Dilbert's Scott Adams Has The Best Explanation Of Innovation In Silicon Valley Today That You'll Read

from the it's all psychology dept

Having spent nearly two decades in Silicon Valley, it’s always interesting to see how different people try to understand or explain the innovative process that happens here. Remember last week’s discussion on “disruptive innovation?” That’s just a small part of the larger debate, often perpetrated by folks who have little sense of what’s often going on in the startup and innovation world. So I find it interesting that after reading a bunch of opinions on that debate, a totally unrelated discussion hit home as being a hell of a lot more insightful and relevant to understanding a lot (though not all) of the innovation happening in Silicon Valley today, and it comes from Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame.

Adams, of course, is more than “just” a comic strip author, even if that’s what he’s most known for. He’s started a few other businesses over time and is apparently hard at work on an internet startup. He also tends to post thought-provoking posts to his blog pretty frequently, even if he admits that much of the time he’s just trolling to get responses out of people. Sometimes I strongly agree with him, and at other times, I vehemently disagree. But one of his recent posts on the nature of innovation in Silicon Valley is really worth reading.

It starts out by clearly setting itself up to mock the overused and overhyped concept among startups of the pivot — a startup totally changing product direction after realizing its existing offering was unlikely to go anywhere. This concept has often been mocked (perhaps rightfully so) as highlighting entrepreneurs who either lack the courage of their conviction, or who are unwilling to put in the long slog of building a real business. But while Adams could take the easy mocking route, he actually provides a lot more insight into what’s really happening, first highlighting how much of success in Silicon Valley is really due to luck.


The valley attracts some of the smartest humans on Earth, and each of those humans, being otherwise normal, probably assumed they could use their talent, brains, and hard work to achieve specific business goals, such as building product X and selling the company to Google for a billion dollars.

And then they find out that success in the start-up realm is mostly luck. They discover this by trying great ideas coupled with great execution and failing. And they further discover it by observing unexpected successes at other start-ups. Success simply can’t be predicted to any level of statistical comfort.

Smart observers in the valley look for the “tell” that an early stage start-up will be a winner, but none can be found. Oh, sure, the team needs to be smart, talented, and willing to work long hours. But nearly every start-up has that going for it. Most have great ideas as well. None of it predicts success.

This is an exaggeration, of course. A skilled and ready team executing well is better situated to capitalize on good luck — and there is a big variance in skills and execution among teams. But it is depressing how little people recognize or admit the role of luck in a successful startup. In my experience, first-time entrepreneurs who succeed take way too much credit for their own work. Those who struggled to build their business or who have a failure or two under their belts are much more willing to admit the role of luck (good or bad) in their eventual results.

But rather than taking this to the next expected place of laughing off the whole situation as an effort in being lucky, Adams points out that with the basic infrastructure of building a startup so commoditized, it changes the nature of innovation on the internet, such that it’s no longer about a technological advantage or innovation, but about psychology:


In an environment in which start-up resources are not limited, and no one can predict the next winner, and it is easy to measure customer behavior in great detail, the Internet is no longer a technology.

The Internet is a psychology experiment.

Building a product for the Internet is now the easy part. Getting people to understand the product and use it is the hard part. And the only way to make the hard part work is by testing one psychological hypothesis after another.

Every entrepreneur is now a psychologist by trade. The ONLY thing that matters to success in our anything-is-buildable Internet world is psychology. How does the customer perceive this product? What causes someone to share? What makes virality happen? What makes something sticky?

And that’s why you see so many companies “pivot.” Because as a psychology experiment, it becomes clear that the early results aren’t good, so it’s time to try something else. Whether or not this seems exciting or depressing to you may depend on your perspective, but Adams isn’t taking an opinion on the subject so much as describing what he’s observing, and it seems fairly accurate in my experience.

