[eloff]

You just dismissed the data and replaced it with nothing of substance. Forget your feelings and look at the data, single founders are successful especially when you're talking about smaller companies that might not go the VC route. VCs are really only interested in companies that have a shot at being unicorns.

[codesushi42]

What data? OP's link is a silly TC article without any negative examples (failure rates of single vs pairs).

[eloff]

That's still more than you offered to the contrary.

[codesushi42]

Bad data isn't any more useful kid.

[eloff]

It doesn't tell how many companies with single founders fail vs teams, but it shows that single founder companies comprise about half of successful startups on crunchbase. It's not perfect, but it's hardly bad either.

[codesushi42]

>It doesn't tell how many companies with single founders fail vs teams

Exactly, that missing information is what makes the data bad. Negative examples are needed to make any meaningful comparison between single vs team. You're missing an entire distribution showing success vs failure. You gave a perfect example of selection bias.

You would make a terrible statistician, or maybe you're highly skilled in the art of How to Lie with Statistics.

[nl]

You could back off on the personal attacks some.

Imperfect data is a fact of life. Provided you understand what it represents ("Of startups that succeed, a large proportion have single founders") there is nothing wrong with using this.

It's much better than what you have offered: no data and insults to anyone who disagrees with you. You may want to consider this when thinking about why you have been unable to find a co-founder.