[bko]

> Founders who score high on openness and agreeableness are more likely to raise funding, emotionally resilient founders fare better across all venture stages, and highly conscientious founders fare better in the earliest stages such as amount raised during initial fundraising, but are less likely to achieve high-growth exits such as acquisition or IPO.

I'm skeptical of any research that's done with the presumption that people have measurable character traits broken down into neat categories like 'openness' and 'agreeableness'. These factors are obviously true as anyone who has worked with enough people surely met someone who is disagreeable.

But whenever I take one of these tests that's supposed to measure this, it strikes me as so stupid. The questions are like "at a party, are you the center of attention, or quietly observing others?" How do you answer that? Depends on the party, the people in the party, my mood, my age, a million other things. Not to mention my mood when taking the test. I guess some people are at the extreme and are almost always the life of the party or wallflowers, but overwhelming amount of people are somewhere in the middle.

This study is even worse as it analyzes users Tweets to determine personality, which is laughable.

I think for founders you need to have some arrogance and disagreeableness to think that you can do something better than others and ignore the odds. And agreeableness is useful when dealing with almost all social situations, so it makes sense that it helps when convincing people to give you money. But the rest of it sounds like BS to me

[llamaimperative]

I think you’re mostly complaining that most people are near the middle of a bell curve, which is true of course.