3 ms·

What's the difference between post-hoc rationalization and learning from experience though? I don't see him making any claims of pre-ordained success or that l

What's the difference between post-hoc rationalization and learning from experience though? I don't see him making any claims of pre-ordained success or that luck isn't a factor, he's just pointing out a quality he's seen to be valuable in the context of startups and how it can be a contra-indicator to the type of BS artist that proliferate around any kind of profitable industry. Sure we can always question motivations (eg. yours could be envy or sour grapes), but that is unproductive.

bernulli 6y ago
It is to realize whether learning is possible at all. What can you learn from a successful game of rolling dice, from a successful game of flipping a coin? Was it the way you moved your wrist or did you you just luck out?
johnnujler 6y ago
I think the original comment was directed at the seemingly pretentious nature of the essay. How do you quantify earnestness? Being sincere? I get the “we like demo over slides”, “2 founder over 1 founder” kinda thing, but talking about virtue and moral character seems like PG is struggling to find things to do after retirement. Philosophical musings are almost always due to too much time on hand and assumed profundity of one’s own thought process. Hence the post hoc rationalisation? Maybe? Plus as it is said by someone in the other comment, success(especially in entrepreneurial ventures) is so much more like playing a game of roulette than it is like running a race. Luck! Lots of Luck! And chance does not fit well with assumed observations. It is a measurement bias that is being masked as concrete conclusions.
- dasil003 6y ago
  I think he lays it out pretty well: earnestness is more than sincerity, it's dedication to solving a problem for its own sake rather than as a means to an end. I'm not sure why you want that to be quantifiable, but I don't see that as being useful since Goodhart's law then kicks in. I do agree that on a single continuum from roulette to race, entrepreneurship is closer to roulette, but it's a limited framing because entrepreneurship is neither a well-defined rote exercise like a marathon nor a discrete probabilistic event like flipping a coin. To the contrary, building a company is a continuous feedback loop involving thousands of decisions over which an entrepreneur has complete agency. The uncomfortable truth is twofold: founders' choices do affect outcomes, but those outcomes are not predictable and have no direct relationship to ones own perception of merit, hard work, fairness, or morals. Getting hung up on the luck aspect and whether or not some successful person is humble enough is a defense mechanism that ultimately gets in the way of maximizing your own success.

bernulli 6y ago

It is to realize whether learning is possible at all. What can you learn from a successful game of rolling dice, from a successful game of flipping a coin? Was it the way you moved your wrist or did you you just luck out?

johnnujler 6y ago

I think the original comment was directed at the seemingly pretentious nature of the essay. How do you quantify earnestness? Being sincere? I get the “we like demo over slides”, “2 founder over 1 founder” kinda thing, but talking about virtue and moral character seems like PG is struggling to find things to do after retirement. Philosophical musings are almost always due to too much time on hand and assumed profundity of one’s own thought process. Hence the post hoc rationalisation? Maybe? Plus as it is said by someone in the other comment, success(especially in entrepreneurial ventures) is so much more like playing a game of roulette than it is like running a race. Luck! Lots of Luck! And chance does not fit well with assumed observations. It is a measurement bias that is being masked as concrete conclusions.

dasil003 6y ago
I think he lays it out pretty well: earnestness is more than sincerity, it's dedication to solving a problem for its own sake rather than as a means to an end. I'm not sure why you want that to be quantifiable, but I don't see that as being useful since Goodhart's law then kicks in. I do agree that on a single continuum from roulette to race, entrepreneurship is closer to roulette, but it's a limited framing because entrepreneurship is neither a well-defined rote exercise like a marathon nor a discrete probabilistic event like flipping a coin. To the contrary, building a company is a continuous feedback loop involving thousands of decisions over which an entrepreneur has complete agency. The uncomfortable truth is twofold: founders' choices do affect outcomes, but those outcomes are not predictable and have no direct relationship to ones own perception of merit, hard work, fairness, or morals. Getting hung up on the luck aspect and whether or not some successful person is humble enough is a defense mechanism that ultimately gets in the way of maximizing your own success.