Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Only Way to Grow Huge

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#61

Post by jacques_chester »

adwf wrote: post #57
jacques_chester wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but feel that if fuzzy logic was taught more widely in computer science courses, people would be more sanguine about "only, always, never" as linguistic qualifiers. ... not that I am without guilt on this ...

The funny thing is that I come from a physics degree background and hence have a tendency to stick with the more scientifically accurate "I think, maybe, probably, possibly, almost always", rather than going for absolutes. However, when you enter into the business world, you tend to find that this kind of language comes across as weak and uncertain. Even though you are merely trying to be correct and not give false i…

So, you got me to thinking.

As a side-effect of his work on expert forecasting[1], Tetlock discovered that people put more stock in those who made confident predictions than those who qualified their predictions. To the point that he basically says: if a person is a famous pundit, they are more likely to be wrong, because the media prefers bold predictions to maybes and perhapses.

In business you can be bold or not bold. If you're not bold, you are at a social disadvantage.

Then you can be right or wrong. If you are right, everyone hails you as a visionary. If you are wrong, nobody remembers.

So in fact, in business, the rational strategy for an individual is to speak confidently and let the dice fly high.

[1] I reviewed his book a while back. http://chester.id.au/2012/07/29/review-expert-political-judg...

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#62

Post by jacques_chester »

pak wrote: post #49
pg wrote: post #36

Note to Sam: It's possible to anticipate ways HN readers will misunderstand you, and tweak what you write to pre-empt them. It takes some practice, but I'd guess I'm now able to do it maybe 3/4 of the time. In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size…

> In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size they don't have to rely on making something great to grow bigger, but that if you look back at the earliest history of those companies, you'll find most did. (emphasis mine) It's hard to call it a misunde…

Universal qualifiers aren't absurd for headlines pitched at HN. They seem to work as intended.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#63

Post by kevinalexbrown »

I wonder why. There are plenty of ways to get growth, why is this one so important?

I can think of one reason off the top of my head:

Perhaps it's because many organizations that grow very large do so by creating a market, or largely shaping it in some way. It seems that in that case, word of mouth is even more important.

As an example, I tell my friends about gyro food trucks all the time. But most of them have decided whether or not they're going to eat greasy falafel. On the other hand, if there's a new type of food vendor they've never heard of before, it will count for a lot more, because their opinion hasn't been formed yet.

I suppose the other explanation is that word of mouth is only a signifier of high quality, but I'm not sure that's all of it.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#64

Post by arthuredelstein »

> Having a growth team is still a good idea--you almost always need to jumpstart things. But don't forget about what you actually have to accomplish.

Maybe it's better not to jumpstart things. One strategy could be to fail faster by purposely not marketing, to quickly find out whether a product is intrinsically viral.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#65

Post by adwf »

jacques_chester wrote: post #61
adwf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that I come from a physics degree background and hence have a tendency to stick with the more scientifically accurate "I think, maybe, probably, possibly, almost always", rather than going for absolutes. However, when you enter into the business world, you tend to find that this kind of language comes across as weak and uncertain. Even though you are merely trying to be correct and not give false i…

So, you got me to thinking. As a side-effect of his work on expert forecasting[1], Tetlock discovered that people put more stock in those who made confident predictions than those who qualified their predictions. To the point that he basically says: if a person is a famous pundit, they are more likely to be wrong, because the media prefers bold predictions to maybes and perhapses. In business you can be bold or not b…

Yes it's actually quite an awkward point for me at the moment. I have a side-project that I've been developing for a while. My attachment to it means that I know every single bug and flaw within the product. But at the same time I know that if I add caveats to any marketing (it's a bit alpha/beta, etc.), then it will come across as unconfident. On the other hand, if I just say it's amazing and will change your life, I'll probably (can't resist the language even now...), do far, far better.

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#66

Post by apu »

adwf wrote: post #42
pg wrote: post #36

Note to Sam: It's possible to anticipate ways HN readers will misunderstand you, and tweak what you write to pre-empt them. It takes some practice, but I'd guess I'm now able to do it maybe 3/4 of the time. In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size…

Now put it in an algorithm that detects any mention of "only, always, never" or any other absolute. Then insert a boilerplate at the top of such discussions, saying there are always exceptions, but the gist of the argument is still valid ;)

For an example of this, look at the sibling comment by pak (made after yours) =)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6844169

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#67

Post by 001sky »

adwf wrote: post #57
jacques_chester wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but feel that if fuzzy logic was taught more widely in computer science courses, people would be more sanguine about "only, always, never" as linguistic qualifiers. ... not that I am without guilt on this ...

The funny thing is that I come from a physics degree background and hence have a tendency to stick with the more scientifically accurate "I think, maybe, probably, possibly, almost always", rather than going for absolutes. However, when you enter into the business world, you tend to find that this kind of language comes across as weak and uncertain. Even though you are merely trying to be correct and not give false i…

Edge cases seem to be where all the fun is, tho... =D

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#68

Post by 001sky »

jacques_chester wrote: post #62
pak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size they don't have to rely on making something great to grow bigger, but that if you look back at the earliest history of those companies, you'll find most did. (emphasis mine) It's hard to call it a misunde…

Universal qualifiers aren't absurd for headlines pitched at HN. They seem to work as intended.

'Best' vs 'Only' should be a title-fight deathmatch

Re: The Only Way to Grow Huge

#69

Post by ekanes »

larrys wrote: post #54
pak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this case the most common misunderstanding seems to be not to realize that present day big companies were once small. You could have pre-empted that by reminding readers that once companies reach a certain size they don't have to rely on making something great to grow bigger, but that if you look back at the earliest history of those companies, you'll find most did. (emphasis mine) It's hard to call it a misunde…

With all due respect to Sam I have no idea what qualifies Sam to even be opining on this subject without a bit more of a circumspect attitude. If he was a professor of business or had a long standing knowledge of business that would be one thing. The word "most" would certainly be better but even that goes a bit to far with a subject as large as "business" and "companies".

To be blunt, people who've done consistently well in the startup world run circles around "professors of business".
Post reply on HN