Is it possible that the attitude expressed in those essays stems from what is good for founders in the aggregate — that is, pg's pocketbook — rather than what is good for any one particular founder?
I think there may be another way to look at it (even though I'm not actually a massive fan of the way VC works). The "if you don't play, you can't win" argument is a fool's errand if your chances of winning are miniscule. However, if you've already decided to play you're going to need an attitude that ignores your tiny chances of success -- otherwise you are likely to get disheartened and quit.
Your question is fair, but I believe a little misguided.
On one hand, VCs like YC need founders to build companies in order to get excess returns for their LPs.
On the other hand, founders still need to take excessive risks to start a company. Then they need to execute against incredible odds.
I say this as someone who left my job in 2014 to start a company. 14 months later it was over and I'd say that I set myself and family back substantially in the process from both a loss of cash to also a slower career path.
I don't regret the decision, but it does take excessive risk to launch.
I'm not exactly certain if your reply addresses my distinction between what is good for the entire body of founders (and the VC's who invest in them) and what is good for each individual founder. To the extent that it does, I think your anecdote illustrates that blind hope didn't offer you any particular benefit.
I think it's like a lottery. The rational move is not to play: it prevents you from nearly guaranteed losses. It also prevents you from hitting the jackpot.
Obviously, when you interview those who hit a jackpot, they will tell: buy more tickets! Believe blindly in your luck! This is what worked for them.
The trick is that you don't interview much those who kept failing, either by following the scenario, or by deviating from it. They are more numerous but less interesting.
Definitely, running a startup is not pure lottery, execution matters a lot. It's more like poker: a good player will win more often, but you always can do everything right and still lose.
