9 ms·

Some advice from Jeff Bezos

449 points by timf 14y ago

calinet6 14y ago
In other words, be a scientist. Consider the truth as a distant target, and our understanding only as an approximation based on the evidence we have right now. Scientists have known this for years. They have made it their whole way of life—because it works, and it's true. Smart people in all walks of life most certainly follow those same kinds of scientific principles. Bezos is spot on, there's just an entire branch of knowledge that's been spot on way before he was.
lucianop 14y ago
"Strong opinions, weakly held"
gadders 14y ago
Their angel investor.
badhairday 14y ago
Being right a lot is a core value of that Amazon requires in it's leaders. The rest of the list is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&node=239365011 http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&...
- jasonfried 14y ago
  I hadn't seen this. Great list. I especially like "As we do new things, we accept that we may be misunderstood for long periods of time."
- msg 14y ago
  Whether you are an individual contributor or a manager of a large team, you are an Amazon leader. They are also meant for ICs, not just people-manager leaders. They are used as touchstones for interviews and performance evaluations.
chrissr 14y ago
Sure, that's his advice today, but what will it be tomorrow?
- bilashbd 14y ago
  Even if the advice changes tomorrow, the current one hold true nevertheless!
ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
"A professor's job is to profess - often wrong, but never in doubt."
edw519 14y ago
If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angles, they’re often wrong most of the time. This works both ways. If someone can't get more than one level below the surface and understand the details that form the whole, they’re also often wrong much of the time. Just ask any boss I've ever had.
- Sumaso 14y ago
  Sounds like you need to look at that quote a little bit more... I think your missing the point.
  - npsimons 14y ago
    I think your[sic] missing the point. Speaking of missing details and being wrong . . .
    - 001sky 14y ago
      > Your point has gone missing.
- Cherian 14y ago
  Couldn’t agree more. This is one of those reasons why I desist have lawyers, media gurus, MBA (just business) as bosses of “Tech” companies. They just don’t have it in them to jump in and out of situations to think through the most trivial of problems from multiple angles. They don’t know in “5 seconds” if something can be done or if it’s complicated. It’s often a rush to tackle competition or cutting out the oxygen and “do whatever it takes”. Ordering subordinates to “deliver” in 3 weeks. This is precisely the reason why I love someone like Larry Page or Sergey running Google. They just knew that recruiting Urs Holzle to build world class infrastructure early on was worth it. A lifetime of learning to take noise in & conclude on the one signal that’s worth it.
  - a5seo 14y ago
    I started as a programmer and got an MBA from an ok school (top 20). The combination is very valuable (at least to me) for exactly the reason you cite: the best decisions require wading around in the mucky details. The MBA gives you a few tools that are helpful, but mainly it's a way to brand yourself and have people give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do things other than strictly build stuff. I personally think the anti-patterns you describe-- the "do whatever it takes" without having the first idea what that is-- are intellectually dishonest and a sort of management-by-roulette. Sometimes you get lucky and it works out, but I don't know how you'd sleep running things that way.
callmeed 14y ago
Good advice but I'm curious about: "Jason Fried is the fastest white man you'll ever meet." Is Jason actually really fast and/or was he an athlete at a prior time?
- Johngibb 14y ago
  That stood out to me too... is there an inside joke? What's the white have to do with it?
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Seems like a throwaway joke to me; nothing to over-analyze.
    - easy_rider 14y ago
      Well, Most Asians have awesome APM or are great at table tennis. Black people tend to be great at running really fast. It makes sense doesn't it?:)
- dlss 14y ago
  Yeah, it was really weird hitting the bottom of the article only to find a vaguely racist nonsensical byline.
  - igorgue 14y ago
    I don't think is racist. I'm hispanic and I don't feel offended of white people calling themselves white :-) because they're white.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      I suspect the racist tag was applied because stereotypically white men are slower runners than black men. But as far as racism goes that's... not to mention that it's a white guy talking about himself.
arvinjoar 14y ago
Makes a lot of sense to be honest. If ideas aren't held too dearly you'll be able to weed out the bad ones. A lot of people (myself included) have a certain irrational loss aversion when it comes to ideas. I'm sure one could find plenty of articles on this on LessWrong.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jonny_eh 14y ago
And the sad thing is that society often punishes people who change their minds or "flip-flop". See politics.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Flip-flopping in politics is often an insincere change of position for the purpose of chasing votes.
  - silverbax88 14y ago
