31–38 of 38 posts
This blog post was served an opportunity on a silver platter to explain what's wrong with the responding tweet and instead contains a highly irrelevant analogy. Original Post: VCs respond if you say AI. VCS don't respond at all if you don't mention AI Response: You should be happy that they only respond to AI and not respond if you don't have AI OP calls the game rigged, but the response calls the game fair. That's w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's rigged against people that dont have that background. because plenty of people dont have that background (possibly even equally impressive, or more hard working, better leadership experience, better ideas) and without the pedigree get passed over by vcs, but this guy could fake everything, not get vetted, and get an inbound meeting on the right credentialism. And the irony is, the vc couldnt see it either!!
I pointed out in the article that this is the system working as intended. Getting a meeting with a VC is not the same thing as getting an investment. And if you're getting thousands of emails, it makes sense to prioritize the most impressive-sounding people as opposed to choosing randomly or something. There was also no control for this experiment, so we don't know what the alternative even looks like.
and if it is, it's toxic because people get into entrepreneurship because they think they have a shot. if they don't, because stupid credential X is not in their pocket, why the fuck should they even try?
of course there is not control. this is a tweet, not a submission to PNAS
This sums up what's become so exhausting about online discussion
Iron should be mandatory ages 4-12 to avoid these situations.
> People will argue with an individual as if that individual is the spokesperson for a larger group. People will call someone a hypocrite not for contradicting themselves, but for contradicting other people. This sums up what's become so exhausting about online discussion
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/01/16/the-internet-of-beefs/
The article is very useful. Reading it has inspired me to improve my own online behavior.
> People will argue with an individual as if that individual is the spokesperson for a larger group. People will call someone a hypocrite not for contradicting themselves, but for contradicting other people. This sums up what's become so exhausting about online discussion
1. Assuming you know how the person thinks from a small sample of comments they made. You may have missed the context (can happen on this platform sometimes since the reply may be very distant to the comment it replied to)
2. Assuming what you think they said is what they said for real. Topics that you dealt with can prime you to read certain things in certain ways. This can be bad if you mentally start adding words or sentiments that are not there.
3. Assuming someone is attacking you, personally. Most people don't know each other online, if someone responds critically to you the chances are very high they don't know you and are mostly focused on what you wrote. Maybe they have a point, maybe they read something into it and critque a point you didn't make or maybe they are a troll (so someone who is purposely inflammatory). But it is very rare for someone to attack a person for who they are. If you're attacked you're attacked for what you represent.