You never explained what you mean by “startup culture,” nor “good.”
One can infer something from your arguments. But different arguments definitely appeal to different definitions of “good.” In particular: good for the founder, good for the startup employee, good for the VC, and good for society.
There is no reason to believe that it should be good for all of them. In particular, a belief that equity is valuable to startup employees is good for founders and VCs, but if it is false, it is bad for startup employees. If startups are good for society, it may be good for society for the employees to be deceived. But if startups are good for society, it may be a largely win-win for startups to be considered virtuous and everyone involved in startups to receive status. Isn’t that the kind of thing “culture” does, rather than promulgate specific beliefs?
By “startup culture” you seem to mean anything that promotes startups. Do these form a natural category? If they are all VC propaganda, then I guess that’s a natural category, but it probably isn’t a coherent culture. Perhaps there is a pro-startup culture that confabulates specific claims when asked. But are the details actually motivating people, or is it really the amorphous sense of virtue or status?
Sometimes I see people using “startup culture” in a completely different way. They endorse the claim that startups are good for society, but condemn the current culture as unproductive.
You never explained what you mean by “startup culture,” nor “good.”
One can infer something from your arguments. But different arguments definitely appeal to different definitions of “good.” In particular: good for the founder, good for the startup employee, good for the VC, and good for society.
There is no reason to believe that it should be good for all of them. In particular, a belief that equity is valuable to startup employees is good for founders and VCs, but if it is false, it is bad for startup employees. If startups are good for society, it may be good for society for the employees to be deceived. But if startups are good for society, it may be a largely win-win for startups to be considered virtuous and everyone involved in startups to receive status. Isn’t that the kind of thing “culture” does, rather than promulgate specific beliefs?
By “startup culture” you seem to mean anything that promotes startups. Do these form a natural category? If they are all VC propaganda, then I guess that’s a natural category, but it probably isn’t a coherent culture. Perhaps there is a pro-startup culture that confabulates specific claims when asked. But are the details actually motivating people, or is it really the amorphous sense of virtue or status?
Sometimes I see people using “startup culture” in a completely different way. They endorse the claim that startups are good for society, but condemn the current culture as unproductive.