    That's true, except the definition is elastic in politics. A candidate who thought a certain way at 18 years old is expected to still think the same way - on all opinions - at 45, which is absolutely ludicrous.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      That's a strawman though, nobody actually says that. People complain about "flip flopping" when they see a politician campaigning and he or she says one thing on tuesday, something contradictory on wednesday, and then is back to the previous position again on thursday.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Usually when I see it, it is people complaining that a candidate endorsed different viewpoints than they did during past elections (in other words, they think something different than they did years ago). Kerry and Romney both come to mind (though to be clear, both (or at least Romney) have been accused of the type you are talking about as well). Specifically I have heard some people claim that Romney has flip-flopped because they perceive a difference between his positions as a presidential candidate and as a governor.
        papsosouid 14y ago
        I think a lot of that is just that if the person in question clearly does just say whatever they think people want to hear, then a dramatic change in position appears more likely to just be more of the same. Romney suddenly being against "obamacare" is a good example. It doesn't appear that he changed his mind because of new information, since he still claims his version of the same thing is great, but Obama's is terrible.
duxup 14y ago
I too am frequently right, after being wrong a bunch of times.
- wtetzner 14y ago
  Right, the point is to not stay wrong.
airnomad 14y ago
Can't believe it. You had Bezos for 2 hours and this is all you bother to share with us?
- RyJones 14y ago
  The rest of his insights might give them some competitive advantage; perhaps, however, he spent two hours extolling the virtues of assembling your own desks and this bit was the only thing worthwhile to happen. I'll trust that they curated the talk in the way most likely to drive page views, not in the way most likely to enlighten the reader.
RivieraKid 14y ago
I never understood why consistent opinions are considered a good thing, it doesn't make any sense. If I realize I'm wrong, why should I stick to the wrong opinion?
- weaksauce 14y ago
  I think it goes back to politics. It's considered a bad thing in that arena because people can't trust that you will keep your word on the platform that you hired them on. This is especially true for the divisive issues like abortion, healthcare, etc.... I think it's a stupid policy in general though.
  - RivieraKid 14y ago
    I understand it in a similar way... People like security and therefore stability, it's one of our basic needs. We like stable environment, including people's opinions. Imagine everyone changes their opinion all the time, it could be fun but not everyone would like that :) Also, people who often change opinions may look dishonest, opportunistic and unpredictable.
- corin_ 14y ago
  The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person possible would be right 100% of the time and therefore would never change their opinion because changing it would go from right to wrong. Therefore a simplistic view is that the closer to that person you are, the better. Some people may even think they are that person. Realising that you are not going to be correct 100% of the time is the first step. The second step is working out when you are wrong, so you know when to change your opinion. Nobody manages both these steps all the time, some people rarely manage either.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person possible would be right 100% of the time and therefore would never change their opinion because changing it would go from right to wrong. The problem with this, is that most opinions are applied to most circumstances in highly contextual ways. What's the best database? It's one thing to talk about it in abstract and another entirely to talk about it for a specific project. > Therefore a simplistic view is that the closer to that person you are, the better. Some people may even think they are that person. When human knowledge, technology, and political circumstances mostly changed slowly, this was a good heuristic. Now, it's pretty rotten. It's better to take things up one level of indirection and instead of observing their opinions, note how they absorb new knowledge and circumstances instead. Observe if they are a good listener. Observe if they can alter their mental model in the light of new facts. > Some people may even think they are that person. Stay away from that person! Things change too fast nowadays. Look for the "beginner's mind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin
dschiptsov 14y ago
Nothing to see here, but, of course, straight from the horse's mouth..) This particular trait is of a much bigger idea - an active, aware, never satisfied beginners's mind, popularized in US by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki A settled, stale, stagnant mind is a worst possible mental decease from a Buddhist perspective, and, ironically, the most desired state of the mind for a member of a totalitarian country or organization.)
Xcelerate 14y ago
I would argue that this is the defining factor in what makes someone intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN homepage (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/10/18/how-do-you-spot-a-genius/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness...) elaborates on this point of trying multiple "solution paths" to arrive at an answer to a problem. