8 ms·

How to act less stupid, according to psychologists

96 points by nkurz 11y ago

avmich 11y ago
> Acting in a way that isn't considered stupid is a goal shared by most reasonable people, but many of them likely overlook one key attribute that might allow them to better achieve it: modesty. Unfortunately that doesn't pay. We're somehow encouraged to take risks here.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- njohnson41 11y ago
  I suspect that's an important part of why confident ignorance is seen as the "stupidest" trait. Being confident has social advantages, so without a significant risk of looking stupid for overlooking something, everyone would try to be confident all the time, and confidence would have a very low signal-to-noise ratio for determining who to trust.
  - avmich 11y ago
    The problem is that a lot of people are constantly trying to look confident, but trying to avoid paying for mistakes at the same time. They prefer situations when their confidence is hard to check. A whole culture is developed around that and Scott Adams' Dilbert series has large supply of situations when confidence trumps modesty.
    - RangerScience 11y ago
      Oh, that's a good point. I wonder if the study would produce different results if the people in the overconfidence situations owned up to their failures? Or maybe it'd be considered just as stupid an action, but not done by as stupid a person...?
    - kordless 11y ago
      > trying to avoid paying for mistakes at the same time I observe that many people appear to be successful at avoiding their own suffering and offload it to someone else. It's far easier to blame someone else and judge them harshly, than accept our own hand in the matter. Looking confident is simply avoidance of work, or more bluntly, just being lazy.
- jakejake 11y ago
  The fear of looking stupid is probably what stops most people from ever doing anything interesting. I do see an occasional startup fumblebrag and think to myself "that was a stupid idea." But I rarely think anybody is stupid for trying.
  - tertius 11y ago
    I think there's a difference between the fear you speak of and modesty. I can be modest and not have a fear of looking stupid. I just refrain from being stupid through modesty. When it matters I take risks and may be considered stupid, but as you say not stupid for trying.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    > "If you don't want to do something stupid, you probably don't want to have higher expectations of your abilities than you should," Balazs said. "The worst thing someone can do is act confidently, and seriously, and still not act rationally. That's as stupid as it gets." That, in my opinion, is totally stupid ;) It's hard to assess ones abilities without risk of looking stupid. But of course, one must hedge the bet prudently.
    - ak39 11y ago
      Indeed. If ALL we're interested in is what others /think/ of us, then by all means let's hedge our bets in that regard. If looking stupid however is a byproduct of a longer journey to achieving something, then who cares what others think about our intelligence or our paraded stupidity. But if looking stupid affects our chances of achieving what we set out to achieve, then we should be more circumspect before acting.
- tertius 11y ago
  Not an American, but living in the U.S. That quote is fairly eye opening. My culture is quite a bit more modest than the general American culture, to a degree that "confident" Americans are fairly annoying for not being modest. That's a very good way to put it, and yes, you're right, it's ingrained in this (HN/Tech) and the more general American culture.
  - napperjabber 11y ago
    I don't know how to explain it. It's fucking annoying. While programming, I have to remain focused and mentally aware. While talking to anyone at work, I have to act like a ditzzy vally girl or hippy of some type. If I don't do this, I'm pegged as a threat. I've found that I can really only get shit done in a remote office, otherwise I'm circle jerking the whole staff. In short, some of us Americans hate it too.
    - visakanv 11y ago
      > While talking to anyone at work, I have to act like a ditzzy vally girl or hippy of some type. If I don't do this, I'm pegged as a threat. That's hilarious. I'm just sitting here imagining a bunch of hippies and valley girls eyeing a tired, geeky programmer and going "Oh my god he is like such a threat to our organization??"
      - a3n 11y ago
        "He's harshing our facade."
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    to be honest, to most cultures out here/there general average American is by far the loudest person around, beyond any modesty. Usually not really appreciated, and the more traditional (ie didn't change that much in last 500 years) the culture is, the worse the effect. Personally I like it, a very different approach to self-presentation, that in some situations is more effective than usual shy polite careful... whatever,. But if you go backpacking in remote places somewhere in south asia for example, it can cause a bit of friction with locals sometimes.
- jk4930 11y ago
  If we take calculated risks where we know about the small probability of success (in the case of startups) and perhaps employ risk-mitigating measures and justify the whole enterprise with the problem to be solved or the possible payoff, we're still confident but not ignorant (and thus stupid). I don't experience that people call me somehow stupid for what I do. Perhaps because I tell them I know about the dangers, how I manage them, that my approach is not necessarily the best approach for other people (invalidating their choices).
sjclemmy 11y ago
Number 1 is the Dunning Kruger effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect (A favourite of mine and a regular on HN I bet)
- ak39 11y ago
  Ok, so now let's use this new-found wisdom we have about our D-K blind spot. How do we ensure that we don't both fall into a D-K blind spot scenario and we don't ever act (make decisions)? Is the D-K "wisdom" useful?
  - sjclemmy 11y ago
