Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Pelle's avatar

I’m not a VC but I think about this all the time 😂 I can see how this is large enough a topic to discuss on an ongoing basis. It’s definitely under-discussed.

Here are some thoughts of mine:

Non-consensus and wrong = embarrassed

Consensus and right = great

Consensus and wrong = fine

Non-consensus and right = genius

Now, weirdly it does seem to be the case that the expected value of genius + embarrassed is lower than the expected value of fine + great.

This must mean that the tail outcome on the downside -which is only -1x in financial terms! - needs to be pretty much unbounded in non-financial terms. What non-financial terms is that? Well, the signalling it involves in our mimetic human nature.

Ergo: testing for how afraid someone is to be embarrassed should be a decent tell of they at least have a chance of being a great VC.

Expand full comment
Mark Bills's avatar

I purchased and began reading “Pattern Breakers” today. The “Just a Lucky Fool?” section in the Introduction brought to mind the concept of “The Inevitability of Retrospect,” which Rust Hills introduced in his book “Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular.”

Adapting it to entrepreneurship, suppose an entrepreneur makes one binary decision each month for two years. This means that almost 17 million (2^24-1) alternative futures would have materialized if different decisions were made at each juncture. However, looking back, only one path leads from where the entrepreneur started to where they are today. If the entrepreneur is successful, they will most likely attribute their success to some combination of their brilliance, their ability to pivot, etc., not luck. And they rarely consider whether any of the other 17 million possible futures could have turned out even better.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts