Investment rule of thumb: If a company is run by an MBA type CEO, then don't invest!
This idea is shared by both Steve Jobs and Elon Musk.
The problem with MBA type CEOs is that they don't have a deep understanding of what a company does. To efficiently deeply financial resources to drive growth, you need a deep first principled understanding, and that only comes from being in the trenches.
Science and technology makes non-stop progress. The problem with bean counter types is that they don't see other challengers that will eating their lunch. If this happens, a company can disappear overnight.
Bean counter types are also not the kind of people with the vision to lead an innovative effort. Actually, they are few people in mature companies that have the drive to seek innovation. That's why startups will always exist.
There is of course no fool proof strategy on investing on innovative companies. Like VCs, one should throw a wide net. Invest in new ideas, but don't risk everything if they don't pan out. Making a killing in investment is also a matter of being lucky!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Knowledge captures our Known Knowns and Known Unknowns. Unknown Unknowns expresses our ignorance. Unknown Knowns reveal the realness of our Intuition.
Knowable Knowns are inferred by Deduction. Knowable Unknowns are inferred by Abduction. Unknowable Knowns is a feature of Universal Computation. Unknowable Unknowns is the shadow that is cast by the Implicate Order.
The process of mastery begins with the Unknown Unknown. Followed by the experience of the Known Unknown. The practice of the Known Known. To find mastery in the state of the Unknown Known.
Interdisciplinary scholars are the people who are ritually sacrificed on the altar of traditional scientific disciplines.
How else does an entrenched hierarchy enforce solidarity without making examples of a number of revolutionaries and potential heretics? There must be consequences from challenging the faith.
The origin story of Christianity revolves around an established religious hierarchy making a revolutionary into a sacrificial lamb. Throughout human history, those who challenge the orthodoxy, those who stray from the straight line are made examples of.
The Nature versus Nurture is a debate about scientific doctrine. It is a debate about the correct way of explanation for cognition.
The Representation versus Non-Representation shares the same debate. It is also about the correct way of explanation for cognition.
It is also the difference between thinking in nouns versus thinking in verbs. Nature and Representation have deep roots in Western thinking. It is a functionalist and reductionist way of thinking that meets its limits when analyzing complex adaptive systems.
Why does cognitivism insist on representations and enactivism insist on non-representations? Is there something subtle going on that isn't obvious?
I'm reading 'Catching Ourselves in the Act' and it sure as hell adamant that there are no-representations in cognition. amazon.com/Catching-Ourse…
We all have the intuitive notion that a simulation is not the same as the real thing. Why? Because our intuition tells us that something that emulates how something looks (i.e. representation) is not the same as the real thing.
We have an antiquated notion of free speech that breaks down in an environment where a sucker is born every microsecond.
The founding fathers could not imagine that your attention could be hijacked from inside the comfort of your home. Their only notion of information dissemination was exclusively through a town square.
The constitution writers could never have imagined the Nigerian scam. That is, the most outrageous of a lie would be a mechanism for the gullible to self-identify.