    I haven't the faintest idea. I say stupid stuff all the time. Also - I tend toward the more negative end of the spectrum, i.e. I don't have the confidence, but I'm probably smarter than 90% of the population. Aaaand - as a Brit - Just saying that is making me cringe with embarrassment.
    - planfaster 11y ago
      Smarter than 90% of the population would be an IQ of 120 (s.d. 15) which is pretty high. You can test yourself here: http://www.iqtest.dk/ http://www.iqtest.dk/ . Let us know if you got your 120. :)
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    When starting an unfamiliar task, seek out an objective way to measure your performance of the task. Use it. A different way to phrase the wisdom is that accurate self assessment is a valuable learning aid.
- riskneural 11y ago
  The following contradiction is pasted from the British actuarial notes: (hopefully within the terms of fair use) "Overconfidence People tend to overestimate their own abilities, knowledge and skills. For example, if you ask 100 people if they are better than average drivers, then you might not be surprised if more than 50% of them reply “yes”! Moreover, studies show that the discrepancy between accuracy and overconfidence increases (in all but the simplest tasks) as the respondent is more knowledgeable! (Accuracy increases to a modest degree but confidence increases to a much larger degree. ) If this is true then it may not be wise to pass the Subject ST5 exam! Overconfidence could therefore be a potentially serious problem in fields such as investment where most of the participants are likely to be highly knowledgeable. Moreover, the available evidence suggests that even when people are aware that they are overconfident they remain so."
chejazi 11y ago
"If you don't want to do something stupid, you probably don't want to have higher expectations of your abilities than you should..." I disagree with this statement. I believe that enlightenment, not stupidity, results from pushing our expectations. I think modesty is more important when it comes to understanding the factors that contributed to an outcome, "stupid" or not.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  I guess the difference is how you handle the risk of failure. Dismiss it because you think you won't fail, or prepare for it because you're aware you might?
- marklgr 11y ago
  Depends on what you call enlightenment. In the zen/taoist sense, it actually results from _dropping_ your expectations, ie. just do your stuff.
- wycx 11y ago
  I would agree. I would suggest that people who are skilled, and good at what they do did not get to that state without making mistakes that could fall into the categories described in the article as stupid. The trick is, as you say, to determine why said mistakes occured, and importantly to avoid making the same stupid mistakes in the future. The best practitioners of "insert discipline here" are those that have made all the (survivable) mistakes.
__sarcasm 11y ago
1. Didn't see that coming. (had information, chose to ignore, possibly by way of narcissism or hubris) 2. Couldn't help themselves. (lack of impulse control, compulsive behavior) 3. Space cadets. (lack of full circumstantial awareness) The reverse of all of these being, of course, overly cautious, prudent behavior. A coward. The brave and the stupid. Maybe some of us are just lucky.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Well said! Cowards are just jealous ;)
- artifaxx 11y ago
  It seems that striking a balance between these traits is best. You have to do things and learn from your mistakes to keep from doing stupid stuff. But you also don't want to go so far that you look like a total idiot.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  In my humble and cautious opinion, somebody prudent and cautious is not a coward. That's the reason because we have different words. Prudent is to know that your chances are not good and then refrain yourself despise the pressure you could feel to act. To be brave is to be scared but to realize that is the moment to act and do it. To be coward is the same but not acting. You have to be scared to be brave. To be stupid is not to be scared when you should be. Knowing how to balance all that would be being wise.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  First of all, the opposite of "coward" isn't "brave", it's "foolhardy". Also, I don't understand what use these two concepts have. Risks are a continuum, and rewards are a continuum. Multiply the two together, and you get ROI. Everyone has a minimum ROI before they do something (you wouldn't jump in front of a train to retrieve a penny), it's just that some people have a higher threshold than others. When is the threshold "too high" and "too low", giving us cowards and foolhardy people, respectively? It's all subjective, and a matter of preference. Denigrating people because they don't have the same preference as you is a dick move.
TheAceOfHearts 11y ago
I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of source. Is anyone aware if the findings were published somewhere? There's a lot of hand waving and voodoo magic in psychology, so I try to take this type of article with a grain of salt.
- artifaxx 11y ago
  This appears to be the source of the main study in the article. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001233 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615...
ak39 11y ago
After a moribund launch of my well-intentioned startup in 2012, I know understand what others meant by "you have a lot of courage" (to leave your job and take the risks). What they mostly meant really is that I had the courage to look stupid. Except I didn't know that or care much for what "bravery" meant.
- visakanv 11y ago
  What was your startup about, and what happened?
  - ak39 11y ago
