Can't speak for anyone else, but I disagree. Title notwithstanding, the article is a nice piece of self-reflection. The author clearly looked at his semi-successful past, and managed to see both what he did right, and what he did wrong. Not many people are as able (or willing) to dig deep like that, much less share those thoughts with others. I'm happy he did so so that I have a chance to learn, and I also think it takes great confidence to admit what you did wrong.
Nothing wrong with learning from your failures. I do it all the time. I Think back about the times that I screw up and that if I'd had more experience things would have turned different. But hindsight is 20-20 so calling yourself an idiot just because you had no experience and were learning is unfair to yourself. What is the necessity of calling himself an idiot and then trying to convince us that he is an idiot. It smells a lot like low confidence and I'm not sure I want to be around him if he feels that way. The paper could have been written as lessons learned from his first startup. The way he portrays himself is just completely wrong. I noticed he has other articles and I just cannot force myself to read them. He did to good a job in his article convincing me that he was an idiot. How do I know he still is not one. He probably is not because of what he did (he made a good amount of money) but emotionally I still feel like he is an idiot. Weird huh?
I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve. From endless private conversations and all of the entrepreneurs I'm friends with, I'm somewhere in the middle confidence-wise, but others are better at projecting an image of greater confidence. I'm a humble and extremely introverted engineer and just don't project an image that's either above or below my station. I accept that this is a flaw in certain walks of life, particularly business.
He probably is not because of what he did (he made a good amount of money) but emotionally I still feel like he is an idiot. Weird huh?
Sure, I'm still an idiot in lots of things. There's always more to learn, always more wisdom to extract from situations, always better ways to deal with things.
I think I feel as much uncertainty or intimidation as anyone who tackles difficult work - I'm just not scared to admit my shortcomings. As I said before, I think this might just be a clash in our cultures and approaches to life.
Do you feel the same way about Derek Sivers? He recently wrote about assuming he's always "below average" in things. His thought process is similar to mine: http://sivers.org/below-average
I think I know the difference between fmora and me. I forgot the article's title (I'm an idiot) before reading the article, so everything I read came off as a lot of honest introspection. Just like with Derek Sivers' article.
On the other hand, it seems to me that others, who go into the article with the idea that it's going to be a lot of low-confidence self-pity type statements, approach it with a different attitude.
Obviously I can't speak for fmora or anyone else, but the impression I get from his statements make me think the title of the article is the main sticking point; taking it too literally colors the rest of the article in a much more negative light. On that note, Derek's article is titled in a "better" way, since saying "I'm below average" has nowhere near the negative undertones that saying "I'm an idiot" has.
fmora - Would you agree with what I'm saying? Or am I misinterpreting?
I think you got it. Calling yourself and idiot has huge negative undertones for me. I do understand that smart people tend to undervalue themselves. Trying to convince everybody you are an idiot (or that you were an idiot) just didn't sit well with me.
