Live data from Hacker News

The Social Radars: Conversations with Startup Founders

thesocialradars.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: The Social Radars: Conversations with Startup Founders

#31
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, this perspective itself is a result of survivorship bias. There are seemingly so few podcasts and publications about failure stories that it must be a rare and unique idea to start one, right? But the reality is that it's a very common idea. I feature success stories on my podcast (Indie Hackers), and I've been getting requests for "more failure stories" since day #1. I've tried them, and I've also seen a…

Yea, that's an interesting perspective. I do wondering if we can learn from a related, but successful form of failure content, which is the disaster/accident investigation videos. I watch a wide range from the classic TV airliner crashes [1], to highly detailed air crash disaster investigation reports / training [2], to industrial / other accidents [3], to gov't industrial accidents reports / simulations [4]. I wonde…

Great point. My guess is that it depends on the context.

Humans are natural storytellers. We're wired to encode our experiences as stories, share stories, and recall the stories we've been told. But most importantly, we're wired to learn from stories. We aren't born with a lot of useful instinct like many animals are, so crucially we use stories to pass on knowledge. Knowledge is useful if it helps us pass on our genes. And to pass on our genes we must both survive (i.e. not die) and thrive (i.e. find and reproduce with mates).

I'd guess the darker stories like the ones you're sharing are about survival. They pass on useful knowledge about what not to do if you want to live. We're instinctively attracted to these kinds of stories. For example, when someone dies, we all want to know the story behind how. Ancient humans who possessed a similar morbid curiosity probably out-survived their brethren. And we're their descendants.

On the flip side, success stories are about thriving. They're about accruing resources, status, respect, social capital. Sometimes they're about surviving too, e.g. climbing a tree to escape a lion, or finding the right kinds of food to forage for in a particular neck of the woods. The useful knowledge in these stories usually exists in the form of some special insight, or a set of behaviors or instructions. These are stories about things you should remember to do, rather than things you should avoid.

So it would make sense for aspiring entrepreneurs, public speakers, etc. to want to study success stories; and for pilots, race car drivers, etc. to want to study failure stories. I'd also wager that people who are aspiring to achieve something care more about success stories.

Re: The Social Radars: Conversations with Startup Founders

#32
post #29
post #8

Any chance they break out of the survivorship bias bubble in their discussions? I largely stopped listening to Acquired because of that. I want more stories about startups that failed while doing seemingly the right thing, and fewer about startups that probably got lucky.

Ironically, this perspective itself is a result of survivorship bias. There are seemingly so few podcasts and publications about failure stories that it must be a rare and unique idea to start one, right? But the reality is that it's a very common idea. I feature success stories on my podcast (Indie Hackers), and I've been getting requests for "more failure stories" since day #1. I've tried them, and I've also seen a…

I think it might be more instructive to have a side by side comparison: why did startup A in fail and startup B succeed, assuming they are in the same space?

For example, why did Facebook take over the world and not MySpace? Why did DOS beat CP/M?

Or a non-tech example: why did Amundsen beat Scott to the South Pole? Was it down to technique (e.g. using dogs instead of motored vehicles) or mindset?

Re: The Social Radars: Conversations with Startup Founders

#33
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, this perspective itself is a result of survivorship bias. There are seemingly so few podcasts and publications about failure stories that it must be a rare and unique idea to start one, right? But the reality is that it's a very common idea. I feature success stories on my podcast (Indie Hackers), and I've been getting requests for "more failure stories" since day #1. I've tried them, and I've also seen a…

Yea, that's an interesting perspective. I do wondering if we can learn from a related, but successful form of failure content, which is the disaster/accident investigation videos. I watch a wide range from the classic TV airliner crashes [1], to highly detailed air crash disaster investigation reports / training [2], to industrial / other accidents [3], to gov't industrial accidents reports / simulations [4]. I wonde…

I wonder if the unusual is what is interesting, hence air crashes and startup successes

Re: The Social Radars: Conversations with Startup Founders

#34
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reasons people give for why they failed are no more reliable than reasons they give for why they succeeded 100% true. That's why when you learn about other ventures, successful or not, what the founders say are the important features aren't really the part that you should pay the most attention to.

What specifically in your opinion are you supposed to pay attention to?

What actually happened.

A founder's analysis of the events is not without value, and shouldn't be ignored, but it's not the most important part. Any founder's analysis will be heavily subjective, after all.

Re: The Social Radars: Conversations with Startup Founders

#35
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically in your opinion are you supposed to pay attention to?

What actually happened. A founder's analysis of the events is not without value, and shouldn't be ignored, but it's not the most important part. Any founder's analysis will be heavily subjective, after all.

Founder awareness of what even happened in my experience is highly biased. Likely even worse than reliability of eyewitness testimony, since they were actively participating in the situation.
Post reply on HN