How to remain an expert in a changing world
If the world were static, we would have a monotonously increasing confidence in our principles. The more experience (especially diverse) our convictions experience, the more likely they are to be true. Most people think about their opinions like this. And they have the right to think so about things that almost do not change, such as, for example, the essence of man. But you cannot trust your opinion in the same way in those things that change, which can include almost everything else.
When experts make mistakes, this is often due to the fact that they are experts in an earlier version of the world.
Is it possible to avoid this? Can you resist outdated beliefs? To some extent, yes. I spent almost ten years investing in startups at an early stage and it is rather curious that defending myself from outdated beliefs is just what you have to do in order to be a successful investor. Most of the really good ideas of startups seem to be bad at first, and for many of them this happens because some changes in the world have turned them from bad to good. I spent a lot of time trying to learn to identify such ideas, and the methods I used can be applied to ideas in general.
The first step is to really believe in change. People who have fallen victim to the monotonously increasing confidence in their opinion, unconditionally accept the static nature of the world as truth. If you consciously remind yourself that this is not so, you begin to look for change.
')
What should you look for them? With the exception of a rather convenient generalization, that the human essence is unchangeable, the disappointing truth is that these changes are difficult to predict. This is to some extent a tautology, but it’s still worth remembering: significant changes usually occur where you don’t expect them at all.
So I'm not even trying to predict them. When asked to predict the future in an interview, I always have to come up with something plausible on the go, as if a student who was not prepared for the exam. [1] Of course, this is not because of laziness to prepare. It just seems to me that visions of the future are extremely rarely true, that they usually do not deserve the intransigence that they impose and that the best strategy is to simply remain truly open-minded. Instead of trying to move in the right direction, acknowledge that you have no idea which direction is right and instead try to be super sensitive to the wind of change.
Having working hypotheses is normal, even if they limit you a little, because they also motivate you. It is so exciting to strive for something and try to predict events. But you need to keep yourself in hand and not give hypotheses to strengthen in something more. [2]
I believe that this passive method is suitable not only for evaluating new ideas, but also for their search. To find a new idea, you need not just sit and invent it, but try to solve problems and simply do not underestimate the eccentric theories that arise in the process.
The wind of change originates in the subconscious of experts in some field. If you are quite an expert in your field, any crazy idea or, at first glance, an irrelevant question that came to your mind is in fact worthy of research. [3] In Y Combinator, when an idea is called insane, it is a compliment and, in fact, on average, probably a greater compliment than when an idea is called good.
Startup investors have an extraordinary interest in correcting outdated beliefs. If they can quickly identify other investors that a seemingly hopeless start-up is not really such, they will make a lot of money. But the interest here is even more than just financial. The investor's decisions are clearly checked for correctness: a startup comes to him and he has to say yes or no and then, quite soon, he will know the result. Investors who said no to Google (and there were several) will remember this for the rest of their lives.
Anyone who, in a sense, has to bet on ideas, and not just speak out about them, has a similar incentive. This means that anyone who wants to get such an incentive should change their statements on the bet: if you write on a particular topic in public and with long-term intentions, you will understand that you are much more worried about the fact that everything is reliable than most people would do. it is during a normal conversation. [four]
Another trick I’ve come up with to protect myself from outdated beliefs is to focus initially on people, not on the idea. Although the nature of future discoveries is unpredictable, I discovered that I can fairly accurately predict what type of people will do this. Cool new ideas arise from strong, energetic, free-thinking people.
A bet on people, not ideas, saved me countless times as an investor. For example, we thought Airbnb was a bad idea. But I must say that the founders were strong, energetic and free-thinking (yes, almost pathologically). So, we discarded all doubts and invested in them.
This is also similar to a technique that should be widely used. Surround yourself with people from whom new ideas come. If you want to quickly find out whether your beliefs are outdated, you will not find a better way than to make friends with people whose discoveries will do it themselves.
It’s pretty hard not to be held hostage to your own experience, but it will only get worse because change is accelerating. This is not a recent trend; change accelerated from the Paleolithic era. Ideas generate ideas. I would not expect this to change. But, maybe I'm wrong.
Notes:
[1] One of my tricks is to talk about the prospects of modernity about which most people are not yet aware.
[2] Especially if they become popular enough and people start following you. You should be extremely skeptical about the things you are going to believe, and when the hypothesis begins to identify with you, it will almost certainly lead to something like this.
[3] In practice, “quite an expert” does not necessarily imply being a recognized expert, which in any case is a backward indicator. In many areas, a year of focused work, plus really interested in this will be enough.