    You mean, what was the name of the game? You can still call it Riding the Gravy Train [1]. Summary of Failure: Failed to close enterprise sales leads. (Started with the erroneous assumption that being technically able to develop an MVP will prove sufficient to "sell" to enterprises.) Reasons: 1. Small team (enterprises no like small teams [sic] ... unless ... but we learned the "unlesses" only recently) 2. Small team part II - fewer initial leads to grow from consultancy domain experience 3. Sales pitches always too technical. 4. Solution offering too monolithic (modules preferred by enterprises) 5. High overheads during sales periods (enterprise sales lead times went on for 24 months!) 6. Couldn't adequately manage emotional temperament during dry spell (spending on overheads - salaries esp didn't help) - resulting in poor major and minor knock-on decisions. 7. Emotional Temperament Part II - weak emotional resolve affected creative aspect of job (building the MVP). Health suffered too with stress. Spiralled. However, and the irony is amazing - we closed our first sale after 2 years. This after letting go two staffers and an office, right before switching the lights off. We build from here. Making new mistakes. And looking stupid for an analysis of decisions later on. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Have A Cigar" by Pink Floyd Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar. You're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high, You're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try; they're gonna love you. Well, I've always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely. The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's Pink? And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it Riding the Gravy Train. We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, You owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count. Everybody else is just green, have you seen the chart? It's a helluva start, it could be made into a monster If we all pull together as a team. And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it Riding the Gravy Train.
cfarre 11y ago
Be stupid is cool
flashman 11y ago
> "The stupidest thing someone can do is overestimate themselves," I wonder if this is part of the reason people self-sabotage with comments like, "It's just a beta, I was rushed, I haven't implemented X yet...", because they don't want to appear confident and then fall short? > For example, ingested substances or excessive social support can promote confidence disproportionate to competence. I would sum this up with the phrase, "Hold my beer..."
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  > "The stupidest thing someone can do is overestimate themselves," [from the OP] // That's a worrying conclusion - there's a thin line between not trying for fear of failure and considering that it's only rational that something is beyond you so you should not try. My young son has many times told me he is unable and will always be incapable of doing certain things. Many of those things he can now do because we didn't accept his considered limitations. To his mind we were overestimating his ability to do and to learn to do. IMO sometimes it's right to try even when we [feel we] know we will fail - drink driving isn't one of those times [except in very limited circumstances where it could be made relatively safe (cf Mythbusters)]. The researchers seem to call a lot of things stupidity; ignorance IMO is not always through stupidity, equating lack of self-control and stupidity again seems strange to me. There's some overlap for sure. Lastly, isn't part of the point of the movie Forrest Gump that the eponymous hero does things that are out of ignorance or apparent low-intelligence but that are nevertheless revealed to be acts of heroism, inner-strength, love, longstanding fortitude. Lieutenant Dan doesn't hold back in showing how foolish he sees Gump but "Stupid is as stupid does" and it turns out what Forrest does - courage under fire, friendship with the friendless, gumption beyond normal endurance, and willingness to just do [ignorant, or perhaps wilfully dismissive, of those who see or call him as stupid] - isn't stupid after all.
LibrlSurfr4War 11y ago
Well, that's 7.2 minutes I'll never get back. Who's stupid now, brah?
dschiptsov 11y ago
There is a book about that - Thinking Fast And Slow.)
debacle 11y ago
There are certain advantages to looking stupid.
donatj 11y ago
> When given a math problem, for instance, an intelligent person might assume they aren't capable of the same thinking errors that their peers are, which, in turn, makes them more prone to commit them. This is the big truth of this article. So many of the worst people I know make the assumption they can never be wrong because of schooling / general overconfidence.
- a3n 11y ago
  I also know a number of people (myself included) who are prone to this problem. Most of them are not the worst people I know. :)
  - donatj 11y ago
    The ones I know become huge jerks if you cast doubt on their answers.
    - a3n 11y ago
      I've seen those too. I don't know if this field attracts those types, or if they're everywhere.
      - planfaster 11y ago
        The ones that become jerks if you disagree with them are everywhere, especially here on HN, and they are usually authoritarians and narcissists. The authoritarian will use their downvoting powers and HN-cliqueness to censor a comment or get a moderator to detach a thread leg, and the narcissists are the ones going around calling people "misogynist", "racist", "anti-semite", etc. donatj: > So many of the worst people I know make the assumption they can never be wrong because of schooling / general overconfidence. Careful with pointing fingers. Are you sure you aren't one of those people? In my experience 99% of people assume what they learned in school can't be wrong and will defend it passionately without a hint of doubt, especially when the subject is History, and especially when it touches WW2 atrocities. Are you sure aren't one of those people who would irrationally and angrily/passionately defend what you learned in school about gassings in 1943 if someone told you some historians think what really happened has been exaggerated? In my experience most people react in an exasperated way as they lose all composure and start flinging insults. Few people have the maturity to entertain thoughts they disagree with at first in order to possibly learn from new ideas.

