Hacker News Reader

Comment by woopwoop | Hacker News Reader

"Recipe for success: under-promise and over-deliver."

I have never seen evidence that this is true in general. The field I got my PhD in has breakthrough papers with titles like "The Euler Equations as Differential Inclusions" and "Bounded Gaps Between Primes". Would people in the field be worse off if breakthrough papers had titles like "Attention is all you need"? I'm unconvinced that they would be. Would politicians be more likely to win office if they made fewer promises on the campaign trail? I'm unconvinced. Are you more likely to get a job if you are meticulously fair in how you describe your background and experience, or if you puff yourself up? I think the world would be a better place if folks biased themselves in the direction of under-promising, but for any individual person I'm pretty skeptical that this is good advice.

View on HN

I've always interpreted "under-promise and over-deliver" as being about keeping your promises despite future unknowns. The simplest example I can think of: If you think some task will probably take 2 days, you say you'll do it in 3 days. If your original estimate was right, you'll be early, and others will just be pleasantly surprised (you over-delivered). If something unexpected comes up and your original estimate was too optimistic, you might still be able to do in the time you promised. Do this consistently, and you will get a reputation of delivering what you said you would.

Research article titles are descriptions of work already done, so I see them as "promises" of a different kind, and that's why the advice wouldn't apply. But if you said that you're going to write an article called "The Riemann hypothesis is true" before you have found a proof, then you're probably over-promising.

Campaign promises, on the other hand, are about future unknowns. I don't know much about campaigning, but I suspect politicians can get a way with over-promising better than most people, because the feedback cycle of elections is so slow.

From a webdev perspective this actually holds true. If we promise too much and deliver an underwhelming product the clients lose their minds. All those excuses never to pay.

are you, by any chance, a successful webdev though? I mean, are you, at least, a millionaire by being webdev? when you become one, then you can say this holds true.

Your argument, of under deliver and getting in trouble is something else entirely, not the opposition of OP's quote.

Economically it's my experience as a web dev that overselling is the best way to get more resources because people always fall in the trap of sunk cost.

It is easy to get more funding by whatever resource you want when you got at least a bit. For example, lets say I want to refactor a whole codebase and I oversell it to my boss that it will take only 2 weeks when in fact it will take 3. Very few managers will in my experience say no to you getting an extra week due to the sunk cost trap when they may say no if you said 3 weeks at the beginning.

Of course, people may get disgruntled and unhappy with you if this happens to frequently but it is a powerful phsycological trick you may use when you really need it.

Mathematics is actually one of the few remaining areas of intellectual pursuits which are by and large untainted by salesmanship. I hope it stays that way.

Theres nothing wrong with the idea of "advocacy". Often its right to make the best argument that you possibly can for a thing or a person. You just have to make sure that other people have the opportunity to advocate _their_ things or people. The rest of us make up our own minds about who we agree with the most, and in turn a healthy democracy emerges.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com