3 ms·

This is extremely harsh. Nearly all startups fail, technology or otherwise. I'm sure you're aware of how difficult starting and running a company is, and how ma

This is extremely harsh. Nearly all startups fail, technology or otherwise. I'm sure you're aware of how difficult starting and running a company is, and how many factors are well outside of your control. His startups could have failed for any number of reasons, and even the best strategy and implementation and ideas and people cannot guarantee a success. Nothing can. Regardless of what I think of his opinions or ideas, I respect this man's attempts at starting his own endeavors, as I know firsthand how difficult that is.

jlgreco 13y ago
The thing about "startups fail often" is that it seemingly creates a situation where nobody can ever be proved wrong, only correct. Success can happen and signals competency, but failure never signals anything negative? I think that this contributes to the "echo chamber" effect.
- spartango 13y ago
  I'll agree with this, but in that case I would tend to judge competency by other, finer criteria. I'd rather judge someone by their own efforts and decisions rather than factors beyond their control. You can also judge an idea around which a startup is built, but that's a tricky game. Should you do so, however, you would not be criticizing this man's strategy or MBA insights.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  The conclusion to draw from this is that you shouldn't draw conclusions on broadly general situations that you know nothing about, not that you should draw conclusions that are likely wrong anyway. "MBAs are bad for startups" or "Dalton Caldwell is full of shit" or "All of parent poster's startups have failed; why should we listen to him?" are not useful conclusions. Exactly what actionable intelligence have you gained from them, other than the fact that you have gained no actionable intelligence? If you take "MBAs are bad for startups" at face value, all you do is disqualify a number of candidates who might otherwise be good. If you take "Dalton Caldwell is full of shit" at face value, all you do is disqualify a bunch of information that might come in handy at some point. If you take "All of parent poster's startups have failed" at face value, ditto. Rather, the useful information is in the supporting details. You can take Dalton's statement that "MBAs think they are beautiful, unique snowflakes that must be better than their peers", and then when you're sitting across the interview table from an MBA, determine whether this MBA believes he's a beautiful, unique snowflake. You have a lot more information at that point, namely his answers to the interview questions, his past work experience, and just the general vibe in the room. Similarly, you can take the parent poster's assertion that he learned things with his MBA, but that doesn't take away from his basic technical skills, and factor that information into your evaluation. It's about having multiple perspectives available to you to decide a specific situation, not about drawing broad conclusions that are ultimately useless.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  I'm not sure I see your point. I take from your question mark that you don't believe failure is a very weak signal? You're exactly right in that if success requires both competency and luck, then having succeeded means you were competent, but failing doesn't mean you were not. Depending on how much luck is required, failure can be either a fairly strong signal for incompetence or pretty much negligible. This is very easily proven from the bayesian theorem.
asdfologist 13y ago
My point is that if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, it should at least support the point you're trying to make. In this case he's attempting to use himself as a counterexample to the article's conclusion, but if anything it achieves the opposite effect.

jlgreco 13y ago

The thing about "startups fail often" is that it seemingly creates a situation where nobody can ever be proved wrong, only correct. Success can happen and signals competency, but failure never signals anything negative? I think that this contributes to the "echo chamber" effect.

spartango 13y ago
I'll agree with this, but in that case I would tend to judge competency by other, finer criteria. I'd rather judge someone by their own efforts and decisions rather than factors beyond their control. You can also judge an idea around which a startup is built, but that's a tricky game. Should you do so, however, you would not be criticizing this man's strategy or MBA insights.
nostrademons 13y ago
The conclusion to draw from this is that you shouldn't draw conclusions on broadly general situations that you know nothing about, not that you should draw conclusions that are likely wrong anyway. "MBAs are bad for startups" or "Dalton Caldwell is full of shit" or "All of parent poster's startups have failed; why should we listen to him?" are not useful conclusions. Exactly what actionable intelligence have you gained from them, other than the fact that you have gained no actionable intelligence? If you take "MBAs are bad for startups" at face value, all you do is disqualify a number of candidates who might otherwise be good. If you take "Dalton Caldwell is full of shit" at face value, all you do is disqualify a bunch of information that might come in handy at some point. If you take "All of parent poster's startups have failed" at face value, ditto. Rather, the useful information is in the supporting details. You can take Dalton's statement that "MBAs think they are beautiful, unique snowflakes that must be better than their peers", and then when you're sitting across the interview table from an MBA, determine whether this MBA believes he's a beautiful, unique snowflake. You have a lot more information at that point, namely his answers to the interview questions, his past work experience, and just the general vibe in the room. Similarly, you can take the parent poster's assertion that he learned things with his MBA, but that doesn't take away from his basic technical skills, and factor that information into your evaluation. It's about having multiple perspectives available to you to decide a specific situation, not about drawing broad conclusions that are ultimately useless.
Anderkent 13y ago
I'm not sure I see your point. I take from your question mark that you don't believe failure is a very weak signal? You're exactly right in that if success requires both competency and luck, then having succeeded means you were competent, but failing doesn't mean you were not. Depending on how much luck is required, failure can be either a fairly strong signal for incompetence or pretty much negligible. This is very easily proven from the bayesian theorem.

asdfologist 13y ago

My point is that if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, it should at least support the point you're trying to make. In this case he's attempting to use himself as a counterexample to the article's conclusion, but if anything it achieves the opposite effect.