
Some advice from Jeff Bezos - timf
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3289-some-advice-from-jeff-bezos
======
edw519
_If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from
multiple angles, they’re often wrong most of the time._

This works both ways. If someone can't get more than one level below the
surface and understand the details that form the whole, they’re also often
wrong much of the time. Just ask any boss I've ever had.

~~~
Cherian
Couldn’t agree more. This is one of those reasons why I desist have lawyers,
media gurus, MBA (just business) as bosses of “Tech” companies.

They just don’t have it in them to jump in and out of situations to think
through the most trivial of problems from multiple angles. They don’t know in
“5 seconds” if something can be done or if it’s complicated. It’s often a rush
to tackle competition or cutting out the oxygen and “do whatever it takes”.
Ordering subordinates to “deliver” in 3 weeks.

This is precisely the reason why I love someone like Larry Page or Sergey
running Google. They just knew that recruiting Urs Holzle to build world class
infrastructure early on was worth it.

A lifetime of learning to take noise in & conclude on the one signal that’s
worth it.

~~~
a5seo
I started as a programmer and got an MBA from an ok school (top 20). The
combination is very valuable (at least to me) for exactly the reason you cite:
the best decisions require wading around in the mucky details.

The MBA gives you a few tools that are helpful, but mainly it's a way to brand
yourself and have people give you the benefit of the doubt that you can do
things other than strictly build stuff.

I personally think the anti-patterns you describe-- the "do whatever it takes"
without having the first idea what that is-- are intellectually dishonest and
a sort of management-by-roulette. Sometimes you get lucky and it works out,
but I don't know how you'd sleep running things that way.

~~~
seivan
Oh really, what did the MBA teach you? What tools are useful in your arsenal
of building a great business and product?

~~~
slindstr
I also got my MBA after getting my BS in Computer Science and while I think I
could have learned most everything we talked about by reading books, I _did_
learn:

\- public speaking because we had to do a presentation just about every other
week

\- how business people with little or no technology experience think and their
perceptions about technology

\- how to talk to the people in the above bullet about technology

\- firing people because one of my groups had a member that was not pulling
her own weight, and we were told to fire her from the group

I also agree that the branding aspect is also (somehow) helpful. I recently
moved from Florida to SF and when I was looking for jobs you wouldn't believe
how many people were _really_ excited/impressed/whatever that I had an MBA in
addition to being able to answer the tough software questions.

If I had a choice to go back and either spend $50k on an MBA or spend it
traveling the world, I would definitely choose the latter, though.

~~~
drumdance
I almost got an MBA in my twenties but decided to start a company instead. My
reasoning was that it would cost me $40-50k to acquire, at which point I would
need to take a job for 3-4 years to pay it off. I always knew I wanted to
start a company so I figured I'd use those 5-6 years educating myself.

I don't regret the choice, but I think an MBA from a top school can expose you
to more complex and big $$$ business environments than you're likely to
discover on your own as an outsider without much experience.

------
Xcelerate
I would argue that this is _the_ defining factor in what makes someone
intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a
problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than
someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN
homepage ([http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-
consciousness...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-
consciousness/2012/10/18/how-do-you-spot-a-genius/)) elaborates on this point
of trying multiple "solution paths" to arrive at an answer to a problem.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people get it in their head that they've
discovered the "right way" and dismiss every other idea. This problem is
particularly notorious in subjects like quantum mechanics. The field is so
confusing that people find some kind of local comprehension maximum that they
get stuck in and refuse to budge from that sort of ideology (which is often
the _wrong_ ideology by the way since QM is such a deep subject. Throw some
quantum field theory or standard model physics at a quantum chemistry
professor or TA and they won't know what to make of it).

To give a more concrete example: did you know that a spinning ball weighs more
than the same ball when it is stationary? Tell this to someone decently
knowledgable in physics and there's a good chance they'll argue vehemently
against you based on their misunderstanding (or misinformation) of what
they've learned in the past. Sometimes the effort to convince someone of an
idea like this isn't worth the time; these people are locked into one way of
thinking and take it as an affront to their ego. There's limited intelligence
here. Don't want to be like this? Don't get angry when someone challenges you.
That's the best way to start. I've never understood why so many people get
upset if you try to point out a flaw in their reasoning. I've noticed this
sort of anger much less frequently on HN (on the other hand, there's
significantly more "you're wrong" posts than a normal discussion board).

In fact, do a little experiment if you wish. Look through HN stories and find
places where people challenge each other in the comments. If you notice
someone who says "you know what -- you're correct" or "yeah, that makes more
sense", there's a good chance they make a lot of intelligent posts on here. If
you find someone that _never_ concedes to anyone else, it's likely they are
locked into one and only one way of thinking and are unlikely to ever do
anything considered "genius".

