5 ms·

The main idea of the article is that when someone who is a domain expert proposes an idea that seems wrong, there is a chance that this idea is a great idea bec

The main idea of the article is that when someone who is a domain expert proposes an idea that seems wrong, there is a chance that this idea is a great idea because why would a smart person proposes a stupid idea? They must've known something. He says that in history, great ideas started like that. But he didn't provide examples. I didn't find the article practical because of that. It would have been a lot more useful if it provided contemporary examples that support the claims made.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pedalpete 5y ago
I think there are enough examples for and against. He does give the example of Copernicus, I believe Louis Pasteur would be another good example. PG does say he is speaking mostly of maths, sciences, etc. But there are also many examples where the domain experts missed the opportunities, and somebody else stepped in. The AirBnB gang weren't domain experts in hospitality. Coinbase founder wasn't an expert in finance (though he was an expert in security I believe), Collison brothers weren't experts in credit cards, doesn't look like the founders of DoorDash were experts in hospitality or delivery. Not to say PG is wrong, there is good logic to not dismissing ideas, and finding nuggets, but I think the model is being overfit. Or perhaps one wild ideas by domain experts doesn't negate the potential for wild ideas from non-domain experts.
- samatman 5y ago
  It turns out that security was the domain where Coinbase needed expertise. Selling something and taking a commission is not exactly the nosebleed seats of high finance. Lots of people with expertise in setting up a web site, and enough finance to run a business, could have become Bitcoin markets. Indeed, a lot of them did. Most of them got hacked, sooner or later, because protecting billions of dollars of value from adversarial forces is very, very difficult. Coinbase didn't. Security is the hard part.
  - pedalpete 5y ago
    Very good point, and thanks for clarifying. However, it still speaks to the initial point. Coinbase didn't have an insight as a domain expert which lead to their huge success.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pedalpete 5y ago

I think there are enough examples for and against. He does give the example of Copernicus, I believe Louis Pasteur would be another good example. PG does say he is speaking mostly of maths, sciences, etc. But there are also many examples where the domain experts missed the opportunities, and somebody else stepped in. The AirBnB gang weren't domain experts in hospitality. Coinbase founder wasn't an expert in finance (though he was an expert in security I believe), Collison brothers weren't experts in credit cards, doesn't look like the founders of DoorDash were experts in hospitality or delivery. Not to say PG is wrong, there is good logic to not dismissing ideas, and finding nuggets, but I think the model is being overfit. Or perhaps one wild ideas by domain experts doesn't negate the potential for wild ideas from non-domain experts.

samatman 5y ago
It turns out that security was the domain where Coinbase needed expertise. Selling something and taking a commission is not exactly the nosebleed seats of high finance. Lots of people with expertise in setting up a web site, and enough finance to run a business, could have become Bitcoin markets. Indeed, a lot of them did. Most of them got hacked, sooner or later, because protecting billions of dollars of value from adversarial forces is very, very difficult. Coinbase didn't. Security is the hard part.
- pedalpete 5y ago
  Very good point, and thanks for clarifying. However, it still speaks to the initial point. Coinbase didn't have an insight as a domain expert which lead to their huge success.