There’s one other bit of Adam’s post that is worth highlighting, because it’s something that people outside of the startup world almost never understand: the fact that while highly competitive, the level of “helping each other out” that goes on in Silicon Valley is quite incredible:


Another fascinating phenomenon in the valley is that every entrepreneur and investor seems genuinely interested in helping strangers succeed. I would go so far as to call it the defining feature of the start-up culture. Some of it has to do with the nature of entrepreneurs as serial problem-solvers. If you tell me what problem your start-up is experiencing, my reflex is to offer a suggestion or to connect you to someone who can help. And creating social capital makes a lot of sense when teams are fluid and who-you-know always matters. But beyond the practical and selfish benefits of being helpful, the dominant worldview in Silicon Valley is that if you aren’t trying to make the world better, you’re in the wrong line of work. The net effect is that the start-up culture is shockingly generous. If you need something for your start-up, folks will happily help you find it. I would have predicted the opposite.

Adams is not the only one who would have predicted the opposite. Time and time again, I hear outside observers believe that the startup world is very insular and only focused on their own goals. People frequently like to mock the “change the world” attitude of many entrepreneurs, finding it difficult to believe it’s sincere or genuine, rather than pure marketing hype. And, sure, there are some carpetbaggers who don’t believe it at all, but the degrees to which many in the Valley are legitimately trying to do amazing things and change the world is part of what’s so inspiring in an age where cynicism and protectionism is so prevalent elsewhere.

We’ve talked in the past about all the research that shows how widespread information sharing and job hopping made Silicon Valley into the innovative center of the world, and this is just an extension of that. Rather than creating silos inside big firms, Silicon Valley has long been about sharing ideas among a wide group of people, which actually helps accelerate the pace of those “psychological experiments” to figure out what works, and what will actually build a better, more innovative product.

It’s a really useful way of understanding Silicon Valley for those who haven’t lived it.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dilbert's Scott Adams Has The Best Explanation Of Innovation In Silicon Valley Today That You'll Read”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
25 Comments
Vidiotsays:

Failure IS an option

Isn’t the “pivot” something to be rewarded?

A few of the corporations I work with have begun to embrace organized, codified systems for innovation, rightly recognizing that simply hiring bright, offbeat talent is no guarantee that innovative ideas will spring from their metaphorical loins.

But in the polite, uber-civilized corporate world, they’re finding they need to overcome two innate notions that threaten to dilute any attempt to innovate. First, you can’t politely smile and nod and passively encourage harebrained ideas. They’re using the phrase “constructive challenge” to signal it’s OK to ask the tough questions… potentially disqualify a colleague’s treasured brainchild. It’s not personal.

Second, they’re acknowledging, both socially and fiscally, that it’s OK to fail. If, after lots of work — design, testing, market research — it’s clear that they’ve missed the mark, or worse yet, that the marketplace has shifted, they’re giving themselves permission to call it a flop, rather than bravely slog on with a broken concept. They sanction the loss of time and money, and acknowledge the role of an occasional failure in innovation. And if you can turn that into a pivot, why not?

Anonymoussays:

People frequently like to mock the “change the world” attitude of many entrepreneurs[…]

People mock their naivety and the silly things that get touted as “world changing”. People mock the ridiculous way the attitude is expressed, when they make everything they say sound like a company PR prick.

People who don’t bury their enthusiasm under management-speak don’t get nearly the derision.

Kudos to Adams for saying “customer” instead of “consumer”.

John Fendersonsays:

Luck

But it is depressing how little people recognize or admit the role of luck in a successful startup.

Indeed. Succeeding in any given venture is at least 50% luck. It’s possible to reduce that percentage, in a way, by arranging things to maximize the odds of a lucky strike (maximizing your industry contacts, keeping your mind open to unexpected opportunities, arranging things so that it’s possible to take advantage of unexpected opportunities when the arrive, etc.)

However, I think there are two factors that encourage people to pretend that luck is an insignificant factor: ego and the need to instill confidence in the people you’re working with (investors, vendors, employees, etc.).

Regardless, lady luck always has the final say.

Yah Rightsays:

Re: Re: Luck

What you mean is have big heaping piles of money, that is the only determining factor in any venture. period without exception, also silicon valleys “innovation” is basically theft, all that money we gave to M$ and iApple should have just been given to Xerox we might have a stable mostly bug-less GUI operation system.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Luck

“What you mean is have big heaping piles of money, that is the only determining factor in any venture.”

Absolutely wrong. In fact, having big heaping piles of money reduces the likelihood of success. All other things being equal, a lean startup has a much better chance.