~~~
davesims
Great comment. I appreciate the principle you're working towards, and largely
agree with it. But I wonder if the analogy with Physics works well as a broad
metaphor for "intelligence." The gaps between Newtonian, Quantum and
Relativity model physics are singular instances of a peculiar, nearly
paradoxical set of apparent contradictions that of course have yet to be fully
resolved. Each is correct within its own domain, and the full realization of
the implications of each requires complete commitment to the rules within the
domain to the exclusion of the other models.

So the analogy can also turn around and bite you here. If a researcher in
Quantum theory were to get hung up on the apparent contradictions between her
own research and the implications within one of the other models, she'd risk
being distracted and lose the fruitful path of research within her given
domain. In this case, a certain level of myopia is helpful.

Did Einstein's tremendous resistance to Heisenberg and Bohr impugn his
accomplishments in any way? Of course not. I don't think anyone would use that
as an example of diminished intelligence on Einstein's part.

Your broader point is valid: be open to other viewpoints. But at another
level, taking up a position and defending it has its practical advantages,
when the position/opinion shows fruitful results.

In software, I think of DHH's 'opinionated' approach to Rails and how that has
informed and guided the whole Ruby community. For many programmers Rails'
implicit, "magical" approach to coding is not as good as, for instance
Django/Python's more explicit philosophy. Both points of view are valid, but
the strengths of each would be diluted if they tried to do both. I also think
of the Torvalds/Tanenbaum debate over Kernel architectures. Deciding which is
correct is way above my pay grade, but it seems clear to me that Linus had to
take up a position here and commit to it in order for Linux to thrive the way
it has.

I also think of the common criticism of JavaScript's OO structures, that it's
a confusing hybrid of Prototypical and Classical OOP, leading to inconsistent
or confusing structures. Perhaps a thorough commitment to one or the other
would have been better?

So, on the one hand a certain openness and teachability is necessary, but then
at strategic points in the development of an idea, a certain stubbornness and
myopia seems to be equally important to the ultimate execution of a vision.

~~~
goblin89
A quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance comes to mind:

> You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one
> is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know
> it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to
> political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's
> always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

~~~
pullo
..or, you are seem fanatically dedicated to something because you are trying
to defend the fact that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. :) I read recently
that a great way to test a persons understanding of a problem, is to ask them
to argue for the opposing point of view.

------
ValG
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson.

When I first read that quote in early High School I didn't understand it. It
was the kind of thing that ate at me, I could not get what he was trying to
say. To me, consistency was an important part of life; the old adage that you
stick to your word. However, that quote transcends the idea of being
consistent, because when you often make decisions without all of the
information (especially in startups). As new information becomes available,
you have to incorporate it into your decision. Sometimes it makes you look
like a dick, or someone that doesn't know what direction they want to go to,
but that's where different skills (leadership and sales) come in to be able to
hold people together.

~~~
wissler
To be inconsistent is the easiest thing in the world: just refuse to think
about the meaning of what you believe or do. I don't think the point of
Bezos's remark was that we should aspire to be inconsistent, but rather, we
should be open to considering that our ideas might be wrong.

A better quote for this idea: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think
you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of
them is wrong."--Ayn Rand

~~~
locopati
'Contradictions do not exist' is nonsense. Contradictions exist all over the
place. Any time you get two people together you'll have contradictions due to
viewpoint, experience, perspectives. Denying that contradictions exist is a
child-like view of the world. Working with the contradictions of life, now
that's the fun and the challenge, isn't it?

~~~
wissler
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned
until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to
be burned is not the same as not to be burned."--Avicenna