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people get it in their head that they've discovered the "right way" and dismiss every other idea. This problem is particularly notorious in subjects like quantum mechanics. The field is so confusing that people find some kind of local comprehension maximum that they get stuck in and refuse to budge from that sort of ideology (which is often the wrong ideology by the way since QM is such a deep subject. Throw some quantum field theory or standard model physics at a quantum chemistry professor or TA and they won't know what to make of it). To give a more concrete example: did you know that a spinning ball weighs more than the same ball when it is stationary? Tell this to someone decently knowledgable in physics and there's a good chance they'll argue vehemently against you based on their misunderstanding (or misinformation) of what they've learned in the past. Sometimes the effort to convince someone of an idea like this isn't worth the time; these people are locked into one way of thinking and take it as an affront to their ego. There's limited intelligence here. Don't want to be like this? Don't get angry when someone challenges you. That's the best way to start. I've never understood why so many people get upset if you try to point out a flaw in their reasoning. I've noticed this sort of anger much less frequently on HN (on the other hand, there's significantly more "you're wrong" posts than a normal discussion board). In fact, do a little experiment if you wish. Look through HN stories and find places where people challenge each other in the comments. If you notice someone who says "you know what -- you're correct" or "yeah, that makes more sense", there's a good chance they make a lot of intelligent posts on here. If you find someone that never concedes to anyone else, it's likely they are locked into one and only one way of thinking and are unlikely to ever do anything considered "genius".
- davesims 14y ago
  Great comment. I appreciate the principle you're working towards, and largely agree with it. But I wonder if the analogy with Physics works well as a broad metaphor for "intelligence." The gaps between Newtonian, Quantum and Relativity model physics are singular instances of a peculiar, nearly paradoxical set of apparent contradictions that of course have yet to be fully resolved. Each is correct within its own domain, and the full realization of the implications of each requires complete commitment to the rules within the domain to the exclusion of the other models. So the analogy can also turn around and bite you here. If a researcher in Quantum theory were to get hung up on the apparent contradictions between her own research and the implications within one of the other models, she'd risk being distracted and lose the fruitful path of research within her given domain. In this case, a certain level of myopia is helpful. Did Einstein's tremendous resistance to Heisenberg and Bohr impugn his accomplishments in any way? Of course not. I don't think anyone would use that as an example of diminished intelligence on Einstein's part. Your broader point is valid: be open to other viewpoints. But at another level, taking up a position and defending it has its practical advantages, when the position/opinion shows fruitful results. In software, I think of DHH's 'opinionated' approach to Rails and how that has informed and guided the whole Ruby community. For many programmers Rails' implicit, "magical" approach to coding is not as good as, for instance Django/Python's more explicit philosophy. Both points of view are valid, but the strengths of each would be diluted if they tried to do both. I also think of the Torvalds/Tanenbaum debate over Kernel architectures. Deciding which is correct is way above my pay grade, but it seems clear to me that Linus had to take up a position here and commit to it in order for Linux to thrive the way it has. I also think of the common criticism of JavaScript's OO structures, that it's a confusing hybrid of Prototypical and Classical OOP, leading to inconsistent or confusing structures. Perhaps a thorough commitment to one or the other would have been better? So, on the one hand a certain openness and teachability is necessary, but then at strategic points in the development of an idea, a certain stubbornness and myopia seems to be equally important to the ultimate execution of a vision.
ValG 14y ago
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson. When I first read that quote in early High School I didn't understand it. It was the kind of thing that ate at me, I could not get what he was trying to say. To me, consistency was an important part of life; the old adage that you stick to your word. However, that quote transcends the idea of being consistent, because when you often make decisions without all of the information (especially in startups). As new information becomes available, you have to incorporate it into your decision. Sometimes it makes you look like a dick, or someone that doesn't know what direction they want to go to, but that's where different skills (leadership and sales) come in to be able to hold people together.
- wissler 14y ago
  To be inconsistent is the easiest thing in the world: just refuse to think about the meaning of what you believe or do. I don't think the point of Bezos's remark was that we should aspire to be inconsistent, but rather, we should be open to considering that our ideas might be wrong. A better quote for this idea: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."--Ayn Rand
  - locopati 14y ago
    'Contradictions do not exist' is nonsense. Contradictions exist all over the place. Any time you get two people together you'll have contradictions due to viewpoint, experience, perspectives. Denying that contradictions exist is a child-like view of the world. Working with the contradictions of life, now that's the fun and the challenge, isn't it?
    - philwelch 14y ago
      Of course different people will have beliefs that contradict each other, but by the definition of a contradiction, they can't both be right. Likewise, if two of your own beliefs end up contradicting each other in the end, then one of those beliefs was wrong. That's the meaning of the quote. Just letting a contradiction sit there is the lazy thing to do--it's the resolving of contradictions that's the fun part!
mikek 14y ago
Steve Jobs was also well known for his strong, but changing, opinions.
mjt0229 14y ago
