4. PG is thinking about YC at a high level of abstraction (e.g., making it a productive place for thinkers and makers like Xerox PARC was) while also having Inside Baseball-level knowledge [1] of YC strategy and tactics (both successes and failures) in ways that most people don’t understand well and don’t really appreciate.
Based on my personal experience and on the experiences of people I know well, most people are fundamentally perceiving the challenges of elite performers vastly different than those elite performers do.
As a simple example in my personal life, I was once a top tier online poker player. Trying to talk about hand histories with lower stakes players, even if they were winners, was an exercise in futility. The things that they had to focus on in their main games was very different what I had to focus on in my main games. Hand reviews that I thought were works of art that showcased high-level thinking were semi-regularly panned by the peanut gallery.
I remember one post in particular where multiple small stakes players were trying to tell me and another winning pro about how bad we were for recommending and explaining a line he took in a medium-stakes live game. We both thought the line was sound both strategically and tactically (although not at all obvious), and all we got were comments like “I wish I was bankrolled for you game… I would clean you out by [insert a strategy that would cause them to be repeatedly violated in those games, even by the “bad” players]”.
I’ve seen similar examples in sports, business, and research.
I think many parts of the HN peanut gallery would probably be well-served by focusing on being more curious and less certain, especially when dealing with people who have been wildly successful in their field of choice.
Note that I’m not saying that 4 is the “right” answer, but I wanted to throw it out there as another possibility.
[1] Inside Baseball is a tv show that goes super deep and super technical into details of baseball-related topics.
I'd agree with this. Those who think at a high level of abstraction often come to conclusions that almost sound like cliche to those who are not: "what the users want", "think counterintuitively", "because smart people cluster," etc. The advices sound hollow, almost like a bad sales pitch. The weight comes from the one giving the advice. It may be an issue of writing technique, but not an issue of credibility.
4. PG is thinking about YC at a high level of abstraction (e.g., making it a productive place for thinkers and makers like Xerox PARC was) while also having Inside Baseball-level knowledge [1] of YC strategy and tactics (both successes and failures) in ways that most people don’t understand well and don’t really appreciate.
Based on my personal experience and on the experiences of people I know well, most people are fundamentally perceiving the challenges of elite performers vastly different than those elite performers do.
As a simple example in my personal life, I was once a top tier online poker player. Trying to talk about hand histories with lower stakes players, even if they were winners, was an exercise in futility. The things that they had to focus on in their main games was very different what I had to focus on in my main games. Hand reviews that I thought were works of art that showcased high-level thinking were semi-regularly panned by the peanut gallery.
I remember one post in particular where multiple small stakes players were trying to tell me and another winning pro about how bad we were for recommending and explaining a line he took in a medium-stakes live game. We both thought the line was sound both strategically and tactically (although not at all obvious), and all we got were comments like “I wish I was bankrolled for you game… I would clean you out by [insert a strategy that would cause them to be repeatedly violated in those games, even by the “bad” players]”.
I’ve seen similar examples in sports, business, and research.
I think many parts of the HN peanut gallery would probably be well-served by focusing on being more curious and less certain, especially when dealing with people who have been wildly successful in their field of choice.
Note that I’m not saying that 4 is the “right” answer, but I wanted to throw it out there as another possibility.
[1] Inside Baseball is a tv show that goes super deep and super technical into details of baseball-related topics.