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

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

#141

Post by kd5bjo » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

ionforce wrote: post #86

kd5bjo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve read a lot of time management/productivity books, and there seem to be only two things all of the authors agree on: write stuff down, and continuously tweak your system. The latter is usually mentioned offhand in the preface, as the author wants to deliver a fait accompli instead of just some tips and tricks.

Can you elaborate on "write stuff down"?

Broadly, use external storage (paper or a computer) to keep track of things that you don’t need to know right now so that that mental capacity is available for whatever you’re actually working on.

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

#142

Post by solresol » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the QUT CAUSEE study. They actually did follow a group of early-stage startups, interviewing them each year and then afterwards looked at what factors predicted success or failure.

Some of their results: - changing direction as a result of customer feedback (very, very good, one of the best predictors of success) - having an accountant (good) - having one parent born overseas (helpful for some reason) - making use of Australia's research and development tax concession (very good) - knowing the name of your lawyer (bad) - accessing government services designed to help startups (very bad) - writing a business plan and sticking to it (bad) - founders having experience working in enterprises (neither good nor bad, but it slowed the process down a lot)

My favourite gems that they discovered... in the Australian startup community, it appears that investors are no better at picking successes than random chance. Externally-funded companies had no difference in outcome compared to bootstrapped ones; the only difference is that they got to success or failure faster.

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

#143

Post by kd5bjo » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #113

kd5bjo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve read a lot of time management/productivity books, and there seem to be only two things all of the authors agree on: write stuff down, and continuously tweak your system. The latter is usually mentioned offhand in the preface, as the author wants to deliver a fait accompli instead of just some tips and tricks.

To what extent do you suppose "continuously tweak your system" really means "show up"? That is, could you substitute any other activity that requires you to actually pay attention and be present and get equal progress? I think there may be a category theory of self improvement. The more I look at the things I've done to improve my situation from health to work to finances, the more they start to look similar (in a nu…

That’s a large part, but there’s also an aspect of kaizen to it. Everyone’s thoughts work a little bit differently, so the mechanisms that work best for me maybe don’t work quite as well for you. Regularly asking yourself “how can this be better” is the only way to maximize your own efficiency because nobody else is competent to answer the question.

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

#144

Post by vonnik » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

"Ignore advice" is not good advice. Even for startups. There are so many predictable ways that founders screw up. I, personally, have committed most of them. A few of them I avoided, or stopped doing soon enough to survive, and often it was with the help of good advice. YC gives good advice: Talk to your users. Build something people want. Run lean. Those are all great for people starting out. There is a lot of knowledge much more specialized that, contained in the collective wisdom of startup operators and investors. The challenge is to vet your sources, know which advice applies to your situation, and how to implement it. Nobody can teach you how to be a good judge of character. And nobody knows your startup well enough to decide for you which advice and how. But we can all learn from others who have gone through the ringer, whether it's PG, Michael Seibel, Naval, Lemkin or others.

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

#145

Post by neilv » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:14 PM UTC

CrazyStat wrote: post #81

neilv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> directly refuting the claim made in the title of the blog post. That is: Most [...] In the title, the author is seemingly making the claim that all [...]

Very clever, but missing the point. Those two qualifiers refer to different classes: (1) Most startup theory is ex-post, therefore bs. (2) All ex-post startup theory is bullshit. Those claims may or may not be true, but there's no contradiction between the two. The title does indeed seem to implicitly claim (2), in the form of the following (implied) syllogism: Most startup theory is ex-post. All ex-post startup theo…

Thanks, I misread.

