年长创业者

Naval Ravikant 2007-08-08

年长创业者

年长者能否成为伟大的创业者?

马克·安德森针对这个老问题写了一篇精彩的文章。在第一部分中,他深入挖掘了数据。他的一些观察很有力,值得总结:

“通常,生产力——产出——从职业生涯开始迅速上升到顶峰,然后逐渐下降直到退休。

这种生产力峰值因领域而异,从20多岁到50岁出头,原因因领域而异。

早熟、长寿和产出率是相互关联的。‘那些早熟的人也往往表现出长寿,而早熟和长寿都与单位年龄的高产出率正相关。‘高产出者会持续、系统地高产。

成功与失败的几率不会随时间增加。职业生涯中成功最多的时期也是失败最多的时期。因此,最大化数量——增加击球次数——比试图提高击球率的回报要高得多。

智力,至少通过智商等指标衡量,基本上无关紧要。”

我对这个话题经历了某种演变。

我开始时持有胡须假说的一种变体(热情随年龄增长而减少,但经验增加,存在一个最佳交叉点)。随着年龄增长,回顾早期一些疯狂想法时,这是最容易持有的观点,但注意到年长群体非常规避风险。道格拉斯·亚当斯对此有精彩的看法:

“你出生时世界上已经存在的一切都只是正常的;

在你出生后到三十岁之前发明的任何东西都极其令人兴奋和富有创造力,幸运的话你可以以此谋生;

在你三十岁之后发明的任何东西都是违背自然规律的,是我们所知的文明末日的开始,直到它存在了大约十年后,才逐渐变得完全可以接受。

将此列表应用于电影、摇滚乐、文字处理器和手机,就能算出你多大了。”

然后我转向迪恩·西蒙顿的观察,马克的文章对此有精彩阐述。我的思考受到《黑天鹅》、《随机致富的傻瓜》、德瓦尼对好莱坞经济学和全垒打击球的分析,以及对进化如何创造事物(大量试错)的随意观察的驱动。基本上,击球次数、尝试的诗歌数量、绘制的画作数量等决定了成功率。你尝试得越多,学得越多,迭代得越快,变得越好,高产的机会就越多。你的成果更多取决于下注次数而非下注大小。正如小提琴家巴勃罗·德·萨拉萨特所说:“37年来我每天练习14小时,现在他们称我为天才。”

现在我更喜欢一个略有不同的假说。创造本能更多是由升华的性驱动力和吸引伴侣的欲望驱动的,比我们承认的要多。而更多是被家庭需求压制的。对此的一个极端观点由金泽提出:

“科学家往往在结婚后’停止’科学研究,就像罪犯在结婚后停止犯罪一样。”

马克问道:

“所以这是我的第一个挑战:对年龄和创业精神角色有看法的任何人——看看你能否将你的观点融入这个模型!”

当你年轻、饥饿且单身时,你拥有:

  • 大量空闲时间(更多击球机会)
  • 损失较少(更多尝试机会)
  • 热情(更可能尝试)
  • 升华的性驱动力(更可能尝试以脱颖而出)

随着年龄增长,你拥有:

  • 更少空闲时间,更多家庭需求,更大的社交网络(更少尝试机会)
  • 更多损失(在已建立的社交圈面前公开尴尬意味着你不想开始新事物)(更少尝试机会)
  • 经验(如果你很可能会失败,为什么还要尝试)(更少尝试机会)
  • 满足的性驱动力(做爱而不是尝试)

“这是我的第二个挑战:创业更像是诗歌、纯数学和理论物理——在20多岁或30岁出头达到峰值年龄——还是更像小说写作、历史、哲学、医学和一般学术——在40多岁或50岁出头达到峰值年龄?如何以及为什么?”

对年长的我来说不幸的是,抛开轶事证据,创业偏爱年轻人。

诗歌、纯数学、理论物理与小说写作、历史、哲学、医学、学术之间的区别在于,前者需要大量(多年)紧张、专注、几乎隔离的连续空闲时间,而后者可以随时拿起放下,稍后继续而不会造成太大损失。第一类问题通过情感状态(诗歌、绘画)、在头脑中加载非常困难的单一框架(数学、物理、编程)和/或竞争(由性驱动力和时间敏感性驱动)来解决。后一类更理性,是系统问题而非点问题,没有时间敏感的竞争。

现代创业,尤其是网络创业,竞争极其激烈/时间敏感,即使在单一产品生命周期内也需要大量迭代,并且经常需要在公众视野中(有异性观看)一个接一个地解决许多具有挑战性的技术和商业问题。因此,它偏爱年轻单身者。

这并不是说年长安定下来的人就不能做。数学家保罗·埃尔德什以将工作置于一切之上而闻名(顺便说一句,他保持单身)。有许多年长的成功创业者花费大量时间远离家人。

……其余的人放弃并只成为风险投资人……


The Aging Entrepreneur

Can older people be great entrepreneurs?

