3 ms·

I find the article more subtle, and rooted in much more experience, than you're giving it credit for. When people talk about the lean theory they often leap fr

by gruseom 13y ago

I find the article more subtle, and rooted in much more experience, than you're giving it credit for. When people talk about the lean theory they often leap from "Don't make something no one wants", which is a truism, to "this theory tells you how to validate what you're building and thus how to make something people want", which is an enormous claim, and they never seem to address the abyss between the two. (It's a bit like the "?" step of the underpants gnomes, or that old physics cartoon where "Then a miracle occurs" appears on a blackboard amidst the equations.) Nate's post does address it. That's why it's interesting. It's a mistake to respond by saying that he must not understand the theory.

mindcrime 13y ago
It's a mistake to respond by saying that he must not understand the theory. And I'm not saying he must misunderstand the theory. I'm saying it's a mistake IF "he thinks 'get out of the building' means 'go out and find an idea for a startup'" which is what TFA seems to be saying on at least some level. But I'll allow that I may have interpreted it differently than what the author intended. Still, when you read this: I cold emailed the guy to get a meeting to chat about his business. I was hoping I’d discover a problem I could create a new product around. If you’ve read any of the dozens of books about running a Lean Startup (I’ve read them all), you’d probably call this “getting out of the building”. ... it sure seems to be saying that "get out of the building" directly corresponds to "go out and look for a problem to solve" as opposed to "go out and validate an existing idea". But there could be some hyperbole in there that I missed on my first read, and it's entirely possible that I took that part too literally. Edit: I should also say - the author of TFA is showing a transition over time, in his approach, and his learning based on experience (as you note). It might be more accurate for me to say that he may have misunderstood the theory previously, rather than to say that he currently misunderstands it. Certainly I largely agree with the position he takes nearer the end of the article, which is somewhat different than where he started. I think the big open question, for which there is no easy answer, is something like "how far do you go based solely on scratching your own itch before you do go out and look for external validation"?
chipsy 13y ago
The analogy I would have is with one's relationship to body image. If you are saying to others constantly, "am I pretty?" not only is their feedback never going to be satisfying, it's not accurate because you aren't sure what might actually be wrong with your appearance, and they, being caught in a mix of politeness and low interest, are most likely to say something vague and positive like "you're fine, you look great." On the other hand, if "looking better" is an internally driven problem, you already have some conceptions of how to proceed and the feedback is just one of several yardsticks - the actions you take being the primary means of tracking progress. But you have to come up with your own strategy to quell your anxiety and find some internal drive. And that's where balance as a person comes in - it stops you from obsessing over the wrong things. And there's a sort of progression of maturity in understanding how to deal with feedback, too: At first you are too naive to pay attention to feedback. Then you become hyper-aware of it like a teenager. Finally, you've developed your internal systems, so you can use it as a complementary mechanism.

by gruseom 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

It's a mistake to respond by saying that he must not understand the theory. And I'm not saying he must misunderstand the theory. I'm saying it's a mistake IF "he thinks 'get out of the building' means 'go out and find an idea for a startup'" which is what TFA seems to be saying on at least some level. But I'll allow that I may have interpreted it differently than what the author intended. Still, when you read this: I cold emailed the guy to get a meeting to chat about his business. I was hoping I’d discover a problem I could create a new product around. If you’ve read any of the dozens of books about running a Lean Startup (I’ve read them all), you’d probably call this “getting out of the building”. ... it sure seems to be saying that "get out of the building" directly corresponds to "go out and look for a problem to solve" as opposed to "go out and validate an existing idea". But there could be some hyperbole in there that I missed on my first read, and it's entirely possible that I took that part too literally. Edit: I should also say - the author of TFA is showing a transition over time, in his approach, and his learning based on experience (as you note). It might be more accurate for me to say that he may have misunderstood the theory previously, rather than to say that he currently misunderstands it. Certainly I largely agree with the position he takes nearer the end of the article, which is somewhat different than where he started. I think the big open question, for which there is no easy answer, is something like "how far do you go based solely on scratching your own itch before you do go out and look for external validation"?

chipsy 13y ago

The analogy I would have is with one's relationship to body image. If you are saying to others constantly, "am I pretty?" not only is their feedback never going to be satisfying, it's not accurate because you aren't sure what might actually be wrong with your appearance, and they, being caught in a mix of politeness and low interest, are most likely to say something vague and positive like "you're fine, you look great." On the other hand, if "looking better" is an internally driven problem, you already have some conceptions of how to proceed and the feedback is just one of several yardsticks - the actions you take being the primary means of tracking progress. But you have to come up with your own strategy to quell your anxiety and find some internal drive. And that's where balance as a person comes in - it stops you from obsessing over the wrong things. And there's a sort of progression of maturity in understanding how to deal with feedback, too: At first you are too naive to pay attention to feedback. Then you become hyper-aware of it like a teenager. Finally, you've developed your internal systems, so you can use it as a complementary mechanism.