[autokad]

could you explain how it factors in this case? because I don't think that it does.

there may be some 'selection bias', by only including start ups that went on to hire at least one employee, but I am OK with their operational definitions in this case.

the story makes sense, and it jives with my observations when doing my masters in computer science. In tech in particular, most of my classmates were not entrepreneurial at all. Even if they were, the class curriculum was so hard that nobody had time to work on side projects. the undergrads, not only didnt have the technical skills, but they also didnt have any business sense either.

One of them lamented they hate business people who sell products but dont understand it through and through. I told them I would rather have a business guy who can sell any product, than an engineer who can make a great product but not sell it. they still didnt get it.

[lkrubner]

For the most part, a person only gets invited to give a speech if they are one of the lucky few for whom things went well. If your situation is more ordinary, and you've failed, then you not invited to speak. Because of this, we (the public) end up with a distorted view of things. Success seems more common than it is, because we only hear from the successful. That is survivorship bias. It's also why I've argued we need more honest stories about projects that fail:

https://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Tech-Startup-Easy-Steps/dp/09...

[n4r9]

I think they meant that the myth has been caused by selection bias, not that the study is prone to it.