You didn't see it coming
aishwaryagoel.com
aishwaryagoel.com
> But that kind of honesty doesn't get shared or saved on LinkedIn and X/Twitter.
Because honesty is not incentivised nor rewarded, the rewards come to the deceivers, the ones inflating and exaggerating claims to their customers and investors.
It's all smoke and mirrors, founders searching for funding won't get any money from being honest, the same for workers, honesty is not appreciated nor valued during the hiring/funding process, hell, it's not even appreciated in a lot of working environments where being honest would save a lot of headache and waste.
We all need more "real" but there's nothing incentivising for realness, even less within social media where it's all bluster chasing a dollar.
This is what sustains this whole economic bubble built on debt and future promises. At all levels of society, you have these inflated unrealistic expectations and BS circulating in the media. Technically-incompetent but eloquent and charismatic CEOs predict that in 6 months, some major technological shift will happen. Managers preach about adjusting their organisations to these new realities. Workers have no choice but to play the game with all its dirty tricks, if they want to stay employed. Anyone who dares to say that the emperor has no clothes is isolated in a dark corner because they may suddenly deflate the value of the whole economy. This is corporate feudalism disguised as a competitive economy.
> #Personal Growth
Why not spend a bit of effort to rewrite the draft yourself? That's how you learn, and well, grow as a writer and a thinker.
Some level of retrospective pat on back is necessary if all of the competition is doing it
I know people like prediction markets for this reason. There is no hiding. You’re either right or not
I personally can't take this self promotion that has become very necessary in many parts of our industry so I stay clear of places where it is exercised.
Often these things lead to wrong motivations for people who consider them as experts
One way it can happen is by unguided learning only from context, ie you heard or saw the term used and formed your own recognition pattern, without ever consulting a reference to find out if the guess was correct.
What you described sounds more like either a lack of awareness or revisionism (depending on how conscious it is).
There are parallels, though, and I don't like the snark you're getting from other replies here. Both relate to how identity and image drive beliefs. You could even frame the revisionist founder as having cognitive dissonance about what the primary reasons are for their decisions.
The resolution is to revise the motivations for doing whatever it was that turned out better.
Because people do a lot to avoid cognitive dissonance
Bad outcome - nothing to do with our decision, external events that we could never have foreseen are at fault.
This founder is doing that by putting a positive spin on their constraints in their social media posts.
Fallibility is important and I hope that founder is honest with their team, but at the same time keeping a positive public narrative about your company is also important. Not everyone has to perform their growing pains in public.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/feb/09/noki...
We weren't discussing truth, but honesty. Someone deluded can still be honest given what they (falsely) believe.
Besides, I wrote about how there are multiple incentives to lie, and a platform were you're not having a financial interest in what you write, removes some big ones. Doesn't mean something like 4chan doesn't have others.
Still, I'd expect to find a homest to god personal confession in 4chan or Reddit way more than on LinkedIn.
James Dyson, the salesman of (slightly crap) vacuum cleaners to the middle classes?
I believe he was called out by those middles classes for advocating Brexit to "boost British industry" and invest in Britain, then promptly shifting his operations to Singapore.
His modus operandi is to take something that has an inherent compromise, which exists for a specific reason, and to remove that compromise, thereby slightly improving one thing at the larger expense of something else.
The most obvious example is his vacuum cleaners - his big "innovation" was to remove the bag, which exists to make it easy to empty and to stop the dust from clogging up the workings of the machine, at the expense of a very small amount of suction power. Reviews everywhere say the same thing, always - they last no time at all before the suction power drops substantially because of the clogging-up. I've heard so many times about people making money by rescuing and reselling dumped Dyson vacuum cleaners that "just" needed dismantling and thoroughly cleaning.
Another example is hand dryers - basically just increase the power at the expense of (1) deafening noise and (2) blasting damp germ-filled air everywhere, for which they had to be banned from being installed at any NHS site in the UK, notwithstanding their marketing claims about somehow purifying the blasted air.
He's clearly a brilliant businessman - he's made a fortune from selling these items via top-notch marketing. But he's wrongly described as an "inventor", one of those words a certain class of people love to call themselves. At what point does the act of removing a carefully-designed compromise feature (a fix to one issue at the relatively small expense of something else - a net positive) from an existing piece of equipment, become inventing something new?
If you do b2b ofcourse there's going to be money flowing, that's not news.