> I think those attributes are evenly spread into all countries, but equally I think they are uncommon in all countries.
The data does not support your statement. From a startup report just four days ago:
The United States alone generates 46.6% of all startup activity worldwide, nearly half of the global total. Together with China (9.2%), the United Kingdom (5.6%), and India (5%), these four countries account for 66.4% of the absolute global startup activity.
I will give you that Israel in particular has a strong risk taking culture, as does Singapore and Estonia. And there are a lot of startups coming out of there.
But overall the US has way more risk taking.
And like I said at the very beginning, there are of course exceptions. Yes, every culture has some brilliant risk takers. But at least until recently, many of them came to the USA after they got successful.
There is startup activity in the US because there is enough capital to fund it. Getting funding for a startup even in pretty rich countries in EU is more difficult by an order of magnitude.
It’s not just funding but also bankruptcy laws are written in a way that encourages entrepreneurship, while not being overburdened by regulations
Creativity and startup are two different things. Many of those startups are not creative in any way. And conversely being creative does not imply creating a company. This is about how capital work.
America is unique in way it businessmen tend to think that creating a business is the only way to be creative.
And incidentally, post was about employee creativity.
It's not so much about risk taking as about getting proper funding and overcoming the bureaucracy barriers. E.g. Poland itself has very low startup rates, but somehow Poles which go to USA create things like OpenAI ;)
um, So VC funded startups are the very definition of "not risky". Basically you'll do something as long as someone else ponies up a big pile of cash to pay for it. Pretty much any other business model, where you build with your own time, or money, capital is much more risky.
Equally I don't think this is an argument for American exceptionalism (which is the point under discussion.)
It's interesting that your metrics for creativity and risk taking are financial. I think you should reflect on that.
This is the best HN comment I have ever seen. So elegant. I am going to use, "I think you should reflect on that" line from now on. This line is just pleasant to me, seems professional and actually inviting to a discussion while also showcasing the hidden irony of the original case that you pointed out.
This is art, mr white!
I'm actually a mirror salesperson.
I would advise against it, personally. Its a passive aggressive, thought terminating cliche that might as well be saying "I know better than you".
> Its a passive aggressive,
I think it's read as passive aggressive when people realise they've been holding a silly opinion don't want to admit it.
> thought terminating cliche
The irony.
> that might as well be saying "I know better than you".
Sometimes people do know better than you. I think I should reflect on that.
You've made my case for me, if by "I think I should reflect on that", you do in fact mean "[you've] been holding a silly opinion don't want to admit it".
The former is a passive-aggressive way to say the latter. I aim to, and encourage others to say what they mean.
All jokes aside, the commenter I initially replied to really should reflect on why their concept of creativity and risk tolerance is so linked with financial outcomes, because that is a very particular association and it maybe informs their worldwide more than they may realise.
> The former is a passive-aggressive way to say the latter. I aim to, and encourage others to say what they mean.
I suppose you don't see the irony?
While I wouldn't prescribe someone to sit down and think about why they tie the two together, you are probably right that it's reflective of their greater worldview(s). I wouldn't prescribe it because odds are, they already have reflected on it quite a bit. One thing I've really taken away recently reading about the historic lives of ordinary immigrants to early America, is that modern peoples are incredibly good at constantly reflecting and adapting their models of self, and of belief. I believe this constant reshaping is probably the main reason echo chambers are so effective, and dangerous.
Re: the irony, I don't see it, but I'm happy to hear your explanation of it. For what it's worth, my own interpretation of my words isn't passive aggressive, it's (charitably) pretty direct, or even (less charitably) plain old aggressive-aggressive.
Okay,so uhh, I think it was my comment where you said that it looks passive agressive and so I just read it again and yeah it does.
So yeah thanks, in the sense that I am not going to say this phrase now realizing it, Not sure how I even found it professional, man I am cringing.
But maybe the context OP used that was really maybe a good roast and I liked the use of this word in that context but yeah good point.
For what its worth, I also don't see the irony. And I also didn't see that it was passive agressive untill you told it and then I saw it..., So uh yeah.