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

#146

Post by jack_pp » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

zby wrote: post #116

The primary social function of giving advice is a domination game ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/03/advice-shows-status.ht... , http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/advice-isnt-about-info... ) - that's why there is a lot of shitty advice. That does not mean there are no good business theories that cover startups. Some of them are scientific theories with all the required rigour - but not all theories need to b…

While those overcomingbias articles are nice and true they only offer a limited perspective.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/03/advice-shows-status.ht... : "High-power participants in the study ignored almost two-thirds of the advice they received" - in almost any "game" (or situation that can be modeled by game theory) it may be wise to test the advice of even the best expert you are given. Maybe ignoring advice isn't irrational but actually optimal in order to truly learn or even advance on the current optimal solution to any given situation and maybe the high-powered participants intuitively know this and that's why they're high-powered in the first place.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/advice-isnt-about-info... : advice giving and receiving is based on respect but it also builds trust and connection. Why would I build trust with someone who is getting out of the game when I can get advice from any number of people in the game which have similar amounts of wisdom and experience? I get the wisdom and I have a better chance of getting good opportunities from the person in the game whereas I can only get wisdom from the retiree.

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

#147

Post by i_feel_great » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 12:22 AM UTC

solresol wrote: post #142

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the QUT CAUSEE study. They actually did follow a group of early-stage startups, interviewing them each year and then afterwards looked at what factors predicted success or failure. Some of their results: - changing direction as a result of customer feedback (very, very good, one of the best predictors of success) - having an accountant (good) - having one parent born overseas (helpf…

Never heard of it, although I work just up the road from the Garden's Point campus. Where can I find a summary?

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

#148

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 12:48 AM UTC

sha_r_roh wrote: post #9

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…

> "Slamming hands in drawers hurts; one should not do it." This is a fact and don't think this is what the author is trying to say. I guess he's more focused on the kind of theories which people throw around as some sort of self-evident truth, when in fact it's a personal truth which they learned through trial and error. But I guess there's a point in learning from some of these "self-evident" truths (this is more ra…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by bigred100 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 12:55 AM UTC

zby wrote: post #116

The primary social function of giving advice is a domination game ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/03/advice-shows-status.ht... , http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/01/advice-isnt-about-info... ) - that's why there is a lot of shitty advice. That does not mean there are no good business theories that cover startups. Some of them are scientific theories with all the required rigour - but not all theories need to b…

I hate this interpretation of everything as status games. It seems like a great way to drive yourself insane and develop mental illness as you overreact to mundane situations or fail to take advice from proper authorities. I consider somebody unqualified throwing out nonsensical advice as simply kind of a moron.

To elaborate: I’m convinced that most people viewing this view status as a good or at worse neutral thing, and although they may not approve of tactics they deem immoral (maybe including this one), basically have some admiration for “winning” the game. I view this as a wrong approach. The guy giving advice all the time is blinded by pride and fails to realize even the bounds of his own competence. He’s not winning anything. My opinion is that he looks like a buffoon.

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

#150

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

_ptgt wrote: post #140

Dylan16807 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's good reason to believe tons of sociological theories. The problem is figuring out whether the pro or con factors win out, and figuring out if you've nailed down every single factor. Being simple, clear, and well-reasoned in the realm of people's behavior is not enough to give you very good accuracy. The kind of priors you get by reasoning in a vacuum just aren't good enough in some realms. Bayesianly combinin…

>There's good reason to believe tons of sociological theories. The problem is figuring out whether the pro or con factors win out, and figuring out if you've nailed down every single factor. Being simple, clear, and well-reasoned in the realm of people's behavior is not enough to give you very good accuracy. This is all argument in favor of a weak prior, not to ignore the existence and utility of a prior completely.…

You can reframe almost any statistics as Bayesian if you try hard enough. That doesn't mean it's actually helping you. If you have a method for generating 'good' priors and it doesn't work, it does far more harm than good when you use that to analyze this kind of anecdote. Anecdotes are such weak evidence that the chance it pushes your priors into the correct result is super low. You'd be better off not trying. Just accept the need to gather proper amounts of evidence.

Or in other words: Some undescribed system of priors could help, but the system you actually described doesn't help. So "use priors" is a bad answer.