Not necessarily. What if the knowledge that the bias isn't true isn't yet known to anyone in the VC culture?
-
-
Replying to @DavidDeutschOxf @webdevMason
In academic fields, it is disturbingly common for entire fields to be in thrall to a misconception, to their detriment, for decades.
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @DavidDeutschOxf
Right, but... a weakness of academia is that too often ideas aren’t expected to pay their own rent Shots fired
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I suspect this varies a lot by field? But you shouldn’t expect bad ideas to last long under conditions where the more that rests on them, the greater the *literal* bounty on a correction. And you should expect them to live long where there’s no bounty, only a guillotine
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
As much as I enjoy academia bashing, there are bounties there too. They might not take the form of cash but there are people who'd work tirelessly to be recognised for correcting a particular misconception. And there are other bounties too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
I agree, but I think (a) they don’t operate as efficiently as a literal market, which is what VC is, and (b) they vary widely by field, which essentially accounts for what we call “rigor” (less confident on that point)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I don't think rigour is the most important - it's caring about what the truth is that matters. If a community cares about that then people can advance in it by devoting their efforts to that. If instead a community cares about something else things tend to degenerate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
"If a community cares about that then people can advance in it by devoting their efforts to that." → But that community still needs to know what genuine truth-seeking looks like, which is easier when there is some actual gold to mine...you either come home with gold, or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
(For me, this manifests as a strong felt difference between e.g. "he was a great scientist, whose genius was only recognized after his death" and "he was a great businessman, whose genius was only recognized after his death.")
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I really like this comparison but wouldn't it be more accurate to compare such a scientist with a businessman who builds a company that makes no profits during his lifetime but then after his death becomes massively profitable and lasts for generations?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The question is: it just a coincidence that this scenario occurs infrequently enough to seem very weird, or does it suggest something about the nature of business?
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I don't think this scenario is that weird - lots of companies lose money before they make money. Some do this for decades. And while they do so they often have lots of detractors. So money-in-business and recognition-in-science are quite analogous.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
I think a goalpost shifted a bit there — from "recognition" to "money in." Yes, lots of companies lose money before they make money. But few companies look like abject failures for years under the guidance of someone who is later determined to be a business genius.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.