96 points by nkurz 11y ago

> Acting in a way that isn't considered stupid is a goal shared by most reasonable people, but many of them likely overlook one key attribute that might allow them to better achieve it: modesty. Unfortunately that doesn't pay. We're somehow encouraged to take risks here.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
njohnson41 11y ago
I suspect that's an important part of why confident ignorance is seen as the "stupidest" trait. Being confident has social advantages, so without a significant risk of looking stupid for overlooking something, everyone would try to be confident all the time, and confidence would have a very low signal-to-noise ratio for determining who to trust.
- avmich 11y ago
  The problem is that a lot of people are constantly trying to look confident, but trying to avoid paying for mistakes at the same time. They prefer situations when their confidence is hard to check. A whole culture is developed around that and Scott Adams' Dilbert series has large supply of situations when confidence trumps modesty.
  - RangerScience 11y ago
    Oh, that's a good point. I wonder if the study would produce different results if the people in the overconfidence situations owned up to their failures? Or maybe it'd be considered just as stupid an action, but not done by as stupid a person...?
  - kordless 11y ago
    > trying to avoid paying for mistakes at the same time I observe that many people appear to be successful at avoiding their own suffering and offload it to someone else. It's far easier to blame someone else and judge them harshly, than accept our own hand in the matter. Looking confident is simply avoidance of work, or more bluntly, just being lazy.
jakejake 11y ago
The fear of looking stupid is probably what stops most people from ever doing anything interesting. I do see an occasional startup fumblebrag and think to myself "that was a stupid idea." But I rarely think anybody is stupid for trying.
- tertius 11y ago
  I think there's a difference between the fear you speak of and modesty. I can be modest and not have a fear of looking stupid. I just refrain from being stupid through modesty. When it matters I take risks and may be considered stupid, but as you say not stupid for trying.
- mirimir 11y ago
  > "If you don't want to do something stupid, you probably don't want to have higher expectations of your abilities than you should," Balazs said. "The worst thing someone can do is act confidently, and seriously, and still not act rationally. That's as stupid as it gets." That, in my opinion, is totally stupid ;) It's hard to assess ones abilities without risk of looking stupid. But of course, one must hedge the bet prudently.
  - ak39 11y ago
    Indeed. If ALL we're interested in is what others /think/ of us, then by all means let's hedge our bets in that regard. If looking stupid however is a byproduct of a longer journey to achieving something, then who cares what others think about our intelligence or our paraded stupidity. But if looking stupid affects our chances of achieving what we set out to achieve, then we should be more circumspect before acting.
tertius 11y ago
Not an American, but living in the U.S. That quote is fairly eye opening. My culture is quite a bit more modest than the general American culture, to a degree that "confident" Americans are fairly annoying for not being modest. That's a very good way to put it, and yes, you're right, it's ingrained in this (HN/Tech) and the more general American culture.
- napperjabber 11y ago
  I don't know how to explain it. It's fucking annoying. While programming, I have to remain focused and mentally aware. While talking to anyone at work, I have to act like a ditzzy vally girl or hippy of some type. If I don't do this, I'm pegged as a threat. I've found that I can really only get shit done in a remote office, otherwise I'm circle jerking the whole staff. In short, some of us Americans hate it too.
  - visakanv 11y ago
