Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Running that strategy may or may not make him wrong.

Saying "actually, if I'd known I wouldn't've funded you", when (a) he already had (b) she was already committed to parenthood provided no useful information whatsoever to her ... except for the information that one of her investors was capable of engaging in pointless criticism based on couterfactuals and that as such her estimate of his capacity to maintain relationships with other people should likely be revised downwards.

Because, realistically, non-actionable after-the-fact criticism is a WOFTAM and risks damaging the relationship to no gain.




Elsewhere in the thread I agreed with this point. The profit-maximizing action for the investor to take would have been to hide his feelings of disappointment from the founder, and quietly alter his process and raise the bar for women or try to assess the likelihood of them becoming pregnant.

He screwed up and spoke honestly for a moment. That makes him human, not an asshole.


Given it's already happened, he should either be focusing on the specific negative consequences on her engagement with the startup ... or if there aren't any such, recalibrating to not be disappointed. Continuing to hold the estimate related to a guess when you're about to get actual data seems ... suboptimal, at best.

Also, I specifically said that the "estimate of his capacity to maintain relationships with other people should likely be revised downwards" which was intentionally rather more nuanced than "asshole"/"not an asshole".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: