3 ms·

“Practical and repeatable” seems to omit the overwhelmingly high failure rate, no?

by md_ 5y ago

muzani 5y ago
It's dependent on the individual. I have no patience for medium level leetcode and no US working permit, therefore my odds of getting into FAANG is significantly lower than building a billion dollar startup. But the path for both is well documented. Some people decide to hit the books long enough. Some people decide to do lots of user interviews and build 1000 prototypes. The documented paths will land you in an entry level position, which is what shocks a lot of people. You still have to put in the work over a few years. It's a matter of picking which kind of work you prefer to do over the next 10 years, after you get your foot in the door. I think there's a selection bias towards tech jobs here, but if you hang around people who have successfully built businesses, there's a lot of common patterns there as well.
- md_ 5y ago
  I think that substantially underweights the role of luck. But, I will admit, these conversations often strike me with what I see as two clearly different mental models. The first is what I might call the Bayesian (or perhaps "Rawlsian", or "anthropic") model, where the thinker assumes, "I am unlikely to be much different from anyone else", and thus takes overall success rates to be a sort of guidance: "Most startups fail; the expected value of a startup is negative; therefore I won't start a startup." The alternative mentality I see here seems to be more of an egocentric one: "I'm special, I believe in my ideas, and I can make it." It seems to me the egocentric view is certainly a necessary condition for wild success, but obviously an insufficient one: people who are special need to identify their specialness to avoid a fate of what might be called "elite mediocrity". But plenty of people who aren't special think they are, and achieve worse outcomes as a result of their unrealistic goals. Unfortunately, the prescription here seems to be to simply "be clear-eyed", which is easier said than done.

“Practical and repeatable” seems to omit the overwhelmingly high failure rate, no?

by md_ 5y ago

“Practical and repeatable” seems to omit the overwhelmingly high failure rate, no?

It's dependent on the individual. I have no patience for medium level leetcode and no US working permit, therefore my odds of getting into FAANG is significantly lower than building a billion dollar startup. But the path for both is well documented. Some people decide to hit the books long enough. Some people decide to do lots of user interviews and build 1000 prototypes. The documented paths will land you in an entry level position, which is what shocks a lot of people. You still have to put in the work over a few years. It's a matter of picking which kind of work you prefer to do over the next 10 years, after you get your foot in the door. I think there's a selection bias towards tech jobs here, but if you hang around people who have successfully built businesses, there's a lot of common patterns there as well.

md_ 5y ago
I think that substantially underweights the role of luck. But, I will admit, these conversations often strike me with what I see as two clearly different mental models. The first is what I might call the Bayesian (or perhaps "Rawlsian", or "anthropic") model, where the thinker assumes, "I am unlikely to be much different from anyone else", and thus takes overall success rates to be a sort of guidance: "Most startups fail; the expected value of a startup is negative; therefore I won't start a startup." The alternative mentality I see here seems to be more of an egocentric one: "I'm special, I believe in my ideas, and I can make it." It seems to me the egocentric view is certainly a necessary condition for wild success, but obviously an insufficient one: people who are special need to identify their specialness to avoid a fate of what might be called "elite mediocrity". But plenty of people who aren't special think they are, and achieve worse outcomes as a result of their unrealistic goals. Unfortunately, the prescription here seems to be to simply "be clear-eyed", which is easier said than done.