1. select 2,000 random Bay Area 24-34 year-olds in the field of IT. 2. divide them into A and B, a test and a control group, obviously randomly. (1,000 each.)

1. select 2,000 random Bay Area 24-34 year-olds in the field of IT. 2. divide them into A and B, a test and a control group, obviously randomly. (1,000 each.) 3. Give them the same idea. They are to prepare pitch decks for it and get funding. 4. The test group is told to fake already having made a $10 million exit. They are not allowed to exactly lie, but their job is to go out of their way to give this impression. (Literally fake this impression by any means necessary short of outright fraud or lying.) Predicted results: 5. 0.000% (0 out of 1,000) of the control group will be funded. 6. Approximately 104% of the 1,000 in the test group will be funded, many of them before they've even left the room in which you are explaining the test protocol. (They might try out what you're explaining, via a quick email from their phone.) The reason it's more than 100% is that many of them will be funded multiple times while the test runs, i.e. for more than just the company they're seeking money for but also a second company. 7. What is remarkable is that I predict the same result if you gave the test group a really shitty idea, I mean objectively a terrible idea, and the control group an objectively ground-breaking or just awesome idea. This part is hard to prove though so better to give everyone the same idea. What is my point? My point is that not only does faking it work, it is the difference between 102% and 0.000% efficacy. You would never get funding for an idea that is the best idea of the 21st century, but you will get untold fortunes for pseudoscience if people think you've "made it." I realize I am arguing from a controlled thought-experiment here but this is the state of the world, folks.