The threads on this site are full of arguments about sales and other company what not. Most devolve into t-t-for-tat arguments, similar to those of children playing cops and robbers.
This comment is from a post on Linked In regarding Carl Sagan's advice on "Baloney Detection". It's long, but seems appropriate. ('Company Man' (and Boy) should skip this, as your time is oh-so important.)
Carl Sagan offers timeless advice in his book of which one chapter, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, is discussed in posted article. I add comments to eight of his “tools” describing how today’s hypesters of technology and hashtag#startups are contradicting the essence of these tools, 30 years after Sagan wrote them.
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts. Don’t just accept Gartner’s hype cycle, consider multiple sources of facts such as market sizes, profitability, and progress.
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. How many hashtag#tech evangelists are willing to enter into a debate, particularly if facts are involved? How many are willing to debate the actual progress towards offering good value to users and extending that value further?
- Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. Today’s VCs and entrepreneurs have created huge loss-making companies, yet continue to hype their ideas. Much of the media continues to claim these people are the “authorities,” often times because they are rich.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. How many experts will admit that the huge losses and small markets suggest there is a problem with a general idea/technology. Instead, they will argue that users don’t understand or they are resisting the new hashtag#technology when the new technology just isn’t good enough.
- Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among multiple working hypotheses, has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. Go back to facts such as profitability and market size and debates about actual progress.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Today’s VCs and entrepreneurs are stuck because they invested their lives in an idea, and there is no going back. Even engineers feel they must keep claiming eventual success because they have invested years of their lives in something.
- Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. Try hashtag#startup profits and technology market sizes.
- If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them. One weakness in a new technology can keep it from succeeding. The challenge is to find that weakness, and then solve it, not to bury the weakness below a bunch of hashtag#hype.