Until you add "living out of a car with your pregnant wife and 2 year old child" to the things you have organized your life to do.
Humans are very adverse to ruin, and this has nothing to do with what they want to do or achieve. It has to do with what they do not want to experience or put others through.
not starting a project, not finishing a project, not learning something new, not starting a lifestyle business, not investing, not changing their career, not leaving a sucky job
It's not the wife, it's you.
Sometimes it is not the wife, sometimes it is the wife. And other times it is being responsible and considering consequences of your actions on your children before taking action.
I compete at my job -- I compete with myself to do better, to improve the company against all the challenges set before me, to provide more for my family.
There's nothing special about being an entrepreneur other than the privilege and ability to take serious financial risks.
I agree that there are also entrepreneurs that are not privileged and basically can afford risks because it can not get worst. And also enterpreners that don't take unreasonable financial risks - if you know you can get well paid job whenever you want to (as a coder or in friends/familly company) then it is less of risk.
Nevertheless, an original attempt to label responsible decision making as "excuse" and stigmatize it in favour of "following passion" or proving whatever to yourself or other emotions based decision was misguided. I don't know why some people treat it as decision you are supposed to make no matter what circumstances and skills. If they are really naturally ok with it, they should not need others to make the same decision.
It's tough to suss out when a person is or isn't be too risk-adverse in general though. It may be impossible, in fact.
That said, I think you miss the point ABCLAW is making. A lot of people care highly about making sure that their family is taken care. This keeps them from risking everything on starting on a start-up.
As an aside, I see the options as 1) find a 8-5 I enjoy, get paid well enough to support my family and enjoy the extra time with them. 2) Start a company, work 80+ hours a week for >2 years for a <5% chance to never have to work again.
For me and my family 1 is a much more appealing option
Also, anyone who thinks "I couldn't/didn't/wouldn't because ... " and hides behind those excuses, should read Charles-Bukowski's air-and-light-and-time-and-space (https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/10/04/charles-bukowski-ai...)
ZenPencils on air-and-light-and-time-and-space, for a more delightful read. (https://i0.wp.com/www.brainpickings.org/wp-content/uploads/2...)
Hopefully you are not giving up things that are really important to you for the sake of pursuing your one burning passion. But there is a wide variance in the set of things that people consider important, much wider than contemporary culture considers. You don't have to choose the same goals that everybody else does, nor do you even need to choose a goal at all. Some people just live for the experience.
When you're financially secure, it isn't a big deal to live out of your car and climb a few mountains for shits and giggles.
But what does that have to do, prescriptively, with the reverse situation, when you aren't financially secure? Very little.
I think what commenters here are trying to drive home is that people have different "set points" about what acceptable risk tolerance is, and that we build up these ideas in our head of "I could never do X or live through X". But then if X happens, and we are experiencing it in the moment, suddenly the human brain has a way of adapting, most of the time. The important thing becomes that we are still alive, and we can still make choices, and then all the other strictures we set for ourself fall away.
Now, does that mean I suddenly want to go homeless, or have a grand in net assets, or live in a house where they didn't bother to finish all the walls, or try to build a startup while my kid is in the NICU? No. But by putting these options on the table, instead of making them no-go zones, you can consider them rationally and evaluate the likely probability of them happening, and then deal with them if & when they come up.
She just smiled and held my hand
Rent a flat above a shop
Cut your hair and get a job
Smoke some fags and play some pool
Pretend you never went to school
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
If you called your Dad he could stop it all
That's quite a bit more than the average person has. Especially if you're a coder and can land a 175k/yr job by sneezing at linkedin.
I understand what commentators are trying to do, but the attempt is misguided. I'm replying to a post regarding a dichotomy between being and doing as the foundation of entrepreneurship, and I've stated that this simply isn't the case. The risk-tolerance of a prospective entrepreneur has nothing to do with how their self-perception of reward is set up.
It has to do with how robust they are against the chance of ruin. When ruin isn't in your calculations because your parents or friends have a spare couch to crash on and you don't have a sick newborn to take care of, you discount its importance in dissuading people from having your same risk appetite.
Very seductive mindset, too, as it lets you ascribe a prescriptive virtue to your choices: "If only people were as daring as me!"
There was an interesting RibbonFarm essay on "guardian" vs. "commerce" syndrome that really crystallized this for me:
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/06/04/saints-and-traders-the...
Entrepreneurs are the ultimate in "commerce" types, but beyond that, his key point was about bulletpoint #2, "exert prowess" vs. "compete". For most people, the point of effort is to get a reward; you are doing things now so that you can be the person you want to be at the end. You do your homework so you can graduate from a good college; you get a job so you can make money and live a good life; you get your MBA so you can get a promotion.
For a small minority of people, this is reversed. Who you want to be is just a guidepost for what you should be doing. It's the doing that's the important part. The RibbonFarm article describes this as the finite vs. the infinite game; guardian types do things for the victory at the end, while commerce types set the victory conditions so they have a motive to keep doing things. So you went to school because the material was interesting, and graduation was a little side-note along the way. Or you program computers because that's what you want to do, and the salary just determines who you should program computers for.
It's these folks who make the best entrepreneurs, simply because if you're playing to win, there are ways to win with less effort.
This, BTW, is why so many entrepreneurs go on to found repeat companies, and why a few are (frankly) dicks after they've gotten rich. A lot of folks can't imagine founding a company after you already have F-U money; why put yourself through all those challenges if you don't have to? But for many entrepreneurs, the challenges are the point, the competition is the point, and they don't stop competing just because they've gotten rich. Sometimes this is expressed in healthy ways, like YCombinator after ViaWeb, Medium after Twitter after Blogger, git after Linux, Stripe after Auctomatic, etc. And sometimes it's expressed in unhealthy ways, like Khosla's feud with San Mateo county over his beachfront property. But the point is that these people aren't founding companies because they need money or success, it's because they love the thrill of competition.