Bezos's observation reminds me of Philip Tetlock's conclusions in "Expert Political Judgement" (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html). Tetlock studied it pretty rigorously and came to a number of conclusions, but the central thesis was that people who got things right the most were people who thought by building up lots of competing models and evaluating all of them (ie, having lots of little ideas) rather than guiding all their decisions by a single ideology.
n72 14y ago
Hey, guess what, Jeff Bezos stopped by our office today. I just wanted everyone to know that, so I posted about something platitudinous he said.
espeed 14y ago
He's observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. I think he's spot on, and this has been the basis for my manifesto (http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto) -- I like to think of it as continually refining your perspective.
brdrak 14y ago
I work with someone who spends way too much time (IMO) making sure that he's not wrong. Typically this involves not taking a stand until the results are in and then claiming the position all along. Or simply lying about his position. After witnessing this repeatedly I basically lost all respect for this person and really dread any interaction. Personally I don't care if someone (including myself) is right or wrong. I often have to make technology recommendations that may turn out to be wrong years down the line and end up costing the organization time and money. So far I've been pretty lucky. I find it helpful to always include caveats in my proposals and explain reasoning behind my recommendations. Of course putting in the time to understand the issue, the market and the history is key. I don't have a problem taking a stand and be proven wrong or adjusting my position when new information becomes available. However, I wonder if this attitude is hurting my standing with the organization compared with this other guy who never seems to be wrong.
ahalan 14y ago
In other words: breadth-first search is better when dealing with hard problems
fakhrazeyev 14y ago
Thank you for a great quality post. And, folks, please do not fear being called a "flip-flopper"!
kevinalexbrown 14y ago
Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having a difficult time inferring the significance of this post. On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be "right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to converge. In any case, I'll be right a lot more than either a person whose mind does not tend to change toward the correct solution, or someone whose mind does not change. This seems true by definition. On the other hand, if the correct solution changes rapidly and dramatically, and my mind does not change as quickly, I will trivially be wrong a lot. Likewise, focusing too much on "details that only support one point of view" seems wrong by construction, unless you magically pick the right point of view to begin with. I'm not trying to be snarky here, seriously. I just feel like I must be missing the significance. I've reread the post several times, but I don't see it. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?
- ellyagg 14y ago
  As Keynes said, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" When I was younger, I didn't know what confirmation bias was. I had to be introduced to the concept. After being introduced, I was able to make better decisions. Although it may seem trivially true to you (now?), it's not to everyone. You may be reading more into "change their minds a lot" than is intended. A lot in this context means "more than most people". There's a reason phrases like "strong opinions, weakly held" become popular in rationalist circles. It's an emphasis on better decision making. I think the first time I heard about this idea was in Marilyn vos Savant's Brain Building. She argued that societal infatuation with "having the courage of your convictions" is not the redeeming quality it's made out to be. She mentioned that she could always give her opinion on an issue, but she was also always prepared to change her opinion upon new information. I'm pretty sure Bezos does not mean you should change your mind 180 degrees at each new contradictory piece of information. Like a Bayesian spam filter, if you've had lots of pieces of evidence for one position, it should take lots or very significant new evidence to change that position. Decision making biases of various sorts are my chief pet peeve in modern life. It's almost impossible to discuss public policy with people, even in the smartest online forums I know. I think it's banned at Less Wrong. When I listen to the media, I spend most of my time ticking of the biases I hear.
nicholas73 14y ago
Basically, people are stupid because they don't realize how stupid they are.
ezpassmac 14y ago
Curious as to what Bezos thinks of the current state of politics. "He said people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds." Maybe he's voting for Mitt Romney.
halayli 14y ago
Should we all vote for Mitt Romney then? jk :)
arbuge 14y ago
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes
MattGrommes 14y ago
Just the other day during a design discussion I was arguing for X instead of Y and was reminded that I was the one who introduced Y earlier in the discussion. I was finally able to bring out Walt Whitman during a technical discussion and responded "I contain multitudes". :)
swah 14y ago
Off-topic: how do they get typography so right?! If I just throw those fonts on my site they will look crappy, but their articles are always great looking.
spenrose 14y ago
Sounds like a modest twist on the Hedgehog and the Fox, star of a thousand pop-science essays in the last few years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox Note that (1) I agree and (2) there is nothing silly about the comments or the link.
jamiequint 14y ago
This is kind ironic given that 37signals' is vehemently stubborn about many of their points of view.