Marc Andreesen has a great post on this age-old question. In part I, he’s digging through the data. Some of his observations are powerful and worth summarizing:

“Generally, productivity — output — rises rapidly from the start of a career to a peak and then declines gradually until retirement.

This peak in productivity varies by field, from the late 20s to the early 50s, for reasons that are field-specific.

Precocity, longevity, and output rate are linked. “Those who are precocious also tend to display longevity, and both precocity and longevity are positively associated with high output rates per age unit.” High producers produce highly, systematically, over time.

The odds of a hit versus a miss do not increase over time. The periods of one’s career with the most hits will also have the most misses. So maximizing quantity — taking more swings at the bat — is much higher payoff than trying to improve one’s batting average.

Intelligence, at least as measured by metrics such as IQ, is largely irrelevant.”

I went through an evolution of sorts on this topic.

I started with a variation of the Beard Hypothesis (enthusiasm decreases with age but experience increases, and there’s an optimum cross-over point). This is the easiest viewpoint as you get older and look back at some of your earlier crazier ideas, but notice that that older crowd is very risk-averse. Douglas Adams had a great take on it:

“everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;

anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;

anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.

Apply this list to movies, rock music, word processors and mobile phones to work out how old you are.”

I then moved on to Dean Simonton’s observations, beautifully covered in Marc’s article. My thinking was driven by books like “The Black Swan,” “Fooled by Randomness,” DeVany’s analysis of Hollywood Economics and Home-Run Hitting, and a casual observation of how Evolution creates things (massive trial and error). Basically, the number of swings at bat, poems attempted, paintings painted, etc. determine the success rate. The more you try, the more you learn, the faster you iterate, the better you get, and the more chances that you have of being productive. Your outcome scales more with the number of bets than the size of the bets. As the violinist Pablo De Sarasate put it, “For 37 years I’ve practiced 14 hours a day, and now they call me a genius.”

Now I prefer a slightly different hypothesis. More of the creative instinct is driven by the sublimated sex drive and the desire to attract a mate than we give it credit for. And more of it is squelched by the demands of family than anything else. An extreme take on it is presented by Kanazawa:

“Scientists tend to ‘desist’ from scientific research upon marriage, just like criminals desist from crime upon marriage.”

Marc asks:

“So here’s my first challenge: to anyone who has an opinion on the role of age and entrepreneurship — see if you can fit your opinion into this model!”

When you are young, hungry, and single, you have:

  • huge amounts of free time (more swings at the ball)
  • less to lose (more swings)
  • enthusiasm (more likely to swing)
  • sublimated sex drive (more likely to swing to stand out from your peers)

As you age, you have:

  • less free time, more family demands, larger social networks (less swings)
  • more to lose (public embarrassment in front of an established social circle means you don’t want to start anything fresh) (less swings)
  • experience (if you’re probably going to miss, why bother swinging) (less swings)
  • fulfilled sex drive (have sex rather than swing)

“And here’s my second challenge: is entrepreneurship more like poetry, pure mathematics, and theoretical physics — which exhibit a peak age in one’s late 20s or early 30s — or novel writing, history, philosophy, medicine, and general scholarship — which exhibit a peak age in one’s late 40s or early 50s? And how, and why?”

Unfortunately for an aging me, anecdotal evidence aside, entrepreneurship favors the young.

The difference between poetry, pure math, theoretical physics, and novel writing, history, philosophy, medicine, scholarship, is that the former set requires huge (multi-year) intense, focused, almost isolated blocks of free time, whereas the latter set can be picked up and put down and resumed later without too much cost. The first set comprises problems that are solved by an emotional state (poetry, painting), by loading a very difficult single framework into your head (math, physics, coding), and / or competition (driven by sex drive and time-sensitive). The latter set are more rational, are systems problems rather than point problems, and don’t have time-sensitive competition.

Modern entrepreneurship, especially web entrepreneurship, is extremely competitive / time sensitive, requires enormous amounts of iteration even within a single product life-cycle, and often requires solving many challenging technical and business problems one after the other in a public view (with the opposite sex watching). So, it favors the young and single.

Which is not to say that one can’t do it if one is older and settled down. Mathematician Paul Erdos was famous for his prioritizing his work above all else (he remained single, by the way). There are many older successful entrepreneurs who spend tremendous amounts of time away from their families.

…and the rest give up and just become VCs…