    > While talking to anyone at work, I have to act like a ditzzy vally girl or hippy of some type. If I don't do this, I'm pegged as a threat. That's hilarious. I'm just sitting here imagining a bunch of hippies and valley girls eyeing a tired, geeky programmer and going "Oh my god he is like such a threat to our organization??"
    - a3n 11y ago
      "He's harshing our facade."
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  to be honest, to most cultures out here/there general average American is by far the loudest person around, beyond any modesty. Usually not really appreciated, and the more traditional (ie didn't change that much in last 500 years) the culture is, the worse the effect. Personally I like it, a very different approach to self-presentation, that in some situations is more effective than usual shy polite careful... whatever,. But if you go backpacking in remote places somewhere in south asia for example, it can cause a bit of friction with locals sometimes.
jk4930 11y ago
If we take calculated risks where we know about the small probability of success (in the case of startups) and perhaps employ risk-mitigating measures and justify the whole enterprise with the problem to be solved or the possible payoff, we're still confident but not ignorant (and thus stupid). I don't experience that people call me somehow stupid for what I do. Perhaps because I tell them I know about the dangers, how I manage them, that my approach is not necessarily the best approach for other people (invalidating their choices).

sjclemmy 11y ago

Number 1 is the Dunning Kruger effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect (A favourite of mine and a regular on HN I bet)

ak39 11y ago
Ok, so now let's use this new-found wisdom we have about our D-K blind spot. How do we ensure that we don't both fall into a D-K blind spot scenario and we don't ever act (make decisions)? Is the D-K "wisdom" useful?
- sjclemmy 11y ago
  I haven't the faintest idea. I say stupid stuff all the time. Also - I tend toward the more negative end of the spectrum, i.e. I don't have the confidence, but I'm probably smarter than 90% of the population. Aaaand - as a Brit - Just saying that is making me cringe with embarrassment.
  - planfaster 11y ago
    Smarter than 90% of the population would be an IQ of 120 (s.d. 15) which is pretty high. You can test yourself here: http://www.iqtest.dk/ http://www.iqtest.dk/ . Let us know if you got your 120. :)
- maxerickson 11y ago
  When starting an unfamiliar task, seek out an objective way to measure your performance of the task. Use it. A different way to phrase the wisdom is that accurate self assessment is a valuable learning aid.
riskneural 11y ago
The following contradiction is pasted from the British actuarial notes: (hopefully within the terms of fair use) "Overconfidence People tend to overestimate their own abilities, knowledge and skills. For example, if you ask 100 people if they are better than average drivers, then you might not be surprised if more than 50% of them reply “yes”! Moreover, studies show that the discrepancy between accuracy and overconfidence increases (in all but the simplest tasks) as the respondent is more knowledgeable! (Accuracy increases to a modest degree but confidence increases to a much larger degree. ) If this is true then it may not be wise to pass the Subject ST5 exam! Overconfidence could therefore be a potentially serious problem in fields such as investment where most of the participants are likely to be highly knowledgeable. Moreover, the available evidence suggests that even when people are aware that they are overconfident they remain so."

chejazi 11y ago

"If you don't want to do something stupid, you probably don't want to have higher expectations of your abilities than you should..." I disagree with this statement. I believe that enlightenment, not stupidity, results from pushing our expectations. I think modesty is more important when it comes to understanding the factors that contributed to an outcome, "stupid" or not.

