Friendly advice, if you’re looking for a co-founder, please don’t start with a depressive laundry list of your baggage while suggesting a risky venture.
We’re all human, and have our issues. But your post does not make you come off as a professional or technically capable or reliable business partner. I don’t mean to be harsh, but just some candid feedback.
My suggestion is to take some time off to assess if you don’t have burnout.
That said, you were smart enough to get into medical school, and are a practicing doctor from what I can tell. My suggestion is to keep the stable income from your current job flowing, while working on your startup as a side project. It would make the most sense to jump over full time when you have something solid.
You can even use part of your current income to hire one full time software developer to work on something for you. Make sure you have a solid NDA or contract so they don’t steal any of your IP.
Sorry if anything I said made you feel bad, that wasn’t my intent.
Someone would hate that I’d say this, but it really depends if you’re white vs. a minority. Minorities need more education AND experience to justify their employment.
You thought if you're a minority then you could just waltz on in and get a job because of DEI?
That's laughably, but also dangerously, naive. Naive as in you must still be pretty wet behind the ears, as they say. Naive as in you haven't been around in the working world all that long, or if you have, you've been amazingly imperceptive to what's been going on around you.
As a general rule of thumb, the OP is correct, minorities tend to have a significantly higher level of education and work experience for the jobs they're applying for. If the job requires a bachelor's degree, they'll have a masters. If the job requires 5 years' experience, they'll have 10. That sort of thing.
After they get hired, they'll have to endure their workmates talking behind their back that it was only because of DEI.
As a non-minority I do not envy these people one bit.
I never said anything about what I believe. I've been in the workforce for years and my parents are immigrants. I don't know where your response came from.
Good point - you said you thought that was the narrative, not what you believed. I'm sorry for conflating the two. My response then would be directed at anybody believing that narrative, which isn't you.
I read through this person’s post and the related, recent presentation which was rejected. I don’t understand why they’re bringing up this topic in hacker circles, in particular. Do they have evidence that these traits are more prevalent in hacker circles? Why this community in particular? Are they also trying to give similar presentations at JP Morgan or something similar?
I don’t disagree with their overall goal of bringing awareness to this issue, but I think they need to focus more on the behavioral science and how it impacts society at large. Trying to insert oneself into places with topics that seem “out of place” seems to indicate that perhaps you’re saying that that organization has an issue.
One more thing to note, people who come in with ideas of “empathy” or “altruism” in unrelated spaces may perhaps be trying to build a following, or recruit others to a cause.
I am not saying this presenter has a cause for which they’re looking for particular personality types, but that’s exactly how cult leaders build a following.
Cult leaders often seek out people sensitive to traumatic events or who’ve been traumatized themselves. Once cult leaders have some recruits, further recruitment is left to the initial people who joined.
Apologies if I missed these references in the article, I found that the essayist was confused about the actual roots of the myth. Rousseau comes at least 200 years later.
> The question has therefore been which subsets of the elite would break Republican. In tech, this is now clear: where Obama’s allies in the industry were social media platform moguls, Trump’s are crypto, AI, and biotech investors eager to accelerate America into a new Golden Age of innovation.
Robber barons without failure will always want to see themselves as bastions of intellectual progress and innovation. I think an objective approach to answer whether such personalities really bring forth what they promise is to look at the overall results of their labor. A very superficial example is that no country with an appreciable influence of such people has ever been voted high in the happiness index: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...
Perhaps, an interesting experiment would be for such robber barrons to try to utilize their great influence and intellect to teach those poor mongrels in high happiness countries all about innovation and technological progress.
Nope, plenty of mediocre people doing great based on nothing but virtue of where they were born or their parents. It’s all luck. Don’t believe me? Imagine what your life would be like if you didn’t get the key moments in your life which defined them. Would you fundamentally be doing the same thing? It’s hard for most people to answer this honestly. For poor people who made it: be honest about what gave you the opportunity to work hard or whatever. It’s probably the fact that you had parents or other support structure to uphold you when you were vulnerable.
Many such people who are entrepreneurs etc. right now would be in the service industry if not for their luck. That’s the only difference between most people, simply luck. That said, I have such admiration and respect for those who truly overcome odds to slowly or otherwise make it despite their bad luck. It’s hard to stop lying to each other about ideals of meritocracy or whatever because everyone has a self image and narrative they prefer about themselves or society. But do you really think that someone else who had your life wouldn’t have done the same as or better than you? Why do you think they’d be worse if you do? Cognitive biases are tricky, I wish people would stop lying to each other and themselves as that might perhaps make for a social environment which is optimal for most people’s self determination
Is there a study which has shown a decrease in Dunning-Kruger effect with varying competence over time? If the effect is real, then you’d see more accurate self-assessments with increasing competence.
I also think these self-assessment vs actual performance studies don’t control for post-assessment cognitive stress. Stress almost always impairs judgment, and I wonder if asking for a self-assessment on the day of the exam and sometime after the exam would show a difference. If stress is a factor for self-assessment, then both high and low performers will score themselves more accurately given more time after a test.
Looking at the study design of this paper, I am not sure how the authors themselves would assess its strength for the kind of broad claim they’re making…And we’ve already seen many studies on this type of claim, so I am confused why the authors didn’t ask the “next step” type of question as I mentioned above.
Consider that there are probably geniuses dying in rice fields, Gaza, or crushed to effective death due to poverty anywhere. Consider also that given enough resources and attention, any donkey can be made to believe that it’s a prized steed. The only defining characteristic is luck. The “genetics” answers has been drilled into wage slaves to make them believe they’re perpetually unworthy.
All that said, if you have the time and resources to pour into unabashed and uninterrupted learning, growing and exploring, it seems to help develop above average skill. Secondly, precise and guided attention and mentoring is very effective at reducing knowledge barriers.
There are literal geniuses, like Gauss for example, who can solve something on intuition without being taught, and there are maybe like 2-4 people who are actually like this alive today. The rest are seething and coping and pretending they’re genius, and taking the rage of their insecurities out on everyone else—a genius is the last person to talk about IQ tests, wordcels or shape rotators etc. Memorizing facts is not genius, it’s a memory trick.
If SV techies want to succeed in Europe, then they should be okay with valuing what Europeans value.
Europeans are not stupid, they prioritized different things, including market socialism in different countries. The Americans also need to remove their exceptionalism glasses and take a long hard look at their own selves—the average American citizen (digital or otherwise) is socially worse off than the average European citizen. The success of American companies is based on the financing environment in the U.S. and has less to do with “friction”. The “friction” exists because on average Europeans have different values. So really, wake up SV tech bros. That whole site is a big ball of yuck.
We’re all human, and have our issues. But your post does not make you come off as a professional or technically capable or reliable business partner. I don’t mean to be harsh, but just some candid feedback.
My suggestion is to take some time off to assess if you don’t have burnout.
That said, you were smart enough to get into medical school, and are a practicing doctor from what I can tell. My suggestion is to keep the stable income from your current job flowing, while working on your startup as a side project. It would make the most sense to jump over full time when you have something solid.
You can even use part of your current income to hire one full time software developer to work on something for you. Make sure you have a solid NDA or contract so they don’t steal any of your IP.
Sorry if anything I said made you feel bad, that wasn’t my intent.