this is a great idea! more symmetry is always better. It would be good to test against no course as well tho.
the big winners probably overestimated their likely hood of success
It seems odd to bring this up.
And so what? They won. If they used irrational methods (which they probably did), we should study those methods, pull out the rational core and use it to go start some businesses.
JG likely meant “likelihood” in the LW/Bayesian sense, where the proper estimate is the one that is justified by the available evidence at the time of estimation, not the one that is subsequently justified by the way things turned out. It’s often useful to keep those concepts separate.
That’s a good point. I agree with it, and that’s how I try to use the term. Equivalent to your formulation: I was imagining the people who are just like the success stories you’re trying to emulate, who weren’t so lucky—how many of them are there, and what did they lose by trying and failing?
From what I’ve heard, if you fail at a startup, you come out of it with zero net worth and a lot of experience. So you don’t lost much, even if it is not optimally productive.
If they used irrational methods (which they probably did), we should study those methods, pull out the rational core and use it to go start some businesses.
A proposal worth trying. My point is that we should ideally be able to do the correct expected value + risk tolerance calculation in deciding whether to try a given venture, and that many of those who succeeded skipped that step or made an optimistic error. More generally, studying what properties are most frequent amongst the winners doesn’t tell you enough about the value of acquiring those properties. (I’m assuming you care what happens to you if you fail.)
I’m hopeful that if overconfidence is necessary in a method-acting or emotional-battery sense, someone who understands that they’re being overconfident can nonetheless knowingly push their affect in that direction (an open question).
this is a great idea! more symmetry is always better. It would be good to test against no course as well tho.
It seems odd to bring this up. And so what? They won. If they used irrational methods (which they probably did), we should study those methods, pull out the rational core and use it to go start some businesses.
JG likely meant “likelihood” in the LW/Bayesian sense, where the proper estimate is the one that is justified by the available evidence at the time of estimation, not the one that is subsequently justified by the way things turned out. It’s often useful to keep those concepts separate.
That’s a good point. I agree with it, and that’s how I try to use the term. Equivalent to your formulation: I was imagining the people who are just like the success stories you’re trying to emulate, who weren’t so lucky—how many of them are there, and what did they lose by trying and failing?
From what I’ve heard, if you fail at a startup, you come out of it with zero net worth and a lot of experience. So you don’t lost much, even if it is not optimally productive.
I agree, but I consider the opportunity cost (and stress/sleep/health toll) significant.
Oops. You are right they should be separate. Fixed.
A proposal worth trying. My point is that we should ideally be able to do the correct expected value + risk tolerance calculation in deciding whether to try a given venture, and that many of those who succeeded skipped that step or made an optimistic error. More generally, studying what properties are most frequent amongst the winners doesn’t tell you enough about the value of acquiring those properties. (I’m assuming you care what happens to you if you fail.)
I’m hopeful that if overconfidence is necessary in a method-acting or emotional-battery sense, someone who understands that they’re being overconfident can nonetheless knowingly push their affect in that direction (an open question).