6 ms·

> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard p

> A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Just because the author can't think of an example doesn't make it true. In fact groups of people, typically businesses, admit failure all the time. And it doesn't follow that this causes a "schism" Isn't Y-Combinator all about failing fast and pivots? Funny to see such a silly notion here of all places.

notJim 5y ago
I think there's also the difference between admitting failure and admitting failure publicly. Lots of groups will admit failure internally, but there's often not a good reason to admit failure publicly, because your adversaries will use it against you.
- pphysch 5y ago
  The article isn't about PR though. It's more about internal admissions of failure.
renewiltord 5y ago
If you want to challenge the YC orthodoxy ask if it's worth giving up 7%. I know people who chose to do YC and didn't. And honestly, the YC-attending guys were steered away from the idea that would make them a billion-dollar company. Only when they disregarded the YC advice and moved on could they prosper. EDIT: Sorry, I'm rate-limited here. Yes, I meant that their current valuation is $1+ billion. They abandoned the path that YC suggested - no success down that road - to get here.
- azinman2 5y ago
  And did they prosper? There's a cosmic sized gap from a billion dollar idea and actually obtaining a billion dollars.
azinman2 5y ago
Without it the blog post is less interesting. Having listened to Naval on Clubhouse he's extremely confident in everything he says (/said on Clubhouse, which was largely political/covid/government/society/extremely broad categories). For people to find you interesting, unfortunately you usually need to project such confidence even if it's not technically true.
- xpe 5y ago
  > Without it the blog post is less interesting. I disagree. When I see the author's exaggeration and overconfidence, coupled with a lack of examples, I stop reading. It reminds me of driving by a paper mill. Memorable, yes, in the wrong sort of way. I'll remember to avoid it in the future. I don't dig the writing. I find it uninteresting and unpersuasive. An author does not have to exaggerate to be interesting. Even a dry scientific article can punch you in the face. Isn't that interesting? Perhaps impact and exaggeration are inversely related. Perhaps become exaggeration is easy and overused. There is a time and place for exaggeration, sure. However, a skilled writer has many varied tools: metaphor, details, humor, and much more. There isn't one formula to good writing, certainly, but what I'm seeing here misses the mark.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - xpe 5y ago
    typo fix above: become -> because
pphysch 5y ago
One of the best contemporary counterexamples, and incidentally one of the largest organizations in the world by official membership, is the Communist Party of China. A lot of Mao Zedong's policies are viewed as mistakes by the Party, including the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Heck, Mao himself publicly admitted that the GLF was a mistake for which he takes responsibility. Yet the CPC, as an organization of millions of individuals, didn't implode and remains as formidable as ever. There are a lot of reasons for this, not least China having 5000 years experience with running civilization-scale groups.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > A lot of Mao Zedong's policies are viewed as mistakes by the Party, including the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Heck, Mao himself publicly admitted that the GLF was a mistake for which he takes responsibility. My impression, from talking to modern Chinese people, is that the Cultural Revolution is viewed as a mistake, and the Great Leap Forward is not. The Great Leap Forward is viewed as having suffered from inclement weather. I tend to suspect that this reflects current party orthodoxy. > There are a lot of reasons for this, not least China having 5000 years experience with running civilization-scale groups. That would make the comparison groups Egypt, Iraq, and Iran. Plus a much weaker argument for Pakistan. How formidable are those governments, compared to the government of China?
- pototo666 5y ago
  The CCP under XiaoPing Deng creates indeed a schism. It no longer takes communism seriously. Its legitmacy comes from economic growth, rather than from whatever Mao cared.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    It creates a schism among Western "leftists" -- which, surprise, are completely irrelevant to internal affairs of The People's Republic of China.
- rasz 5y ago
  Just yesterday I stumbled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace Doesnt sound like Mao was that hot on admitting failure.
nathanyz 5y ago
Probably more correct to say that: "A group never admits they are wrong about the core identifying belief that defines the group" Groups admit being wrong about non-core beliefs all of the time. But of course if you look at the core belief that actually categorizes whether you are in the group or not, then it cannot admit being wrong or else it ceases to exist. Having said that, I think the author is really making a silly point to say that a group defined by a core belief CANNOT admit that its core belief is wrong. Kind of obvious when expanded to its more verbose form.
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  I'm thinking about how Germans post-WW2 generally were greatly embarrassed for their mistakes during the war. Of course, it probably helps that the former government was removed and many of the officials put on trial.
- enkid 5y ago
  Now that is something that is true for people as well as groups. That's why it's so important to be careful how you assign your identity.
noobermin 5y ago
This is such an ignorant perspective, it really makes me mad. Literally a google search will provide hosts of examples of groups admitting they were wrong and ironically many for-profit companies not admitting they were wrong. It's amazing how someone can be ignorant of history, make a pronouncement that justifies their priors and think they have reached some sort of enlightenment. There is this whole constellation of hustler mindset puff pieces like this that often spout "insight" without really having an actual critical perspective, but don the air of "criticizing most people think" as if that makes them critical. Ironically it's often due to a lack of seeing feedback, a mechanism of the same kind the author criticizes groups of! Or perhaps cognitive biases.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  The Rationalist community in particular is very good at rationalizing.
- abdullahkhalids 5y ago
  You are welcome to share a couple of prominent examples.
- aaron695 5y ago
  People say it's on Google when they are ignorant on a topic. If you want to be believable you should give examples. That would open you up to being incorrect though. And you might have to admit you are wrong.
Mulpze15 5y ago
Sports teams. Many admit failures collectively. Not always for sure, depending on the circumstances, but it happens very frequently. Small group though.

