One key distinction in reading academic work is whether a paper can make causal claims - that can it show that changing one thing will definitely change another? “Correlation isn’t causation” is not actually a useful rule to figure this out, this thread has more 👇
Many academic articles are paywalled (I usually don’t post a link if an article is only available for 💵), but it is often possible to find a open copy. Here’s a guide to some ways that can help: jaranta.github.io/getting-access…
I hadn't heard of the "twisties" before, but it turns out to be a known & not well-understood risk for elite athletes, like the "yips" in 🏌️♂️& "target panic" in 🏹 (except much more dangerous!) - a sudden loss of elite skills. This was a helpful overview: frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…
Also, to be clear, I am not a sports psychologist, so my reading suggestion could be wrong- more expert people should please feel free to correct me! But it does highlight how incredibly complex true mastery and expert ability is (and how little we really understand it)
I like this classic description of how experts differ from non-experts. Making it harder: experts have trouble explaining the principles behind what they do in a way that non-experts can usnderstand. They just operate at a different level.
You have probably heard the argument that we might be living in a simulation, but no one asks the next obvious question: if we were, when would someone turn it off? Well, this paper decided that the answer is "soon" - either out of boredom or to save money arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pape…
Seven classes of strategic errors:
I Misinformation: claiming a data relationship that isn’t there
II Misinformation: missing a relationship
III Vision: Solving wrong problem
IV Innovation: Not generating alternatives
V Inaction
VI Action: Acting when you shouldn’t
VII Cascade!
This paper outlines 7 classes of errors that affect strategic decision makers, ending with the epic-sounding Type VII Iatrogensis Cascade. Also, there’s a list of questions to ask yourself to avoid cascades. The paper is readable & full of examples. semanticscholar.org/paper/Decision…
Many of these are warnings for entrepreneurs. Positives about founders (bias towards action, willingness to experiment) can become negatives if not also tempered with a little planning & patience. It is why having a formal business plan increases a startup's chances by 10-20%.
If you are an entrepreneur, you have probably engaged with the idea of "lean startups." As academics have begun to study the lean startup in more detail, they have started to uncover both big advantages & some real downsides. I wrote a summary of these: hbr.org/2019/10/what-t…
The good stuff: treating startups as experiments by generating hypotheses and testing them. This is at the heart of lean startup approaches, and several gold-standard randomized studies now show it actually helps startups make more money
A downside: lean startups are biased towards very specific experiments: fast ones with easily measured outcomes. Startups using lean methods are thus less likely to engage in innovation & strategic leaps. (Also, using the Business Model Canvas has risks) sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Research has been documenting an increasing "burden of knowledge" - we are learning so much that it is harder to master a field, so young scientists can be at a disadvantage in both research & entrepreneurship.
By way of illustration: Roche's maps of cellular & metabolic process