449 points by timf 14y ago

In other words, be a scientist. Consider the truth as a distant target, and our understanding only as an approximation based on the evidence we have right now. Scientists have known this for years. They have made it their whole way of life—because it works, and it's true. Smart people in all walks of life most certainly follow those same kinds of scientific principles. Bezos is spot on, there's just an entire branch of knowledge that's been spot on way before he was.

lucianop 14y ago

"Strong opinions, weakly held"

gadders 14y ago

Their angel investor.

badhairday 14y ago

Being right a lot is a core value of that Amazon requires in it's leaders. The rest of the list is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&node=239365011 http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&...

jasonfried 14y ago
I hadn't seen this. Great list. I especially like "As we do new things, we accept that we may be misunderstood for long periods of time."
msg 14y ago
Whether you are an individual contributor or a manager of a large team, you are an Amazon leader. They are also meant for ICs, not just people-manager leaders. They are used as touchstones for interviews and performance evaluations.

chrissr 14y ago

Sure, that's his advice today, but what will it be tomorrow?

bilashbd 14y ago
Even if the advice changes tomorrow, the current one hold true nevertheless!

ArbitraryLimits 14y ago

"A professor's job is to profess - often wrong, but never in doubt."

edw519 14y ago

If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angles, they’re often wrong most of the time. This works both ways. If someone can't get more than one level below the surface and understand the details that form the whole, they’re also often wrong much of the time. Just ask any boss I've ever had.

Sumaso 14y ago
Sounds like you need to look at that quote a little bit more... I think your missing the point.
- npsimons 14y ago
  I think your[sic] missing the point. Speaking of missing details and being wrong . . .
  - 001sky 14y ago
    > Your point has gone missing.
Cherian 14y ago
Couldn’t agree more. This is one of those reasons why I desist have lawyers, media gurus, MBA (just business) as bosses of “Tech” companies. They just don’t have it in them to jump in and out of situations to think through the most trivial of problems from multiple angles. They don’t know in “5 seconds” if something can be done or if it’s complicated. It’s often a rush to tackle competition or cutting out the oxygen and “do whatever it takes”. Ordering subordinates to “deliver” in 3 weeks. This is precisely the reason why I love someone like Larry Page or Sergey running Google. They just knew that recruiting Urs Holzle to build world class infrastructure early on was worth it. A lifetime of learning to take noise in & conclude on the one signal that’s worth it.
- a5seo 14y ago
  I started as a programmer and got an MBA from an ok school (top 20). The combination is very valuable (at least to me) for exactly the reason you cite: the best decisions require wading around in the mucky details. The MBA gives you a few tools that are helpful, but mainly it's a way to brand yourself and have people give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do things other than strictly build stuff. I personally think the anti-patterns you describe-- the "do whatever it takes" without having the first idea what that is-- are intellectually dishonest and a sort of management-by-roulette. Sometimes you get lucky and it works out, but I don't know how you'd sleep running things that way.

callmeed 14y ago

Good advice but I'm curious about: "Jason Fried is the fastest white man you'll ever meet." Is Jason actually really fast and/or was he an athlete at a prior time?

Johngibb 14y ago
That stood out to me too... is there an inside joke? What's the white have to do with it?
- philwelch 14y ago
  Seems like a throwaway joke to me; nothing to over-analyze.
  - easy_rider 14y ago
    Well, Most Asians have awesome APM or are great at table tennis. Black people tend to be great at running really fast. It makes sense doesn't it?:)
dlss 14y ago
Yeah, it was really weird hitting the bottom of the article only to find a vaguely racist nonsensical byline.
- igorgue 14y ago
  I don't think is racist. I'm hispanic and I don't feel offended of white people calling themselves white :-) because they're white.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    I suspect the racist tag was applied because stereotypically white men are slower runners than black men. But as far as racism goes that's... not to mention that it's a white guy talking about himself.

arvinjoar 14y ago

Makes a lot of sense to be honest. If ideas aren't held too dearly you'll be able to weed out the bad ones. A lot of people (myself included) have a certain irrational loss aversion when it comes to ideas. I'm sure one could find plenty of articles on this on LessWrong.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jonny_eh 14y ago

