That short-term vs long-term distinction is really important. I agree that most major forces/movements start small (Facebook at Harvard, Apple at the Homebrew Computer Club), and that elite universities definitely would’ve been my pick of places to start.
Correct me if I’m reading into this wrong, but I think you’re also implicitly suggesting that a funding-constrained org should be elitist, and a talent-constrained org shouldn’t be. I think I agree with this, and finding talent in places we wouldn’t conventionally expect it to be is going to become increasingly important as the old sources of talent dry up.
Not exactly what I meant. Specifically, when the amount of people are the bottleneck, then yeah, don’t be elitist, you just hire people. It’s in the higher and more-variance impact that intelligence matters far more.
Basically: The higher the variance of impact, the more intelligence matters. The lower the variance, the less intelligence matters.
That short-term vs long-term distinction is really important. I agree that most major forces/movements start small (Facebook at Harvard, Apple at the Homebrew Computer Club), and that elite universities definitely would’ve been my pick of places to start.
Correct me if I’m reading into this wrong, but I think you’re also implicitly suggesting that a funding-constrained org should be elitist, and a talent-constrained org shouldn’t be. I think I agree with this, and finding talent in places we wouldn’t conventionally expect it to be is going to become increasingly important as the old sources of talent dry up.
Not exactly what I meant. Specifically, when the amount of people are the bottleneck, then yeah, don’t be elitist, you just hire people. It’s in the higher and more-variance impact that intelligence matters far more.
Basically: The higher the variance of impact, the more intelligence matters. The lower the variance, the less intelligence matters.