"I agree with Mark Zuckerberg that most of us will only have one really good business idea in our lives."
I think the founders of Microsoft, Dropbox, Zynga, and many, many others would disagree. Even if we do on average only have one good business idea in our lives, it probably won't be the first one you work on.
The author uses Twitter as an example, which was actually a spinoff of Evan Williams' second company.. he'd already had one great idea, Blogger, which was sold to Google.
When someone says most X, responding with anecdotes about exceptions doesn't really work as a means of disputing them. That there are exceptions are implicit in the fact that he said most.
He says most X, and then supports that with anecdotal evidence some of which is false. In fact I can come up with more examples of exceptions than he can come up with examples that conform to his thesis. Jack Dorsey (twitter,square), Elon Musk (paypal, tesla,spacex), Tony Hsieh (linkexchange, zappos), justin kan (justin.tv, twitch,socialcam) are some examples of entrepreneurs with serial success. I can think of a lot more. Not disputing the thrust of the article but he doesn't support it with a lot of solid examples.
You could name a hundred, it still doesn't dispute "most" as there are tens of millions of businessmen out there, the vast majority of which aren't serial successes. Regardless, when someone says "most" they are already conceding the point that there are likely many exceptions. Rebutting with examples to make an argument they've already conceded is simply pointless and shows you aren't really paying attention to what they're trying to say.
And you can keep saying "most", it still doesn't dispute the fact that without hard data or more solid anecdotal evidence to back your claim, you're mostly talking out of your arse.
That could very well could be, so you ask for citations or you ask for clarification, or even say you're talking out of your ass; what you don't do is pull out singular anecdotes to make a case he's already conceded implicitly and think you're somehow rebutting anything. Rebutting a statical claim (i.e. most) with singular anecdotes is simply illogical, let alone one that's already been conceded in the question itself.
If I say most Asians have black hair, and you counter with I disagree because I've seen a blonde Asian; your rebuttal makes zero sense, it's fallacious.
Sorry to burst your bubble. This is one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen here. I don't know where you studied debate or 'logical fallacies' as you put it.
Here's a more apt analogy for you: It's as if you argued that most Asians have yellow hair and then you gave 5 examples of Asians, one of whom actually has red hair to bolster your argument. The original comment (the one you were replying to) then pointed out to you that those 5 examples don't prove anything and in fact one of those has red hair. And then I added that, though I don't dispute that it could be true that most Asians in fact have yellow hair I can actually think up more than 5 examples of Asians that have red hair, if you think your 5 examples(including one false example) is proof supporting your argument. This is not the same thing as saying that I have proof that most Asians are red-headed. Not sure why I'm even bothering to explain this to you as you seem incapable of understanding even the original commentors point let alone simple "logic". The only person making zero sense here is you.
You've burst no bubble, your ego just doesn't allow you to admit when you're wrong. Your argument was fallacious, regardless of whether the original commentors was as well. He could be entirely wrong, that does nothing to support your failed counter argument. Your argument is structurally wrong regardless of his facts.
Lots of smart people never studied debate or logical fallacies and never learned the difference between a sound argument and good sounding rhetoric. They get emotional and don't realize they aren't making any sense.
I think the fact that we don't hear more about the serial successes and we can name them on one hand says something. These founders have everything going for them the second time around with being able to attract money and talent as two very important things to have. And even with that it seems at least from what I've read the the second time big successes are few and far between.
This reminds me of my logic professor in college. He would often tell us stories about Kurt Godel, who he'd worked with at the IAS.
My prof blew me away one day when he said that Godel had 3 good ideas -- Godel numbering, and two more that I can't remember.
He didn't say it in a way that was meant to put down Godel at all. I took it as an homage to original thought and what it really meant to have a good idea.
Gödel numbers were invented by Leibniz a few hundred years earlier. It's not known whether Gödel knew about this when he proved incompletness, but given that Gödel was a serious Leiniz scholar especially later in life, and held him in highest esteem, it is not impossible that he did.
Meanwhile Wordpress is eating the blogging world not by spoon but by a HUGE bowl _and_ making money, creating community of users and consultants to live off Wordpress.
"which was actually a spinoff of Evan Williams' second company."
I think (as I remember the story about this) he didn't believe in that idea enough to even want to keep the investors money. Assuming of course he was being truthful about his thoughts on the spinoff.
I think the founders of Microsoft, Dropbox, Zynga, and many, many others would disagree. Even if we do on average only have one good business idea in our lives, it probably won't be the first one you work on.
The author uses Twitter as an example, which was actually a spinoff of Evan Williams' second company.. he'd already had one great idea, Blogger, which was sold to Google.