And the sad thing is that society often punishes people who change their minds or "flip-flop". See politics.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
Flip-flopping in politics is often an insincere change of position for the purpose of chasing votes.
- silverbax88 14y ago
  That's true, except the definition is elastic in politics. A candidate who thought a certain way at 18 years old is expected to still think the same way - on all opinions - at 45, which is absolutely ludicrous.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    That's a strawman though, nobody actually says that. People complain about "flip flopping" when they see a politician campaigning and he or she says one thing on tuesday, something contradictory on wednesday, and then is back to the previous position again on thursday.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Usually when I see it, it is people complaining that a candidate endorsed different viewpoints than they did during past elections (in other words, they think something different than they did years ago). Kerry and Romney both come to mind (though to be clear, both (or at least Romney) have been accused of the type you are talking about as well). Specifically I have heard some people claim that Romney has flip-flopped because they perceive a difference between his positions as a presidential candidate and as a governor.
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        I think a lot of that is just that if the person in question clearly does just say whatever they think people want to hear, then a dramatic change in position appears more likely to just be more of the same. Romney suddenly being against "obamacare" is a good example. It doesn't appear that he changed his mind because of new information, since he still claims his version of the same thing is great, but Obama's is terrible.

duxup 14y ago

I too am frequently right, after being wrong a bunch of times.

wtetzner 14y ago
Right, the point is to not stay wrong.

airnomad 14y ago

Can't believe it. You had Bezos for 2 hours and this is all you bother to share with us?

RyJones 14y ago
The rest of his insights might give them some competitive advantage; perhaps, however, he spent two hours extolling the virtues of assembling your own desks and this bit was the only thing worthwhile to happen. I'll trust that they curated the talk in the way most likely to drive page views, not in the way most likely to enlighten the reader.

RivieraKid 14y ago

I never understood why consistent opinions are considered a good thing, it doesn't make any sense. If I realize I'm wrong, why should I stick to the wrong opinion?

weaksauce 14y ago
I think it goes back to politics. It's considered a bad thing in that arena because people can't trust that you will keep your word on the platform that you hired them on. This is especially true for the divisive issues like abortion, healthcare, etc.... I think it's a stupid policy in general though.
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  I understand it in a similar way... People like security and therefore stability, it's one of our basic needs. We like stable environment, including people's opinions. Imagine everyone changes their opinion all the time, it could be fun but not everyone would like that :) Also, people who often change opinions may look dishonest, opportunistic and unpredictable.
corin_ 14y ago
The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person possible would be right 100% of the time and therefore would never change their opinion because changing it would go from right to wrong. Therefore a simplistic view is that the closer to that person you are, the better. Some people may even think they are that person. Realising that you are not going to be correct 100% of the time is the first step. The second step is working out when you are wrong, so you know when to change your opinion. Nobody manages both these steps all the time, some people rarely manage either.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person possible would be right 100% of the time and therefore would never change their opinion because changing it would go from right to wrong. The problem with this, is that most opinions are applied to most circumstances in highly contextual ways. What's the best database? It's one thing to talk about it in abstract and another entirely to talk about it for a specific project. > Therefore a simplistic view is that the closer to that person you are, the better. Some people may even think they are that person. When human knowledge, technology, and political circumstances mostly changed slowly, this was a good heuristic. Now, it's pretty rotten. It's better to take things up one level of indirection and instead of observing their opinions, note how they absorb new knowledge and circumstances instead. Observe if they are a good listener. Observe if they can alter their mental model in the light of new facts. > Some people may even think they are that person. Stay away from that person! Things change too fast nowadays. Look for the "beginner's mind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin

dschiptsov 14y ago

Nothing to see here, but, of course, straight from the horse's mouth..) This particular trait is of a much bigger idea - an active, aware, never satisfied beginners's mind, popularized in US by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki A settled, stale, stagnant mind is a worst possible mental decease from a Buddhist perspective, and, ironically, the most desired state of the mind for a member of a totalitarian country or organization.)

