[Dumblydorr]

The value of mentioning survivor bias and selection bias is to highlight that we listen to those who made it because they have wealth and influence and we want or are interested by that.

There is no way to prove founders are more talented or wise than failed founders because it's impossible to disentangle luck and chance from their talent, though they would tell you luck favors the well prepared.

One great source of data would be serial entrepreneurs. It's one thing to look at Elon who was luckily in the right place and right time for his companies. But what about a similar individual who had luck on their side and failed multiple times? Even Steve Jobs had multiple failures, but bounced back time and again with new funding and a new vision.

[jlbnjmn]

> serial entrepreneurs

That is who I'm looking for.

If the odds of success are less than 10%, then it would seem to follow that the thoughts on success by single or several failure individuals would suffer from a similar bias as the survivors.

Basically, who actually kept trying long enough to disprove the hypothesis that's it's all about experimenting until you find something that works really well, and then growing it as fast as you can?

[auganov]

If you're lucky, perhaps you can roll the dice 10 times. With a 10% chance 10 failures wouldn't be too significant. Given a binomial distribution that's still p~=0.35.