~~~
theplatypus
A human brain is but a finite machine, therefore there are only finitely many
propositions which you believe. Let us label these propositions p1, p2, ...,
pn, where n is the number of propositions you believe. So you believe each of
the propositions p1, p2, ..., pn. Yet, unless you are conceited, you know that
you sometimes make mistakes, hence not everything you believe is true.
Therefore, if you are not conceited, you know that at least one of the
propositions, p1, p2, ..., pn is false. Yet you believe each of the
propositions p1, p2, ..., pn.

~~~
wissler
Humor?

------
kevinalexbrown
Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't
change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having
a difficult time inferring the significance of this post.

On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to
change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be
"right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to converge. In any case,
I'll be right a lot more than either a person whose mind does not tend to
change toward the correct solution, or someone whose mind does not change.
This seems true by definition.

On the other hand, if the correct solution changes rapidly and dramatically,
and my mind does not change as quickly, I will trivially be wrong a lot.

Likewise, focusing too much on "details that only support one point of view"
seems wrong by construction, unless you magically pick the right point of view
to begin with.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, seriously. I just feel like I must be
missing the significance. I've reread the post several times, but I don't see
it. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

~~~
ellyagg
As Keynes said, "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do
you do, sir?"

When I was younger, I didn't know what confirmation bias was. I had to be
introduced to the concept. After being introduced, I was able to make better
decisions. Although it may seem trivially true to you (now?), it's not to
everyone.

You may be reading more into "change their minds a lot" than is intended. A
lot in this context means "more than most people". There's a reason phrases
like "strong opinions, weakly held" become popular in rationalist circles.
It's an emphasis on better decision making.

I think the first time I heard about this idea was in Marilyn vos Savant's
Brain Building. She argued that societal infatuation with "having the courage
of your convictions" is not the redeeming quality it's made out to be. She
mentioned that she could always give her opinion on an issue, but she was also
always prepared to change her opinion upon new information.

I'm pretty sure Bezos does not mean you should change your mind 180 degrees at
each new contradictory piece of information. Like a Bayesian spam filter, if
you've had lots of pieces of evidence for one position, it should take lots or
very significant new evidence to change that position.

Decision making biases of various sorts are my chief pet peeve in modern life.
It's almost impossible to discuss public policy with people, even in the
smartest online forums I know. I think it's banned at Less Wrong. When I
listen to the media, I spend most of my time ticking of the biases I hear.

~~~
tsotha
>When I was younger, I didn't know what confirmation bias was. I had to be
introduced to the concept. After being introduced, I was able to make better
decisions.

Hah! You only think that because you're not counting the bad decisions.

>Decision making biases of various sorts are my chief pet peeve in modern
life. It's almost impossible to discuss public policy with people, even in the
smartest online forums I know. I think it's banned at Less Wrong. When I
listen to the media, I spend most of my time ticking of the biases I hear.

But biases are like stereotypes in that they're shortcuts your mind has
developed based on past experience. That's what people used to call "wisdom".

~~~
001sky
Not to be snarky or pedantic, but you're describing a Heuristic, not a bias.
On the other hand, Wisdom is in large part knowing what _not_ to do as a
starting point. It may be wrong, which would be in error, but a true bias
probably not.

___________

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_bias> Sherlock holmes: eliminate the
impossible, and what is left, however improbable is the truth. &tc.

~~~
robertskmiles
You're right about heuristics, but the relevant wiki page for bias is really
"Cognitive Bias"[1] rather than "Statistical Bias".

Also Holmes is not a good example of a rationalist; his main ability comes
from being a fictional protagonist. Holmes cannot be a much better source of
rationality advice than Conan Doyle, who quite literally _believed in
fairies_.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Bias>

~~~
001sky
This is actually a very good comment. Some of these ideas are nested,
logically. A Heuristic is not _per-se_ biased, although a subset of heuristics
is in fact associated with the origin of the term 'cognitive bias'. Viz,

 _Although much of the work of discovering heuristics in human decision-makers
was done by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman,[4] the concept was originally
introduced by Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon. Gerd Gigerenzer focuses on how
heuristics can be used to make judgments that are in principle accurate,
rather than producing cognitive biases_

------
callmeed
Good advice but I'm curious about:

 _"Jason Fried is the fastest white man you'll ever meet."_

Is Jason actually really fast and/or was he an athlete at a prior time?

~~~
dlss
Yeah, it was really weird hitting the bottom of the article only to find a
vaguely racist nonsensical byline.