Natanael_L 11y ago
I guess the difference is how you handle the risk of failure. Dismiss it because you think you won't fail, or prepare for it because you're aware you might?
marklgr 11y ago
Depends on what you call enlightenment. In the zen/taoist sense, it actually results from _dropping_ your expectations, ie. just do your stuff.
wycx 11y ago
I would agree. I would suggest that people who are skilled, and good at what they do did not get to that state without making mistakes that could fall into the categories described in the article as stupid. The trick is, as you say, to determine why said mistakes occured, and importantly to avoid making the same stupid mistakes in the future. The best practitioners of "insert discipline here" are those that have made all the (survivable) mistakes.

__sarcasm 11y ago

1. Didn't see that coming. (had information, chose to ignore, possibly by way of narcissism or hubris) 2. Couldn't help themselves. (lack of impulse control, compulsive behavior) 3. Space cadets. (lack of full circumstantial awareness) The reverse of all of these being, of course, overly cautious, prudent behavior. A coward. The brave and the stupid. Maybe some of us are just lucky.

mirimir 11y ago
Well said! Cowards are just jealous ;)
artifaxx 11y ago
It seems that striking a balance between these traits is best. You have to do things and learn from your mistakes to keep from doing stupid stuff. But you also don't want to go so far that you look like a total idiot.
RobertoG 11y ago
In my humble and cautious opinion, somebody prudent and cautious is not a coward. That's the reason because we have different words. Prudent is to know that your chances are not good and then refrain yourself despise the pressure you could feel to act. To be brave is to be scared but to realize that is the moment to act and do it. To be coward is the same but not acting. You have to be scared to be brave. To be stupid is not to be scared when you should be. Knowing how to balance all that would be being wise.
StavrosK 11y ago
First of all, the opposite of "coward" isn't "brave", it's "foolhardy". Also, I don't understand what use these two concepts have. Risks are a continuum, and rewards are a continuum. Multiply the two together, and you get ROI. Everyone has a minimum ROI before they do something (you wouldn't jump in front of a train to retrieve a penny), it's just that some people have a higher threshold than others. When is the threshold "too high" and "too low", giving us cowards and foolhardy people, respectively? It's all subjective, and a matter of preference. Denigrating people because they don't have the same preference as you is a dick move.

TheAceOfHearts 11y ago

I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of source. Is anyone aware if the findings were published somewhere? There's a lot of hand waving and voodoo magic in psychology, so I try to take this type of article with a grain of salt.

artifaxx 11y ago
This appears to be the source of the main study in the article. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001233 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615...

ak39 11y ago

After a moribund launch of my well-intentioned startup in 2012, I know understand what others meant by "you have a lot of courage" (to leave your job and take the risks). What they mostly meant really is that I had the courage to look stupid. Except I didn't know that or care much for what "bravery" meant.

visakanv 11y ago
What was your startup about, and what happened?
- ak39 11y ago
  You mean, what was the name of the game? You can still call it Riding the Gravy Train [1]. Summary of Failure: Failed to close enterprise sales leads. (Started with the erroneous assumption that being technically able to develop an MVP will prove sufficient to "sell" to enterprises.) Reasons: 1. Small team (enterprises no like small teams [sic] ... unless ... but we learned the "unlesses" only recently) 2. Small team part II - fewer initial leads to grow from consultancy domain experience 3. Sales pitches always too technical. 4. Solution offering too monolithic (modules preferred by enterprises) 5. High overheads during sales periods (enterprise sales lead times went on for 24 months!) 6. Couldn't adequately manage emotional temperament during dry spell (spending on overheads - salaries esp didn't help) - resulting in poor major and minor knock-on decisions. 7. Emotional Temperament Part II - weak emotional resolve affected creative aspect of job (building the MVP). Health suffered too with stress. Spiralled. However, and the irony is amazing - we closed our first sale after 2 years. This after letting go two staffers and an office, right before switching the lights off. We build from here. Making new mistakes. And looking stupid for an analysis of decisions later on. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] "Have A Cigar" by Pink Floyd Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar. You're gonna go far, you're gonna fly high, You're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try; they're gonna love you. Well, I've always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely. The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's Pink? And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it Riding the Gravy Train. We're just knocked out. We heard about the sell out. You gotta get an album out, You owe it to the people. We're so happy we can hardly count. Everybody else is just green, have you seen the chart? It's a helluva start, it could be made into a monster If we all pull together as a team. And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

