3 ms·

> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors. This is definitely selection

> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors. This is definitely selection biased, but I have not seen VC's offer advice that is categorically more amazing than the advice you can crowd source elsewhere. > But I'm not aware of any independent evidence that highly paid "masterminds" are actually worth the money that people pay for them. I agree, but my definition of highly paid, and yours may different. At $5k-$10k to attend I would not consider that to be highly paid, and have seen (as noted below) what appears to be satisfaction with the results. > And, given the burden of proof, it really should be on them to provide that evidence. They don't. Anecdotally, that is not accurate. The limited experience I have with masterminds (I've never paid for their services, but have worked with a few directly, and many many of their clients) is that they do encourage their paying members to actively post about their individual success via social messaging. And as part of an on-going content marketing strategy, will often have successful members take part in a "hot seat." Edit to add: at $100k for attendance, that already selects a certain individual with a certain level of success. While you may not see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "more success" after attending than they would have had they not, you also don't see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "less success" after attending. It appears that masterminds are filling some unmet need, and their clients are willing to pay.

btilly 4y ago
> This is definitely selection biased, but I have not seen VC's offer advice that is categorically more amazing than the advice you can crowd source elsewhere. A lot of the "crowd sourced" advice is essentially digested and regurgitated advice that ultimately comes from high quality sources like Y Combinator and Steve Blank. Therefore it would be hard for venture capitalists to have better generic advice than that. But the fact that they are willing to pay large amounts to be in a position to offer specific actionable advice to those that they invested in (eg by being on the board of directors), can be taken as a good sign that the VC believes that they are likely to wind up being able to give valuable advice that is specific to a given company's situation. And THAT you really can't crowd source from elsewhere. > Anecdotally, that is not accurate. The limited experience I have with masterminds (I've never paid for their services, but have worked with a few directly, and many many of their clients) is that they do encourage their paying members to actively post about their individual success via social messaging. And as part of an on-going content marketing strategy, will often have successful members take part in a "hot seat." That's not necessarily evidence of anything. First, as you note, any such report is an anecdote. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Doubly not with such an active selection bias. But, more importantly, anyone who is familiar with cognitive dissonance will be aware that the act of publicly saying how great X is will find it hard to later question whether X was actually beneficial. Therefore paying members who have posted about their success are likely to convince themselves that the program was more beneficial than it truly was. As well, the program clearly benefits from the advertising. Therefore such anecdotes do more to remind me that some of these programs have cultlike elements, than it does to convince me that they work particularly well. > Edit to add: at $100k for attendance, that already selects a certain individual with a certain level of success. While you may not see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "more success" after attending than they would have had they not, you also don't see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "less success" after attending. It appears that masterminds are filling some unmet need, and their clients are willing to pay. If I accepted evidence of this type, then I'd have joined Scientology many years ago.
- balls187 4y ago
  > If I accepted evidence of this type, then I'd have joined Scientology many years ago. Or parrot the virtues of Venture Capitalists.
  - btilly 4y ago
    > Or parrot the virtues of Venture Capitalists. Touché. That said, I think I'm on more solid ground to judge VCs. First, I personally know a number of people who they helped make rich. Second, I've seen enough cases where they had useful advice, connections, and so on to have personal respect. Not because of their advertising, but because of their results. That said, there are problems. First, VCs are not all created equal. And the bad ones do their best to sound the same as the good ones. Plenty of VCs just "follow the herd". And, of course, VC returns are dominated by a few hits. So they will push founders to "swing for the fences" - a gamble which is in the VC's interest far more than the founder's.

btilly 4y ago

> This is definitely selection biased, but I have not seen VC's offer advice that is categorically more amazing than the advice you can crowd source elsewhere. A lot of the "crowd sourced" advice is essentially digested and regurgitated advice that ultimately comes from high quality sources like Y Combinator and Steve Blank. Therefore it would be hard for venture capitalists to have better generic advice than that. But the fact that they are willing to pay large amounts to be in a position to offer specific actionable advice to those that they invested in (eg by being on the board of directors), can be taken as a good sign that the VC believes that they are likely to wind up being able to give valuable advice that is specific to a given company's situation. And THAT you really can't crowd source from elsewhere. > Anecdotally, that is not accurate. The limited experience I have with masterminds (I've never paid for their services, but have worked with a few directly, and many many of their clients) is that they do encourage their paying members to actively post about their individual success via social messaging. And as part of an on-going content marketing strategy, will often have successful members take part in a "hot seat." That's not necessarily evidence of anything. First, as you note, any such report is an anecdote. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Doubly not with such an active selection bias. But, more importantly, anyone who is familiar with cognitive dissonance will be aware that the act of publicly saying how great X is will find it hard to later question whether X was actually beneficial. Therefore paying members who have posted about their success are likely to convince themselves that the program was more beneficial than it truly was. As well, the program clearly benefits from the advertising. Therefore such anecdotes do more to remind me that some of these programs have cultlike elements, than it does to convince me that they work particularly well. > Edit to add: at $100k for attendance, that already selects a certain individual with a certain level of success. While you may not see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "more success" after attending than they would have had they not, you also don't see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "less success" after attending. It appears that masterminds are filling some unmet need, and their clients are willing to pay. If I accepted evidence of this type, then I'd have joined Scientology many years ago.

balls187 4y ago
> If I accepted evidence of this type, then I'd have joined Scientology many years ago. Or parrot the virtues of Venture Capitalists.
- btilly 4y ago
  > Or parrot the virtues of Venture Capitalists. Touché. That said, I think I'm on more solid ground to judge VCs. First, I personally know a number of people who they helped make rich. Second, I've seen enough cases where they had useful advice, connections, and so on to have personal respect. Not because of their advertising, but because of their results. That said, there are problems. First, VCs are not all created equal. And the bad ones do their best to sound the same as the good ones. Plenty of VCs just "follow the herd". And, of course, VC returns are dominated by a few hits. So they will push founders to "swing for the fences" - a gamble which is in the VC's interest far more than the founder's.