~~~
MartinCron
I'm not going to defend the byline (because it's cheap and inappropriate for
the context) but there is a distinction between _racial_ humor and _racist_
humor. Not everything that addresses the concept of race is automatically
racist, especially when it's not mean-spirited or demeaning.

It's a line that I'm not clever enough to tread, but other people seem to pull
it off. Look at Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. Very racial, not really
racist.

~~~
TillE
> especially when it's not mean-spirited or demeaning.

This is a common misunderstanding about the nature of racism. Read about Asian
Americans and the model minority.

~~~
MartinCron
I don't see how you get from "model minority" to "absolutely any discussion
related to race is racist".

Sure, some things that aren't mean-spirited or demeaning are also racist, but
that doesn't mean that _everything_ is. Am I missing something? Serious
question.

------
RivieraKid
I never understood why consistent opinions are considered a good thing, it
doesn't make any sense. If I realize I'm wrong, why should I stick to the
wrong opinion?

~~~
corin_
The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person possible would be right 100%
of the time and therefore would never change their opinion because changing it
would go from right to wrong.

Therefore a simplistic view is that the closer to that person you are, the
better. Some people may even think they are that person.

Realising that you are not going to be correct 100% of the time is the first
step. The second step is working out when you are wrong, so you know when to
change your opinion. Nobody manages both these steps all the time, some people
rarely manage either.

~~~
tspiteri
_The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person possible would be right 100%
of the time and therefore would never change their opinion because changing it
would go from right to wrong._

A subtly different view: The hypothetical cleverest, most correct person
possible would be right close to 100% of the time because they would change
any wrong opinion almost immediately.

And with this view, the closer you are to that person, the better you really
are.

~~~
corin_
That's a much more realistic cleverest person, but in terms of hypotheticals
it is clearly better to be right 100% of the time than to almost immediately
change your opinion the 1% of the time you start off wrong.

~~~
Shorel
I believe that's an error in perception that has lead us to religion and other
"I'm always right" worldviews.

Actually, no, it is not better.

------
chrissr
Sure, that's his advice today, but what will it be tomorrow?

~~~
bilashbd
Even if the advice changes tomorrow, the current one hold true nevertheless!

------
n72
Hey, guess what, Jeff Bezos stopped by our office today. I just wanted
everyone to know that, so I posted about something platitudinous he said.

------
badhairday
Being right a lot is a core value of that Amazon requires in it's leaders. The
rest of the list is available here:

[http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-
Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&...](http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-
Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&node=239365011)

~~~
jasonfried
I hadn't seen this. Great list. I especially like "As we do new things, we
accept that we may be misunderstood for long periods of time."

------
mjt0229
Bezos's observation reminds me of Philip Tetlock's conclusions in "Expert
Political Judgement" (<http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html>). Tetlock
studied it pretty rigorously and came to a number of conclusions, but the
central thesis was that people who got things right the most were people who
thought by building up lots of competing models and evaluating all of them
(ie, having lots of little ideas) rather than guiding all their decisions by a
single ideology.

------
airnomad
Can't believe it. You had Bezos for 2 hours and this is all you bother to
share with us?

~~~
RyJones
The rest of his insights might give them some competitive advantage; perhaps,
however, he spent two hours extolling the virtues of assembling your own desks
and this bit was the only thing worthwhile to happen. I'll trust that they
curated the talk in the way most likely to drive page views, not in the way
most likely to enlighten the reader.

------
jonny_eh
And the sad thing is that society often punishes people who change their minds
or "flip-flop". See politics.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Flip-flopping in politics is often an insincere change of position for the
purpose of chasing votes.

~~~
silverbax88
That's true, except the definition is elastic in politics. A candidate who
thought a certain way at 18 years old is expected to still think the same way
- on all opinions - at 45, which is absolutely ludicrous.

~~~
papsosouid
That's a strawman though, nobody actually says that. People complain about
"flip flopping" when they see a politician campaigning and he or she says one
thing on tuesday, something contradictory on wednesday, and then is back to
the previous position again on thursday.

