The whole article was filled with absurd assumptions and claims:
"...engineers tend to do quite well in structured environments, where there are clear problems to solve, and relatively badly in the chaos of a startup, where the most important skills are non-engineering ones, like being able to attract talent and investors."
What does that have to do with engineers? People tend to do well in structured environments with clear problems to solve, regardless of their background or profession. It's a small subset of people who can survive in unstructured envs, and an even smaller one that is willing to submit themselves to that masochism. If anything I would surmise that engineers have a higher percentage of that subset, but I don't have any more data than the article's writer to prove that.
"A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money."
No data presented to back that up, either.
I know it's an editorial, but if the writer wants to make such broad sweeping generalizations, he should have at least a little evidence or data to back those claims up or it's just wasted text.
I mean, yes and no. A book review might better state "Lewis-Kraus argues that 'Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum'," instead of saying:
> The Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum.
On it's face, that statement is inaccurate. The rest of the paragraph looks to argue that returns are estimated value zero, not that the system itself is "zero-sum." So now I don't know if it's the review that's bad or the book.
"...engineers tend to do quite well in structured environments, where there are clear problems to solve, and relatively badly in the chaos of a startup, where the most important skills are non-engineering ones, like being able to attract talent and investors."
What does that have to do with engineers? People tend to do well in structured environments with clear problems to solve, regardless of their background or profession. It's a small subset of people who can survive in unstructured envs, and an even smaller one that is willing to submit themselves to that masochism. If anything I would surmise that engineers have a higher percentage of that subset, but I don't have any more data than the article's writer to prove that.
"A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money."
No data presented to back that up, either.
I know it's an editorial, but if the writer wants to make such broad sweeping generalizations, he should have at least a little evidence or data to back those claims up or it's just wasted text.