my Mom where she wants a GUARANTEE that if I make over x amount I will give her y amount. I just keep repeating, "This is all hypothetical, let's not discuss it" as she gets more and more upset about not locking me in.

Extraordinary.

[peoplewindow]

Same here. Asked by my mother, "why wasn't it you who created YouTube?". This was pre Google acquisition.

I remember just staring at her for a moment, as my mother is a very sensible woman, and then just shaking my head and saying, "Mum, you realise that YouTube bleeds money don't you? It's not a real business. You can't pay for free video streaming with banner ads, that doesn't work as a business model".

There's definitely a lack of understanding in older generations of how wealth creation in tech works, and it's definitely due to the flood of irresponsible VC money sloshing around the Valley. Good luck trying to get investment to do a YouTube anywhere but California: even the most basic questions like "if nobody buys you, will you make money" would rule you out right away.

[CM30]

> Good luck trying to get investment to do a YouTube anywhere but California: even the most basic questions like "if nobody buys you, will you make money" would rule you out right away.

Yep, I know this one all too well. When I tried to get a Silicon Valley esque startup funded in London, I found that a lot of accelerators and investors were simply more interested in B2B service businesses where they could be sure of immediate revenue.

The only reason so many large platforms and businesses got started over in the valley is because the investors there are willing to take chances on a company or idea with no real proven business model on the assumption that it'll find one when it becomes popular enough.

Investors in other places will be a hell of lot more skeptical.

[briholt]

I grew up trying to make something like Facebook and be rich while my dad (and everyone else) told me to graduate and get a 9-5 job. The times have certainly changed.

[pipio21]

I graduated and became entrepreneur and have meet so many incredible entrepreneurs, some of them in their 80s I do not believe times have changed.

Being young and wanting to be on your own and make something special the world has never seen, even with high risks involved and your family wanting you not to suffer, getting a safe job is as old as the wheel.

I had my family against me on my decision to create my companies because it was extremely painful at first. Then when things start running and you earn dozens of times what they do they change views.

What happens is that every young person believes she is the master of the Universe and the world starts with her. In some ways is true, your world starts when you are born.

[pipio21]

The interesting thing is that most people can be rich, in the sense of being financial independent from anybody and do amazing living all her life, having way more than they need, traveling all around the world, have wonderful relationships... but being the next billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is completely unreasonable.

You don't need creating a Facebook but something 3000 times smaller and probably will be way happier, first because it is on reach and second because you enjoy the ride every day, not living a miserable live until you are billionaire(it will never happen because miserable life will burn and destroy you over time).

[monktastic1]

Most people alive today can be financially independent, having way more than they need, and traveling all around the world?

I'm genuinely curious about your reasons for thinking so.

[gozur88]

It's hard to imagine dads didn't always say that to their sons. I wonder how many people spent the turn of the 20th century trying to become the next Andrew Carnegie.

[maxxxxx]

The worst thing about this mindset is that at the same time support systems like health care and pensions don't keep up so if you don't make it rich (which most of us won't) you will be much worse off than previous generations. They built systems for the average guy to have a decent life. Not so much anymore.

[enraged_camel]

Because people in your parents' generation had it easy. The post-WWII boom allowed even those without college degrees to find well-paying jobs, keep and advance in those jobs for decades without having to job-hop every few years just for a meager raise, and retire with nice pensions.

The situation is very different today.

[jazzyk]

That's because these days it is very hard to get even a starter house (in a good neighborhood) even having a steady job.

And I have not seen too many steady jobs in high-tech.

The only option to get ahead is to either play the lottery or "do a startup" (pretty much like lottery)

[Swizec]

We are a generation of people who reach 28/29 and chide themselves for still not being millionaire entrepreneurs all the while bragging on instagram about that bowl of pasta we cooked last night all by ourselves. Didn’t even buy premade sauce!

[bbctol]

If you know a lot of people like this, that says more about you than this "generation."

[Swizec]

It’s a simile, you can replace “proud of small trivial thing” with other small trivial things if you don’t like pasta. And you can replace “big huge goal” with any other goal if you don’t like millionaires.

Everyone’s a critic, read between the lines man

[bbctol]

Right... I'm in my 20s and really don't know a lot of people like that.

[morgtheborg]

That is hilariously accurate.

[kamaal]

So your point is people are either genius or they must simply resign to fate, do nothing to improve their lives or chase a good career, and must simply give up and go flip burgers at McDonalds?

Being persistent at something, and then course correcting on feedback is how any under dog ever does anything.

[devmunchies]

> Which brings us to Donald Trump, a man who many commentators believe to be constitutionally incapable of pivoting

of course... why shouldn't President Trump be brought up in every article?

I also would have liked to see a more creative article.