The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think people should base their actions on what this research supposedly shows. To be honest, I also think this "research" is pretty thin. Not that the authors haven't worked hard on it, but there's a pretty obvious effect of Survivorship Bias in this study. The authors allude to this in their outline of the method used in the paper.

> Data on founding teams and longitudinal data on nascent firm performance is notoriously difficult to collect … In many cases, team data are gathered based public records, which creates a left censoring problem as operational status implies a degree of success in itself …. We address this problem by using data from a unique survey of formal companies that raised money via Kickstarter projects, allowing us to observe the founding conditions and performance of firms.

---

> might not be an entirely typical case

I don't think there are many "typical" cases. I'm not even sure what a typical case would be. Company founders are usually atypical people. I think that's what usually leads them to finding gaps in markets.

The best course of action — in my opinion — is learn to introspect as objectively and as honestly as you can, or otherwise try to solicit unbiased external critical feedback (which is harder than it sounds!) and then take a course of action based on your own individual situation.