How long have you thought about picking the right company to work at? Probably not much.

That's a critical mistake. You're probably making many like this.

The time spent analyzing your options should be proportional to how expensive they are.

Time for a 🧵 on decision-making.
You might have suffered paralysis by analysis, or made decisions too rashly. What's the right balance of time needed to analyze your options?

Some ppl find a house, fall in love, and buy it on the spot. Bad.

Some spend hours comparing small items online to pick the best. Bad.
A company might make a 10-slide deck for a million-dollar decision, and a 100 slide deck to describe a process. Bad.

A company might spend months analyzing which one of 5 options to tackle, when in fact tackling them all could have only taken 4 months. Bad.
Here's the rule of thumb to avoid this type of mistake:
1. Look at how much each option would cost you
2. Spend a proportional amount of time analyzing them

You're going to spend 8h/day for years on a job. It's one of the most important decisions of your life. Once you commit, you usually don't leave quickly. It needs to be very well thought through. Spending months to pick the right company is the least you can do.
You spend one month comparing vacuum cleaners to pick the right one, which might cost you $200.
Picking the right $500k house? It should take 2000 times more.

You don't spend 2,000 months picking a house? Good.
It means you're spending waaay too much on that vacuum.
You're comparing 5 different options for your co

The cost of the due diligence should be proportional to the cost

You can carry out an initiative alone in 1 week?
Don't analyze it. Just do it.

Another one would commit 5 ppl for 4 months? Better be damn sure it's the right one.
You're managing COVID for a country.
Mandating masks costs nearly nothing to anybody and is likely to help stop the epidemic, even if the science is not clear cut? Do it immediately.
You've been dating people for 4 years and not sure whether you should settle or keep looking?
It depends by when you want to marry. If it's within 8 years, pick the next best partner. If it's in more than 8 years, don't commit yet.

There's a reason why companies spending billions to acquire other companies spend a lot of time and money on consultants and analysts. The cost of the due diligence is proportional to the acquisition.
Remember, when you're stuck analyzing something, or about to make a decision that feels rushed, think: How big is this commitment compared to the time I spent analyzing it?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tomas Pueyo

Tomas Pueyo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tomaspueyo

13 Jan
If you're 20 and want to get married by 30, how many ppl should you date?

Math has an answer for you. 🧵
It's hard.
On one side, you need to spend some time learning the quality of your potential partners.
On the other, you nee time to snatch the best candidate.

Too little exploration, and you might marry a dud.
Too little exploitation, and you might let the Right One pass.
This is a type of logic problem called explore-exploit.

The exploration is the time you need to learn about the best solution, and the exploitation period is the time you spend finding the solution once you know what to look for.
Read 6 tweets
10 Jan
It sounds to me like the debate about free speech is mixing 2 things completely different: The letter & spirit of the law. I don't think that's the right debate. So let's look at Trump, Social Networks, the future of speech, and much more. 🧵
1. The 1st amendment protects PRIVATE entities from the GOV.

That means you can say whatever you want without risking penalties from the gov. That's it.

You don't get to be heard. Others don't have a duty to listen. You're free to scream in the void.
So Sen Hawley is wrong—and he knows it.

Also, Trump doesn't have a right to his Twitter, YT, FB, Snap audiences.

That's even more obvious and stupid since he can say whatever he wants in his press room and the world will listen.

Read 27 tweets
4 Jan
Cases in the UK are up and to the right.
Probably due to the new strain.
What does that mean for your country? 🧵
Deaths are ~2 weeks delayed vs cases in the UK.
Since cases have doubled in the UK over the last 2 weeks, deaths will likely ~2x in the next 2 weeks, blowing past the April record.
Hospitalizations are already there.
Imagine the consequences for the healthcare system, and all the ppl who will also suffer because of its renewed collapse.
Read 20 tweets
30 Dec 20
Why are apologies so frequently unfulfilling?

They’re seen as status as opposed to learning.

So what’s a perfect apology?
If person W says “I was wrong, you were right”, our immediate reaction is that the right person (R) is better, smarter, and will gloat. W is humiliated, proven ignorant.

That’s why those in the wrong don’t want to acknowledge it, and hence mutter sorry
R hears muttering, and doesn’t think W really means it. So she’s not satisfied either.

But why? R did get an apology.

It’s because the point of the apology is to make sure it won’t happen again.
Read 7 tweets
29 Dec 20
And now for good news. Another failure of linear thinking: Vaccine rollouts.

Disregard comments such as “With the current level of vaccinations, it will take 3 years to vaccinate everybody!”

We will not have the current level of vaccinations for long.
Over the next few weeks, you will see how daily vaccination rates steadily increase. This is something humans, markets and govs are good at: making one single thing happen when there’s a huge incentive.
Even a linear growth in daily vaccinations would get lots of ppl vaccinated fast (quadratic growth):
Eg, If today the US vaccinates 100k ppl, tomorrow 120k, and 20k more every day, after 1 week you have 1.1M vaccinated, but by the end of next week 3.2M are vaccinated.
Read 4 tweets
29 Dec 20
The new strain of #COVID is more transmissible. Will it be deadlier?

Many ppl think not: "If a virus kills more quickly, it has fewer opportunities to spread. It's the transmission-virulence tradeoff."

Unfortunately, that's too simplistic. 🧵 Image
1. When a virus is more efficient, it reproduces faster, and that increases both transmissibility and virulence

2. The evidence of the transmission-virulence tradeoff theory is not that clear. This fantastic paper explains it well.… Image
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!