~~~
jlgreco
Usually when I see it, it is people complaining that a candidate endorsed
different viewpoints than they did during past elections (in other words, they
think something different than they did years ago). Kerry and Romney both come
to mind _(though to be clear, both (or at least Romney) have been accused of
the type you are talking about as well)_. Specifically I have heard some
people claim that Romney has flip-flopped because they perceive a difference
between his positions as a presidential candidate and as a governor.

~~~
papsosouid
I think a lot of that is just that if the person in question clearly does just
say whatever they think people want to hear, then a dramatic change in
position appears more likely to just be more of the same. Romney suddenly
being against "obamacare" is a good example. It doesn't appear that he changed
his mind because of new information, since he still claims his version of the
same thing is great, but Obama's is terrible.

~~~
MartinCron
Similarly, Romney has recently said "I have never said I was pro-choice" but
he did, multiple times, say that he "supports a woman's right to choose".

So, the verb form is OK but the noun form is absolutely not.

------
lucianop
"Strong opinions, weakly held"

------
duxup
I too am frequently right, after being wrong a bunch of times.

~~~
wtetzner
Right, the point is to not stay wrong.

------
ArbitraryLimits
"A professor's job is to _profess_ \- often wrong, but never in doubt."

------
dschiptsov
Nothing to see here, but, of course, straight from the horse's mouth..)

This particular trait is of a much bigger idea - an active, aware, never
satisfied beginners's mind, popularized in US by
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki>

A settled, stale, stagnant mind is a worst possible mental decease from a
Buddhist perspective, and, ironically, the most desired state of the mind for
a member of a totalitarian country or organization.)

------
brdrak
I work with someone who spends way too much time (IMO) making sure that he's
not wrong. Typically this involves not taking a stand until the results are in
and then claiming the position all along. Or simply lying about his position.
After witnessing this repeatedly I basically lost all respect for this person
and really dread any interaction.

Personally I don't care if someone (including myself) is right or wrong. I
often have to make technology recommendations that may turn out to be wrong
years down the line and end up costing the organization time and money. So far
I've been pretty lucky. I find it helpful to always include caveats in my
proposals and explain reasoning behind my recommendations. Of course putting
in the time to understand the issue, the market and the history is key.

I don't have a problem taking a stand and be proven wrong or adjusting my
position when new information becomes available. However, I wonder if this
attitude is hurting my standing with the organization compared with this other
guy who never seems to be wrong.

------
spenrose
Sounds like a modest twist on the Hedgehog and the Fox, star of a thousand
pop-science essays in the last few years:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox>

Note that (1) I agree and (2) there is nothing silly about the comments or the
link.

------
MattGrommes
Just the other day during a design discussion I was arguing for X instead of Y
and was reminded that I was the one who introduced Y earlier in the
discussion. I was finally able to bring out Walt Whitman during a technical
discussion and responded "I contain multitudes". :)

------
arvinjoar
Makes a lot of sense to be honest. If ideas aren't held too dearly you'll be
able to weed out the bad ones. A lot of people (myself included) have a
certain irrational loss aversion when it comes to ideas. I'm sure one could
find plenty of articles on this on LessWrong.

------
calinet6
In other words, _be a scientist._ Consider the truth as a distant target, and
our understanding only as an approximation based on the evidence we have right
now.

Scientists have known this for years. They have made it their whole way of
life—because it works, and it's true.

Smart people in all walks of life most certainly follow those same kinds of
scientific principles. Bezos is spot on, there's just an entire branch of
knowledge that's been spot on way before he was.

------
espeed
_He's observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their
understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved._

I think he's spot on, and this has been the basis for my manifesto
(<http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto>) -- I like to think of it as continually
_refining your perspective_.

------
gadders
Their angel investor.

------
jamiequint
This is kind ironic given that 37signals' is vehemently stubborn about many of
their points of view.

------
fakhrazeyev
Thank you for a great quality post. And, folks, please do not fear being
called a "flip-flopper"!

------
arbuge
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir? -
John Maynard Keynes

------
ahalan
In other words: breadth-first search is better when dealing with hard problems

------
mikek
Steve Jobs was also well known for his strong, but changing, opinions.

------
swah
Off-topic: how do they get typography so right?! If I just throw those fonts
on my site they will look crappy, but their articles are always great looking.

------
halayli
Should we all vote for Mitt Romney then? jk :)

------
nicholas73
Basically, people are stupid because they don't realize how stupid they are.

------
ezpassmac
Curious as to what Bezos thinks of the current state of politics. "He said
people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their
minds." Maybe he's voting for Mitt Romney.