notJim 5y ago

I think there's also the difference between admitting failure and admitting failure publicly. Lots of groups will admit failure internally, but there's often not a good reason to admit failure publicly, because your adversaries will use it against you.

pphysch 5y ago
The article isn't about PR though. It's more about internal admissions of failure.

renewiltord 5y ago

If you want to challenge the YC orthodoxy ask if it's worth giving up 7%. I know people who chose to do YC and didn't. And honestly, the YC-attending guys were steered away from the idea that would make them a billion-dollar company. Only when they disregarded the YC advice and moved on could they prosper. EDIT: Sorry, I'm rate-limited here. Yes, I meant that their current valuation is $1+ billion. They abandoned the path that YC suggested - no success down that road - to get here.

azinman2 5y ago
And did they prosper? There's a cosmic sized gap from a billion dollar idea and actually obtaining a billion dollars.

azinman2 5y ago

Without it the blog post is less interesting. Having listened to Naval on Clubhouse he's extremely confident in everything he says (/said on Clubhouse, which was largely political/covid/government/society/extremely broad categories). For people to find you interesting, unfortunately you usually need to project such confidence even if it's not technically true.

xpe 5y ago
> Without it the blog post is less interesting. I disagree. When I see the author's exaggeration and overconfidence, coupled with a lack of examples, I stop reading. It reminds me of driving by a paper mill. Memorable, yes, in the wrong sort of way. I'll remember to avoid it in the future. I don't dig the writing. I find it uninteresting and unpersuasive. An author does not have to exaggerate to be interesting. Even a dry scientific article can punch you in the face. Isn't that interesting? Perhaps impact and exaggeration are inversely related. Perhaps become exaggeration is easy and overused. There is a time and place for exaggeration, sure. However, a skilled writer has many varied tools: metaphor, details, humor, and much more. There isn't one formula to good writing, certainly, but what I'm seeing here misses the mark.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xpe 5y ago
  typo fix above: become -> because

pphysch 5y ago

One of the best contemporary counterexamples, and incidentally one of the largest organizations in the world by official membership, is the Communist Party of China. A lot of Mao Zedong's policies are viewed as mistakes by the Party, including the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Heck, Mao himself publicly admitted that the GLF was a mistake for which he takes responsibility. Yet the CPC, as an organization of millions of individuals, didn't implode and remains as formidable as ever. There are a lot of reasons for this, not least China having 5000 years experience with running civilization-scale groups.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> A lot of Mao Zedong's policies are viewed as mistakes by the Party, including the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Heck, Mao himself publicly admitted that the GLF was a mistake for which he takes responsibility. My impression, from talking to modern Chinese people, is that the Cultural Revolution is viewed as a mistake, and the Great Leap Forward is not. The Great Leap Forward is viewed as having suffered from inclement weather. I tend to suspect that this reflects current party orthodoxy. > There are a lot of reasons for this, not least China having 5000 years experience with running civilization-scale groups. That would make the comparison groups Egypt, Iraq, and Iran. Plus a much weaker argument for Pakistan. How formidable are those governments, compared to the government of China?
pototo666 5y ago
The CCP under XiaoPing Deng creates indeed a schism. It no longer takes communism seriously. Its legitmacy comes from economic growth, rather than from whatever Mao cared.
- pphysch 5y ago
  It creates a schism among Western "leftists" -- which, surprise, are completely irrelevant to internal affairs of The People's Republic of China.
rasz 5y ago
Just yesterday I stumbled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace Doesnt sound like Mao was that hot on admitting failure.

nathanyz 5y ago

Probably more correct to say that: "A group never admits they are wrong about the core identifying belief that defines the group" Groups admit being wrong about non-core beliefs all of the time. But of course if you look at the core belief that actually categorizes whether you are in the group or not, then it cannot admit being wrong or else it ceases to exist. Having said that, I think the author is really making a silly point to say that a group defined by a core belief CANNOT admit that its core belief is wrong. Kind of obvious when expanded to its more verbose form.

pcthrowaway 5y ago
I'm thinking about how Germans post-WW2 generally were greatly embarrassed for their mistakes during the war. Of course, it probably helps that the former government was removed and many of the officials put on trial.
enkid 5y ago
Now that is something that is true for people as well as groups. That's why it's so important to be careful how you assign your identity.

noobermin 5y ago

This is such an ignorant perspective, it really makes me mad. Literally a google search will provide hosts of examples of groups admitting they were wrong and ironically many for-profit companies not admitting they were wrong. It's amazing how someone can be ignorant of history, make a pronouncement that justifies their priors and think they have reached some sort of enlightenment. There is this whole constellation of hustler mindset puff pieces like this that often spout "insight" without really having an actual critical perspective, but don the air of "criticizing most people think" as if that makes them critical. Ironically it's often due to a lack of seeing feedback, a mechanism of the same kind the author criticizes groups of! Or perhaps cognitive biases.

GauntletWizard 5y ago
The Rationalist community in particular is very good at rationalizing.
abdullahkhalids 5y ago
You are welcome to share a couple of prominent examples.
aaron695 5y ago
People say it's on Google when they are ignorant on a topic. If you want to be believable you should give examples. That would open you up to being incorrect though. And you might have to admit you are wrong.

Mulpze15 5y ago

Sports teams. Many admit failures collectively. Not always for sure, depending on the circumstances, but it happens very frequently. Small group though.