I am not sure how others here will feel about this, but if you cannot take a business to $5000 per month in almost any market, then it might be more of a "you" problem (I don't have the right skills, I don't know how to sell, etc) than a "I chose the wrong business" problem...
Maybe the reason why business #5 or #6 is more successful is not that they changed businesses, but that they finally developed the skills necessary to make it work through their failures. If they went back to business #1, they could probably make it work this time.
Takeaway? Chose one thing and develop the skills (sales, etc) instead of jumping to the next thing.
If we are talking about $500K per month, then that is a different story...
But that's the story of every entrepreneur. Whether you're the smartest builder or sales person, nobody goes big in a single attempt, you keep improving. An attempt doesn't necessarily mean changing businesses, but improvising until you find what works. What seemed implicit to me is that the OP is looking for responses from early career entrepreneurs.
"That night, you deadlift your body weight. You sneak a photo of yourself in the mirror and email it to yourself with the subject heading “You Are A Warrior”."
I agree. It doesn't matter that it's his regretful private thoughts. I'm not a therapist, but that email is an artifact of a bigger mental health issue that is expressed in other ways. Narcissism? At least that!
This is uncharitable and I urge anyone thinking this way to consider if sometimes it’s okay to champion oneself /especially/ when done to escape feelings of self doubt.
If someone were like this all of the time? Sure. But that isn’t what this is about so I find it unfair to treat it as if this is some innate character flaw.
As George in Seinfeld says, it's too risky, what happens when you meet someone and then you finally have to take off the hat and maybe they react badly to your baldness?
"We certainly need to give ownership of the company to the other part, but we want to keep the decision-making of the product mostly to ourselves but with the flexibility to align with the requirements of the clients that they're bringing."
While your statement is probably correct, I've not known anyone who talks about CICO as anything other than "diet and exercise". This is why the absolute statement is a problem, it narrows they way most people think about these things. It becomes a substitute for nuanced explanations.
Even with huge confounding factors, tracking and controlling ci, correlates almost directly to co after such adjustments. Arguments that cico isnt absolute are technically correct but pedantic and unhelpful. None of this addresses the problems of willpower and differince in stimulus humans experince, nor the psychology of overeating as a coping mechanism, both of which seem to underpin the epidemic rather than math.
Maybe I am not smart enough for this, but can someone define "General Intelligence" for me?
"Practically speaking, the best way to become smarter is to learn a lot of stuff and cultivate a lot of skills. Since knowledge and skills are more specific than general intelligence, that may be less than we desire, but it still matters a lot."
Would "learning a lot of stuff and cultivating a lot of skills" not boost your general intelligence?
> Maybe I am not smart enough for this, but can someone define "General Intelligence" for me?
I think about this a lot and frankly don't have a good answer, but my current definition is something like "the speed and the depth at which someone can synthesize and comprehend new ideas."
It's by no means perfect, but when I observe people around me that just "seem smart" to me, the above statement is generally true.
But is it just knowledge or is it the human connection that makes a difference?
Students have access to all the information they need on Calculus through Google and other resources, for instance, but actually sitting down with a living, breathing human being and having them help you through your troubles...to me, that cannot be replaced with an AI.
If access to knowledge was all we needed to acquire and maintain intelligence in a specific area, we would all be a lot smarter...
Maybe the reason why business #5 or #6 is more successful is not that they changed businesses, but that they finally developed the skills necessary to make it work through their failures. If they went back to business #1, they could probably make it work this time.
Takeaway? Chose one thing and develop the skills (sales, etc) instead of jumping to the next thing.
If we are talking about $500K per month, then that is a different story...
I can handle the downvotes...