3 ms·

Upvoted the comment that says "I think this goes against YC philosophy". The YC guide explicitly calls out team experience and likelihood to succeed as a crit

Upvoted the comment that says "I think this goes against YC philosophy". The YC guide explicitly calls out team experience and likelihood to succeed as a criterion. I think there's a fetishization of complete blind objectivity in so many fields right now, which has at the root of it trying to iron out inequality. A laudable goal, but you shouldn't let that ideal completely upend the practical question to yourself of, where am I going to place my bets? An unavoidable fact is that ideas alone are not enough to make some technology or venture successful. Sure, some one-off inventor may have a brilliant idea, but the idea is just like 1% of the problem. If your model is to fund a team to develop an idea, the track record / personalities of the team are quite important. Most people in this world are barely able to get their own lives under control. What's the likelihood that a random person with a great idea can take that to something commercially viable? There's a reason that who it is matters, and unfortunately, that still leads to people being selected who reflect the starting set of less-than-diverse people.

neuromantik8086 9y ago
Most researchers applying for NIH grants aren't "random people"; all of them have gotten through PhD programs and potentially have done one or two postdocs, which already indicates that they have sufficient "team experience" and are already quite accomplished in their own right. This article isn't saying that anyone should be able to get an NIH grant, but rather that grants should be awarded less due to politics and more based upon potential merit and the promise of an idea. I.e., This editorial is being published in Nature, not viXra. The central issue is not one of team dynamics, or rooting out inequality on a societal level, but rather about rooting out inequality among equally capable candidates. Currently, many academic fields are dominated by cronyism and that is what the article is advocating against.
qdoop 9y ago
YC's philosophy is basically make noise lots of noise and the rest shall follow. They are never going to pay attention to something that cannot generate lots of buzz. I would never expect something fresh or innovative to come out from what we would call "proper" people because these are the people less willing to change and question anything. The problem is much deeper. If I am having good time the bast policy to follow is the one involving fewer changes so I could continue having good time. Change comes mostly from the ones not having good time the "loosers" you might call
za23weo 9y ago
> There's a reason that who it is matters, and unfortunately, that still leads to people being selected who reflect the starting set of less-than-diverse people. I'd agree with arguments that this is true more because of network effects than whether others can do the job or not. If you're only looking to repeat success, skilled folks are the best bet. But it leaves others who want to learn behind. And a lot of the folks with skills got there because someone propped them up. I'm just totally done with the idea our economy needs to be this fucking "always grow, always invent" scheme. So much of it is pointless shit that doesn't add to human discovery, rather it serves to change values in a bank account. I'd rather we focus on getting the basics right; healthcare, food, shelter, for the masses. Make that our daily focus, and give people time otherwise to find their talent or cool idea. But we're too addicted to universities telling us economics are like laws of physics and thus we must abide and live by them. Which is not much different than churches telling us the Bible is like laws of physics and the only model for living and we must abide. Smart folks get lost in their discoveries and pretend they apply to all of us. And manipulative folks will take that and make it the law of the land for their benefit.

neuromantik8086 9y ago

Most researchers applying for NIH grants aren't "random people"; all of them have gotten through PhD programs and potentially have done one or two postdocs, which already indicates that they have sufficient "team experience" and are already quite accomplished in their own right. This article isn't saying that anyone should be able to get an NIH grant, but rather that grants should be awarded less due to politics and more based upon potential merit and the promise of an idea. I.e., This editorial is being published in Nature, not viXra. The central issue is not one of team dynamics, or rooting out inequality on a societal level, but rather about rooting out inequality among equally capable candidates. Currently, many academic fields are dominated by cronyism and that is what the article is advocating against.

qdoop 9y ago

YC's philosophy is basically make noise lots of noise and the rest shall follow. They are never going to pay attention to something that cannot generate lots of buzz. I would never expect something fresh or innovative to come out from what we would call "proper" people because these are the people less willing to change and question anything. The problem is much deeper. If I am having good time the bast policy to follow is the one involving fewer changes so I could continue having good time. Change comes mostly from the ones not having good time the "loosers" you might call

za23weo 9y ago

> There's a reason that who it is matters, and unfortunately, that still leads to people being selected who reflect the starting set of less-than-diverse people. I'd agree with arguments that this is true more because of network effects than whether others can do the job or not. If you're only looking to repeat success, skilled folks are the best bet. But it leaves others who want to learn behind. And a lot of the folks with skills got there because someone propped them up. I'm just totally done with the idea our economy needs to be this fucking "always grow, always invent" scheme. So much of it is pointless shit that doesn't add to human discovery, rather it serves to change values in a bank account. I'd rather we focus on getting the basics right; healthcare, food, shelter, for the masses. Make that our daily focus, and give people time otherwise to find their talent or cool idea. But we're too addicted to universities telling us economics are like laws of physics and thus we must abide and live by them. Which is not much different than churches telling us the Bible is like laws of physics and the only model for living and we must abide. Smart folks get lost in their discoveries and pretend they apply to all of us. And manipulative folks will take that and make it the law of the land for their benefit.