Xcelerate 14y ago

I would argue that this is the defining factor in what makes someone intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN homepage (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/10/18/how-do-you-spot-a-genius/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness...) elaborates on this point of trying multiple "solution paths" to arrive at an answer to a problem. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people get it in their head that they've discovered the "right way" and dismiss every other idea. This problem is particularly notorious in subjects like quantum mechanics. The field is so confusing that people find some kind of local comprehension maximum that they get stuck in and refuse to budge from that sort of ideology (which is often the wrong ideology by the way since QM is such a deep subject. Throw some quantum field theory or standard model physics at a quantum chemistry professor or TA and they won't know what to make of it). To give a more concrete example: did you know that a spinning ball weighs more than the same ball when it is stationary? Tell this to someone decently knowledgable in physics and there's a good chance they'll argue vehemently against you based on their misunderstanding (or misinformation) of what they've learned in the past. Sometimes the effort to convince someone of an idea like this isn't worth the time; these people are locked into one way of thinking and take it as an affront to their ego. There's limited intelligence here. Don't want to be like this? Don't get angry when someone challenges you. That's the best way to start. I've never understood why so many people get upset if you try to point out a flaw in their reasoning. I've noticed this sort of anger much less frequently on HN (on the other hand, there's significantly more "you're wrong" posts than a normal discussion board). In fact, do a little experiment if you wish. Look through HN stories and find places where people challenge each other in the comments. If you notice someone who says "you know what -- you're correct" or "yeah, that makes more sense", there's a good chance they make a lot of intelligent posts on here. If you find someone that never concedes to anyone else, it's likely they are locked into one and only one way of thinking and are unlikely to ever do anything considered "genius".

davesims 14y ago
Great comment. I appreciate the principle you're working towards, and largely agree with it. But I wonder if the analogy with Physics works well as a broad metaphor for "intelligence." The gaps between Newtonian, Quantum and Relativity model physics are singular instances of a peculiar, nearly paradoxical set of apparent contradictions that of course have yet to be fully resolved. Each is correct within its own domain, and the full realization of the implications of each requires complete commitment to the rules within the domain to the exclusion of the other models. So the analogy can also turn around and bite you here. If a researcher in Quantum theory were to get hung up on the apparent contradictions between her own research and the implications within one of the other models, she'd risk being distracted and lose the fruitful path of research within her given domain. In this case, a certain level of myopia is helpful. Did Einstein's tremendous resistance to Heisenberg and Bohr impugn his accomplishments in any way? Of course not. I don't think anyone would use that as an example of diminished intelligence on Einstein's part. Your broader point is valid: be open to other viewpoints. But at another level, taking up a position and defending it has its practical advantages, when the position/opinion shows fruitful results. In software, I think of DHH's 'opinionated' approach to Rails and how that has informed and guided the whole Ruby community. For many programmers Rails' implicit, "magical" approach to coding is not as good as, for instance Django/Python's more explicit philosophy. Both points of view are valid, but the strengths of each would be diluted if they tried to do both. I also think of the Torvalds/Tanenbaum debate over Kernel architectures. Deciding which is correct is way above my pay grade, but it seems clear to me that Linus had to take up a position here and commit to it in order for Linux to thrive the way it has. I also think of the common criticism of JavaScript's OO structures, that it's a confusing hybrid of Prototypical and Classical OOP, leading to inconsistent or confusing structures. Perhaps a thorough commitment to one or the other would have been better? So, on the one hand a certain openness and teachability is necessary, but then at strategic points in the development of an idea, a certain stubbornness and myopia seems to be equally important to the ultimate execution of a vision.

ValG 14y ago

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson. When I first read that quote in early High School I didn't understand it. It was the kind of thing that ate at me, I could not get what he was trying to say. To me, consistency was an important part of life; the old adage that you stick to your word. However, that quote transcends the idea of being consistent, because when you often make decisions without all of the information (especially in startups). As new information becomes available, you have to incorporate it into your decision. Sometimes it makes you look like a dick, or someone that doesn't know what direction they want to go to, but that's where different skills (leadership and sales) come in to be able to hold people together.

wissler 14y ago
To be inconsistent is the easiest thing in the world: just refuse to think about the meaning of what you believe or do. I don't think the point of Bezos's remark was that we should aspire to be inconsistent, but rather, we should be open to considering that our ideas might be wrong. A better quote for this idea: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."--Ayn Rand
- locopati 14y ago
  'Contradictions do not exist' is nonsense. Contradictions exist all over the place. Any time you get two people together you'll have contradictions due to viewpoint, experience, perspectives. Denying that contradictions exist is a child-like view of the world. Working with the contradictions of life, now that's the fun and the challenge, isn't it?
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Of course different people will have beliefs that contradict each other, but by the definition of a contradiction, they can't both be right. Likewise, if two of your own beliefs end up contradicting each other in the end, then one of those beliefs was wrong. That's the meaning of the quote. Just letting a contradiction sit there is the lazy thing to do--it's the resolving of contradictions that's the fun part!

mikek 14y ago

Steve Jobs was also well known for his strong, but changing, opinions.