[4] Although they are public and remain there forever, comments on, say, forums and in places like Twitter are actually more like ordinary conversation. Threshold can be considered where you specify the title.
When experts make mistakes, this is often due to the fact that they are experts in an earlier version of the world.
Is it possible to avoid this? Can you resist outdated beliefs? To some extent, yes. I spent almost ten years investing in startups at an early stage and it is rather curious that defending myself from outdated beliefs is just what you have to do in order to be a successful investor. Most of the really good ideas of startups seem to be bad at first, and for many of them this happens because some changes in the world have turned them from bad to good. I spent a lot of time trying to learn to identify such ideas, and the methods I used can be applied to ideas in general.
The first step is to really believe in change. People who have fallen victim to the monotonously increasing confidence in their opinion, unconditionally accept the static nature of the world as truth. If you consciously remind yourself that this is not so, you begin to look for change.
')
What should you look for them? With the exception of a rather convenient generalization, that the human essence is unchangeable, the disappointing truth is that these changes are difficult to predict. This is to some extent a tautology, but it’s still worth remembering: significant changes usually occur where you don’t expect them at all.
So I'm not even trying to predict them. When asked to predict the future in an interview, I always have to come up with something plausible on the go, as if a student who was not prepared for the exam. [1] Of course, this is not because of laziness to prepare. It just seems to me that visions of the future are extremely rarely true, that they usually do not deserve the intransigence that they impose and that the best strategy is to simply remain truly open-minded. Instead of trying to move in the right direction, acknowledge that you have no idea which direction is right and instead try to be super sensitive to the wind of change.
Having working hypotheses is normal, even if they limit you a little, because they also motivate you. It is so exciting to strive for something and try to predict events. But you need to keep yourself in hand and not give hypotheses to strengthen in something more. [2]
I believe that this passive method is suitable not only for evaluating new ideas, but also for their search. To find a new idea, you need not just sit and invent it, but try to solve problems and simply do not underestimate the eccentric theories that arise in the process.
The wind of change originates in the subconscious of experts in some field. If you are quite an expert in your field, any crazy idea or, at first glance, an irrelevant question that came to your mind is in fact worthy of research. [3] In Y Combinator, when an idea is called insane, it is a compliment and, in fact, on average, probably a greater compliment than when an idea is called good.
Startup investors have an extraordinary interest in correcting outdated beliefs. If they can quickly identify other investors that a seemingly hopeless start-up is not really such, they will make a lot of money. But the interest here is even more than just financial. The investor's decisions are clearly checked for correctness: a startup comes to him and he has to say yes or no and then, quite soon, he will know the result. Investors who said no to Google (and there were several) will remember this for the rest of their lives.
Anyone who, in a sense, has to bet on ideas, and not just speak out about them, has a similar incentive. This means that anyone who wants to get such an incentive should change their statements on the bet: if you write on a particular topic in public and with long-term intentions, you will understand that you are much more worried about the fact that everything is reliable than most people would do. it is during a normal conversation. [four]
Another trick I’ve come up with to protect myself from outdated beliefs is to focus initially on people, not on the idea. Although the nature of future discoveries is unpredictable, I discovered that I can fairly accurately predict what type of people will do this. Cool new ideas arise from strong, energetic, free-thinking people.
A bet on people, not ideas, saved me countless times as an investor. For example, we thought Airbnb was a bad idea. But I must say that the founders were strong, energetic and free-thinking (yes, almost pathologically). So, we discarded all doubts and invested in them.
This is also similar to a technique that should be widely used. Surround yourself with people from whom new ideas come. If you want to quickly find out whether your beliefs are outdated, you will not find a better way than to make friends with people whose discoveries will do it themselves.
It’s pretty hard not to be held hostage to your own experience, but it will only get worse because change is accelerating. This is not a recent trend; change accelerated from the Paleolithic era. Ideas generate ideas. I would not expect this to change. But, maybe I'm wrong.
Notes:
[1] One of my tricks is to talk about the prospects of modernity about which most people are not yet aware.
[2] Especially if they become popular enough and people start following you. You should be extremely skeptical about the things you are going to believe, and when the hypothesis begins to identify with you, it will almost certainly lead to something like this.
[3] In practice, “quite an expert” does not necessarily imply being a recognized expert, which in any case is a backward indicator. In many areas, a year of focused work, plus really interested in this will be enough.
[4] Although they are public and remain there forever, comments on, say, forums and in places like Twitter are actually more like ordinary conversation. Threshold can be considered where you specify the title.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/246507/
All Articles