|
|
|
|
|
|
by itsoktocry
1420 days ago
|
|
|
>Being purely data-driven without good intuition and long-term bets (that can't be "proven" with data), and the product loses its soul. This sounds like post-hoc, anti-intellectual rationalization. How do you place long-term bets without a model to measure expectations versus outcomes? How do you know what good intuition is? There is a ton of research on "gut" calls that demonstrates it's random. >But data is not a substitute for good judgment Good judgement requires data. |
|
|
How is this anti-intellectual?
If you want, I can formalize as a game the problem of choosing business/product strategy in a competitive market with a continuous flow of imperfect information. I can then use ideas from controls to establish some upper bounds on what can be inferred from a continuous flow of information. I can then use that result to prove an impossibility result about the game. I can even tweak assumptions to get bounds on probability distributions which infer we'd be better off flipping a coin or whatever.
I'm not going to do the work, because intuition is almost always enough to identify these situations, but it's absolutely clear to me that results like this obviously exist and correspond to many real-world situations.
> Good judgement requires data.
It used to be that insisting on data-driven decision making was a hard pull. Now it's the opposite. Insisting on data where data cannot possibly provide enough signal to make a decision is the new form of anti-intellectualism. IMO.