I can’t speak for everyone, although I try, but the last time I heard someone here talking about how the Triangle was going to be the next Silicon Valley was probably some time in… 2001? I’m not sure of the exact date, but it was right around the time of Pets.com, Webvan, and eToys.

I’m going to use a lot of metaphors, so strap in.

I’m not saying that Silicon Valley isn’t a better (or even the best) place to start a company. I couldn’t agree more. It would be akin to arguing that Orlando isn’t a great place to build a theme park. I mean, just look at Harry Potter Land and tell me that would work in South Dakota.

But what I take umbrage with (yes, umbrage), is the fact the Silicon Valley is the one true place to build a startup. That’s garbage.

I’ve never been a Valley basher, and I’m not denying that Silicon Valley has a history and a great head start, a seemingly insurmountable head start. But saying Silicon Valley is the only place that can generate massively successful startups is like saying that only Detroit can build great cars.

There’s a lesson there.

But regardless of the reasoning, the arguments are moot because the statement itself completely misses the point.

The first and, in my mind, the most improbable argument that Silicon Valley is the only place to build massive startups is that the history and the track record attracts the kind of people that care about and put every waking thought into their startup. They come to the valley to succeed and only to succeed, whereas those who choose to start companies elsewhere do so for reasons like family, quality of life, or giving back the their local community

This is false on both sides.

1) The idea that all or most or more Silicon Valley startups care exclusively about the success of their startup is a generalization at best, and a fallacy at worst. That whole Hollywood/Hoodie startup lifestyle movement that is constantly decried by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, investors, and press didn’t come from Iowa. There are plenty, I would guess droves, of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are in it for the ride or, worse, because there’s so much money there that people are easier to fleece.

2) There is absolutely no way to quantify how much an entrepreneur cares about the success of their company relates to said chances of success. A terrible entrepreneur who is all-in 23.5 hours a day in Silicon Valley or anywhere else will fail. A great entrepreneur who also has a penchant for their family, or philanthropy, or Star Wars action figures (I’m looking at you Scot Wingo), not only can build a billion-dollar company, but some already have and others are well on their way (I’m looking at you Scot Wingo).

What’s most ironic is that arguing point number 2 just perpetuates the stereotype in point number 1.

The extension of this argument relative to locations outside of the Valley is that those entrepreneurs are, for all intents and purposes, forced to turn their attention away from their companies at times in order to help build up the local startup ecosystem.

First of all, I kind of agree with this. Like any business at any stage, spending too much time building a scene instead of getting customers will definitely bring about the death of your company, and I know this goes on. So one has to choose their moments wisely.

Ill-purposed networking events and idea jams and all things political are usually for the birds, and you should let other people with more time on their hands tend to that. But there are events to attend (ExitEvent), places to go (American Underground), articles to write (come on, mine), and movements to volunteer for (Triangle Startup Weekend) that will help you help them help you.

Don’t mistake the awesome phenomenon of entrepreneurs helping entrepreneurs as some sort of hippie-do-good-look-at-us civic campaign. If I get more eyes on the Triangle (and Archive Social, and Adzerk, and Appia, and that’s just a few of the As), then there’s a better chance someone will notice Automated Insights.

It’s difficult, and irritating, to explain how a startup ecosystem works to someone who has taken one for granted for 30 years. It’s like explaining water to a fish.

“See all that stuff all around you? It’s really helpful to you. And if you don’t tend to it every once in a while, you’re going to wind up at the top of the tank.”

The last and most controversial argument is that only billion-dollar exits define startup success. Again, this sounds like hoodie startupism. That line “You know what’s cool? A billion dollars.” is all fine and good in Hollywood, but how much of your soul are you actually selling when you put off an eight or nine-figure exit for the sole reason that you think you can get to a ten.

How much of that bastardization of capitalism actually has anything to do with building a great company? Building a great company means building a great product, solving a big problem, making people’s lives easier and making them happy. It should also mean loving what you do every day, taking on challenges because they’re worth taking on, and, at its very core, making something out of nothing.

No one in the Triangle is jumping up and down claiming we’re the next Silicon Valley. If they are, slap them and tell them to get back to work. We’ve got a lot of nothing, and we can make a ton of something out of it.

Editor’s note: Joe Procopio is a serial entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. He is VP of Product at Automated Insights and the founder of startup network and news resource ExitEvent. Follow him at @jproco or read him at http://joeprocopio.com