27 ms·

> The spectral signatures of the best companies I’ve invested in are remarkably similar Why is it necessary for writers to over-complicate with this type of ph

by gist 7y ago

> The spectral signatures of the best companies I’ve invested in are remarkably similar Why is it necessary for writers to over-complicate with this type of phrasing any points that they are trying to make? My thought is it distracts. Why not just use 'qualities of the best companies'? I point this out because if you are a startup and you are doing marketing you should avoid anything other than simple language that pretty much anyone can understand. I could infer what the writer (Sam) meant from the context but there is no reason I should have to do that. Also little organization or structure in the presentation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
To many people (including me), this type of phrasing doesn't distract. It draws a more vivid image of what he means. I suspect the same is true for you with other turns of phrase; before the spectral signature thing, for example, he calls investor laziness "a bug that you can exploit" rather than directly saying "other investors should do this thing so you will have an advantage if you do it". I agree it's not the kind of thing you want to do when marketing to the general public, but the target audience for an essay on how to invest in startups isn't the general public.
- gist 7y ago
  We will have to disagree on the point I guess. To me it's just a typical barrier that both tech people and attorneys throw up to keep out newbies and/or make it more difficult for them. And it's also somewhat (for lack of a better way to put it ) 'snotty' you could say. And there is a wide divide between people that might invest in startups (someone's uncle or mother) vs. 'the general public' (ie 'watches family feud'). Also to your exact point I am sure there are vastly more people that would be able to understand what was meant by 'a bug that you can exploit' vs. 'spectral signatures'. I am thinking that someone pitching investors and using what amounts to (or appears to be) an invented or recently invented way of referring to a concept would not have a good reception either.
Hoasi 7y ago
> The spectral signatures (...) sounds more arcane than qualities. Therefore it makes the sentence more impressive? Style over substance.
yowlingcat 7y ago
I don't think it distracts, I think it's an intentional deflection and abuse of the phrase to make something pseudoscientific sound much more rational than it really is.

by gist 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

To many people (including me), this type of phrasing doesn't distract. It draws a more vivid image of what he means. I suspect the same is true for you with other turns of phrase; before the spectral signature thing, for example, he calls investor laziness "a bug that you can exploit" rather than directly saying "other investors should do this thing so you will have an advantage if you do it". I agree it's not the kind of thing you want to do when marketing to the general public, but the target audience for an essay on how to invest in startups isn't the general public.

gist 7y ago
We will have to disagree on the point I guess. To me it's just a typical barrier that both tech people and attorneys throw up to keep out newbies and/or make it more difficult for them. And it's also somewhat (for lack of a better way to put it ) 'snotty' you could say. And there is a wide divide between people that might invest in startups (someone's uncle or mother) vs. 'the general public' (ie 'watches family feud'). Also to your exact point I am sure there are vastly more people that would be able to understand what was meant by 'a bug that you can exploit' vs. 'spectral signatures'. I am thinking that someone pitching investors and using what amounts to (or appears to be) an invented or recently invented way of referring to a concept would not have a good reception either.

Hoasi 7y ago

> The spectral signatures (...) sounds more arcane than qualities. Therefore it makes the sentence more impressive? Style over substance.

yowlingcat 7y ago

I don't think it distracts, I think it's an intentional deflection and abuse of the phrase to make something pseudoscientific sound much more rational than it really is.