Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs • Hacker News Board

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#21

Post by hinkley » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #7

From the article: ”Do you think Brian Chesky of Airbnb heard that strategy from a friend? Hell, do you even think that freeriding off of Craigslist was their reason for success?” Yes, freeriding off of Craigslist was the reason for their early success, without which their later success was not possible. Having a good model means absolutely nothing without some ability to market it, especially in the marketplace space…

Or literal freeways.

It's a common conceit of Industrialists (or at the very least, American Industrialists) to claim that they hoisted themselves up by their bootstraps and that their success is entirely their own. And then they begrudge paying for the sorts of public works and infrastructure projects that kept them from a lot more adversity. Hell, some won't even mentor or help people the way that people looked after them when they were young and naive.

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#22

Post by whatshisface » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

std_throwaway wrote: post #19

It's hard to test theories when the underlying system constantly changes like it does in economics. Something that works today might not work tomorrow. A theory that looks sound when applied to yesteryears data might stop working before the sun rises. When many others try to apply the same tricks that made you successful the cake on that table might suddenly be divided into so many pieces that everybody will go home…

>experiments can be repeated as many times as you like with the same results

That is not actually true, there is a lot of randomness, and in quantum mechanics the randomness is fundamental. The real secret of the natural sciences is that good physicists never publish if they know they don't know the answer. It took hundreds of years of that policy before the narrowly applicable theories blossomed into the general laws of the universe. If the focus was determining the general laws of the universe from the start no progress could have been made: Newton could have guessed at the laws of motion, but without the specific and painstaking celestial observations preceding him nobody would have known he was right. Economists could enjoy a similar success, but it would be at the expense of 400 years of saying only things that policymakers thought were obvious, while refusing to answer useful questions.

There are plenty of "very true" theories in economics, but they often aren't broad enough to answer the questions about economics that the fate of nations ride on. However 400 years from now those narrow but well-tested theories will be the foundation of the true general economics and all the rest will be forgotten.

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#23

Post by monocasa » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #8

I have had a couple of managers over the years who had dreams of writing a book, and with the exception of one, they were all mostly wrong about the secrets of their success. They didn't have any awareness of how their team and especially their leads supported them. Responses varied from humor to hurt feelings. Ask the people who work for them why the team was successful. They'll probably have very different opinions…

Would you mind expanding on their respective theses? I can see a lot of value in looking at these in a anti-pattern kind of way.

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#24

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #2

Not all ex-post theories are BS. For example, I slam my hand in the drawer and theorize, "Slamming hands in drawers hurts; one should not do it." That theory is pretty solid. It doesn't cover all the edge cases, but following it is better than not following it. There are lots of startup theories that are equally solid, despite being ex-post. I know a startup that didn't pay payroll tax for a couple years, and it ende…

[deleted]

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#25

Post by gringoDan » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

shafyy wrote: post #20

tmemth wrote: post #13

> Or “Airbnb growth hacked Craigslist to link to their own website. And did you know that the founders lived with their users. You should do that, too!”” I was told by a founder that I was a first time founder (I am not) because I didn’t believe this strategy works anymore. He was basically mocking me for being so stupid to not know now growth hacking like this works. And all the time I was thinking at the back of my…

Agree. Recently listened to a podcast with Jason Fried where he made this point exactly. It's this IndieHacker episode here: https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/105-jason-fried-of-base... Edit: Corrected link

Can you update this link? Looks like you just linked back to this thread's URL.

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#26

Post by std_throwaway » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

ufmace wrote: post #16

I'd agree that it's rarely a good idea to directly copy any other startup. It's probably good to hear many of their stories of success - maybe a few pieces of one or two will give you a great idea, or at least tend to make you think in the best ways.

Take a working idea, find out why it's working, find out how to make it better, try it out.

It doesn't make sense to only copy a working idea without understanding why it's working because your copy will be slightly worse. While you might have some success you won't take the big share. You must find a weakness in the original idea or the execution or the location or anything else. If you have a solid point where you can improve you have a chance. Don't be afraid of stealing ideas and making them better.

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#27

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #8

I have had a couple of managers over the years who had dreams of writing a book, and with the exception of one, they were all mostly wrong about the secrets of their success. They didn't have any awareness of how their team and especially their leads supported them. Responses varied from humor to hurt feelings. Ask the people who work for them why the team was successful. They'll probably have very different opinions…

[deleted]

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#28

Post by shafyy » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:39 PM UTC

gringoDan wrote: post #25

shafyy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Recently listened to a podcast with Jason Fried where he made this point exactly. It's this IndieHacker episode here: https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/105-jason-fried-of-base... Edit: Corrected link

Can you update this link? Looks like you just linked back to this thread's URL.

Just did, thanks

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#29

Post by vikramkr » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #12

> Do you think Musk copied that strategy from the business school he never went to. Elon Musk did his undergrad at Wharton. I guess the statement might be true if you mean "business school" to strictly mean a graduate MBA program. But Musk definitely took business classes that would have been nearly identical to those taken by MBAs.

I was a bit confused by that line. He wasn't even a dropout, he got a business degree along with his physics degree, and "start with a premium market and move to bigger less premium markets" sounds like the sort of case study that could definitely be taught in a business lecture. I doubt that he copied any strategies from his business classes but this particular example is hardly implausible.

Re: Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs

#30

Post by std_throwaway » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #22

std_throwaway wrote: post #19

It's hard to test theories when the underlying system constantly changes like it does in economics. Something that works today might not work tomorrow. A theory that looks sound when applied to yesteryears data might stop working before the sun rises. When many others try to apply the same tricks that made you successful the cake on that table might suddenly be divided into so many pieces that everybody will go home…

> experiments can be repeated as many times as you like with the same results That is not actually true, there is a lot of randomness, and in quantum mechanics the randomness is fundamental. The real secret of the natural sciences is that good physicists never publish if they know they don't know the answer. It took hundreds of years of that policy before the narrowly applicable theories blossomed into the general la…

Sure, there is randomness but in normal cases you can apply statistics to describe it reasonably well. The results are not 100% sure but 99% or 99.99999% or whatever you need. It's not that the laws of gravity stop working entirely over night. Newtons theory wasn't perfect and Einsteins theory isn't perfect but it describes what happens in nature very very well for billions of years.