3 ms·
To be direct: you literally failed to acknowledge my core point in response to your prior comment, that is what you’re describing is “survivor bias” — then went
by billme 6y ago
To be direct: you literally failed to acknowledge my core point in response to your prior comment, that is what you’re describing is “survivor bias” — then went on in the comment I am currently responding to say a recipe is to fund, hire, cofounder, etc - the survivors. Recipe you provided was still based on survivor bias, at best an optimization based strategy — and would never double the output globally of R&D for any meaningful amount of time.
- wegs 6y agoTo be direct: You made a nonsense statement, and now your changing your claims. Your statement was: "anyone that tells you they are able to outperform the market at scale as it relates to R&D outcomes is lying." This is a false statement. Your question was never about doubling global output of R&D. That's not a point one can even argue meaningfully; there's no way to offer more than an opinion there. Your question was about being "able to outperform the market at scale." It was nonsense. Plenty of people and organizations can and do outperform the market, consistently, over many decades. That's not a survivorship bias, any more than weightlifters beating the general population at lifting weights is survivorship bias, or that Stanford CS majors have stronger technical skills than the general market is survivorship bias. It's a counterexample. Survivorship bias would be there if these were one-offs (company or individual makes ONE breakthrough, at random). I'm signing off this thread. This is dumb.