mjt0229 14y ago

Bezos's observation reminds me of Philip Tetlock's conclusions in "Expert Political Judgement" (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html). Tetlock studied it pretty rigorously and came to a number of conclusions, but the central thesis was that people who got things right the most were people who thought by building up lots of competing models and evaluating all of them (ie, having lots of little ideas) rather than guiding all their decisions by a single ideology.

n72 14y ago

Hey, guess what, Jeff Bezos stopped by our office today. I just wanted everyone to know that, so I posted about something platitudinous he said.

espeed 14y ago

He's observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. I think he's spot on, and this has been the basis for my manifesto (http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto) -- I like to think of it as continually refining your perspective.

brdrak 14y ago

I work with someone who spends way too much time (IMO) making sure that he's not wrong. Typically this involves not taking a stand until the results are in and then claiming the position all along. Or simply lying about his position. After witnessing this repeatedly I basically lost all respect for this person and really dread any interaction. Personally I don't care if someone (including myself) is right or wrong. I often have to make technology recommendations that may turn out to be wrong years down the line and end up costing the organization time and money. So far I've been pretty lucky. I find it helpful to always include caveats in my proposals and explain reasoning behind my recommendations. Of course putting in the time to understand the issue, the market and the history is key. I don't have a problem taking a stand and be proven wrong or adjusting my position when new information becomes available. However, I wonder if this attitude is hurting my standing with the organization compared with this other guy who never seems to be wrong.

ahalan 14y ago

In other words: breadth-first search is better when dealing with hard problems

fakhrazeyev 14y ago

Thank you for a great quality post. And, folks, please do not fear being called a "flip-flopper"!

kevinalexbrown 14y ago

Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having a difficult time inferring the significance of this post. On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be "right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to converge. In any case, I'll be right a lot more than either a person whose mind does not tend to change toward the correct solution, or someone whose mind does not change. This seems true by definition. On the other hand, if the correct solution changes rapidly and dramatically, and my mind does not change as quickly, I will trivially be wrong a lot. Likewise, focusing too much on "details that only support one point of view" seems wrong by construction, unless you magically pick the right point of view to begin with. I'm not trying to be snarky here, seriously. I just feel like I must be missing the significance. I've reread the post several times, but I don't see it. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

ellyagg 14y ago
As Keynes said, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" When I was younger, I didn't know what confirmation bias was. I had to be introduced to the concept. After being introduced, I was able to make better decisions. Although it may seem trivially true to you (now?), it's not to everyone. You may be reading more into "change their minds a lot" than is intended. A lot in this context means "more than most people". There's a reason phrases like "strong opinions, weakly held" become popular in rationalist circles. It's an emphasis on better decision making. I think the first time I heard about this idea was in Marilyn vos Savant's Brain Building. She argued that societal infatuation with "having the courage of your convictions" is not the redeeming quality it's made out to be. She mentioned that she could always give her opinion on an issue, but she was also always prepared to change her opinion upon new information. I'm pretty sure Bezos does not mean you should change your mind 180 degrees at each new contradictory piece of information. Like a Bayesian spam filter, if you've had lots of pieces of evidence for one position, it should take lots or very significant new evidence to change that position. Decision making biases of various sorts are my chief pet peeve in modern life. It's almost impossible to discuss public policy with people, even in the smartest online forums I know. I think it's banned at Less Wrong. When I listen to the media, I spend most of my time ticking of the biases I hear.

nicholas73 14y ago

Basically, people are stupid because they don't realize how stupid they are.

ezpassmac 14y ago

Curious as to what Bezos thinks of the current state of politics. "He said people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds." Maybe he's voting for Mitt Romney.

halayli 14y ago

Should we all vote for Mitt Romney then? jk :)

arbuge 14y ago

When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes

MattGrommes 14y ago

Just the other day during a design discussion I was arguing for X instead of Y and was reminded that I was the one who introduced Y earlier in the discussion. I was finally able to bring out Walt Whitman during a technical discussion and responded "I contain multitudes". :)

swah 14y ago

Off-topic: how do they get typography so right?! If I just throw those fonts on my site they will look crappy, but their articles are always great looking.

spenrose 14y ago

Sounds like a modest twist on the Hedgehog and the Fox, star of a thousand pop-science essays in the last few years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox Note that (1) I agree and (2) there is nothing silly about the comments or the link.

jamiequint 14y ago

This is kind ironic given that 37signals' is vehemently stubborn about many of their points of view.