cfarre 11y ago

Be stupid is cool

flashman 11y ago

> "The stupidest thing someone can do is overestimate themselves," I wonder if this is part of the reason people self-sabotage with comments like, "It's just a beta, I was rushed, I haven't implemented X yet...", because they don't want to appear confident and then fall short? > For example, ingested substances or excessive social support can promote confidence disproportionate to competence. I would sum this up with the phrase, "Hold my beer..."

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
> "The stupidest thing someone can do is overestimate themselves," [from the OP] // That's a worrying conclusion - there's a thin line between not trying for fear of failure and considering that it's only rational that something is beyond you so you should not try. My young son has many times told me he is unable and will always be incapable of doing certain things. Many of those things he can now do because we didn't accept his considered limitations. To his mind we were overestimating his ability to do and to learn to do. IMO sometimes it's right to try even when we [feel we] know we will fail - drink driving isn't one of those times [except in very limited circumstances where it could be made relatively safe (cf Mythbusters)]. The researchers seem to call a lot of things stupidity; ignorance IMO is not always through stupidity, equating lack of self-control and stupidity again seems strange to me. There's some overlap for sure. Lastly, isn't part of the point of the movie Forrest Gump that the eponymous hero does things that are out of ignorance or apparent low-intelligence but that are nevertheless revealed to be acts of heroism, inner-strength, love, longstanding fortitude. Lieutenant Dan doesn't hold back in showing how foolish he sees Gump but "Stupid is as stupid does" and it turns out what Forrest does - courage under fire, friendship with the friendless, gumption beyond normal endurance, and willingness to just do [ignorant, or perhaps wilfully dismissive, of those who see or call him as stupid] - isn't stupid after all.

LibrlSurfr4War 11y ago

Well, that's 7.2 minutes I'll never get back. Who's stupid now, brah?

dschiptsov 11y ago

There is a book about that - Thinking Fast And Slow.)

debacle 11y ago

There are certain advantages to looking stupid.

donatj 11y ago

> When given a math problem, for instance, an intelligent person might assume they aren't capable of the same thinking errors that their peers are, which, in turn, makes them more prone to commit them. This is the big truth of this article. So many of the worst people I know make the assumption they can never be wrong because of schooling / general overconfidence.

a3n 11y ago
I also know a number of people (myself included) who are prone to this problem. Most of them are not the worst people I know. :)
- donatj 11y ago
  The ones I know become huge jerks if you cast doubt on their answers.
  - a3n 11y ago
    I've seen those too. I don't know if this field attracts those types, or if they're everywhere.
    - planfaster 11y ago
      The ones that become jerks if you disagree with them are everywhere, especially here on HN, and they are usually authoritarians and narcissists. The authoritarian will use their downvoting powers and HN-cliqueness to censor a comment or get a moderator to detach a thread leg, and the narcissists are the ones going around calling people "misogynist", "racist", "anti-semite", etc. donatj: > So many of the worst people I know make the assumption they can never be wrong because of schooling / general overconfidence. Careful with pointing fingers. Are you sure you aren't one of those people? In my experience 99% of people assume what they learned in school can't be wrong and will defend it passionately without a hint of doubt, especially when the subject is History, and especially when it touches WW2 atrocities. Are you sure aren't one of those people who would irrationally and angrily/passionately defend what you learned in school about gassings in 1943 if someone told you some historians think what really happened has been exaggerated? In my experience most people react in an exasperated way as they lose all composure and start flinging insults. Few people have the maturity to entertain thoughts they disagree with at first in order to possibly learn from new ideas.