Personally, I’ve started a number of successful companies, most of them without a huge pile of cash. Some of them with nothing. So “without exception” is demonstrably incorrect.

Whateversays:

Another fascinating phenomenon in the valley is that every entrepreneur and investor seems genuinely interested in helping strangers succeed. I would go so far as to call it the defining feature of the start-up culture

Of course they are. There are many reasons here, not the least of which is getting the most chances to hit it rich yourself. Helping out early stage on a bunch of projects means you may be able to get into one of the winners and ride it to the top.

You may also be able to find people with good ideas or good skills but a dead project. They are ripe for the picking. You are helping them by helping yourself.

Understanding that Silicon Valley and many incubator nests are mostly about spraying as much shit at the wall as possible hoping for a hit. They don’t need many hits to make a good living, you only have to have a small interest in each one to get rich.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re:

Of course they are. There are many reasons here, not the least of which is getting the most chances to hit it rich yourself. Helping out early stage on a bunch of projects means you may be able to get into one of the winners and ride it to the top.

I have to admit that I’ve seen little to no evidence to support that claim at all. Much of the kind of “help” that I’ve seen doesn’t work like that. There is little in the way of quid pro quo, and it’s mostly just honestly people trying to help each other out.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

ie- it sounds feasible, but isn’t what’s actually happening.

If GP had read to the end of the paragraph quoted is this tidbit:

If you need something for your start-up, folks will happily help you find it. I would have predicted the opposite.

Adams is not the only one who would have predicted the opposite. Time and time again, I hear outside observers believe that the startup world is very insular and only focused on their own goals.

ie- the helping behaviour in Silicon Valley goes against expectations, aka that thing that you said that makes sense and sounds feasible… isn’t actually correct.

Not an Electronic Rodentsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Time and time again, I hear outside observers believe that the startup world is very insular and only focused on their own goals.

I have to wonder if this is because people don’t see startups, they see large corporations that have grown out of or fed off startups and selfishness at some point becomes a defining feature of almost every corporation.

Anonymoussays:

Using tracer bullets to find your solution

This idea of “pivoting” does remind me of the idea of “tracer bullets”. This is from the Pragmatic Programmer–which is about software development.

But both concepts is about making adjustments midstream to accomplish your goals.

Also of note is the change in culture in “silicon valley”. Like most places, it was about building a product you can sell to large numbers of people. Here, it is about developing an internet presence (okay, website) that attracts large numbers of people.

This matters as making substantial changes (“pivoting”) is easier for your website…

KJsays:

Mass. Gov. wants to ban noncompetes - legislature balks

Massachusetts Gov. Patrick has proposed banning noncompetes in MA as discussed in the NY Times at http://goo.gl/hFBgIq .

Unfortunately large MA companies like EMC ( http://goo.gl/KnF8yc ) have so far held the upper hand in the MA Legislature over the concerns of employees, groups like IEEE, and the venture capiltal community. Without mentioning employees, the House Chair of the joint committee that cut the noncompete ban from the Gov’s economic development bill told the Globe, “…he has heard from more companies that want to keep noncompete agreements in place than those that favor eliminating them.” ( http://goo.gl/GGdbCd )

There’s a committee hearing on July 1, 11am at the MA State House where residents can speak for 3 mins. each about the impact of noncompetes. See http://goo.gl/0n1V40 .

Besides California, noncompetes are unenforceable in India, and they require “reasonable compensation” in China.

KJsays:

Re: Re: Mass. Gov. wants to ban noncompetes - legislature balks

There’s a committee hearing on July 1, 11am at the MA State House…

Written testimony is welcome from MA residents who can’t attend the hearing as well as those who can. Email written testimony to Gale.Candaras and Thomas.McGee, both @masenate.gov; and to Joseph.Wagner and Ann-Margaret.Ferrante, both @mahouse.gov. Be sure to cc your state legislators who can be found via the NEVCA’s page at http://nononcompete.co .

Twitter search: #noncompete OR #killnoncompetes OR #noncompetes OR #nononcompetes OR #keepnoncompetes

Anonymoussays:

“Oh, sure, the team needs to be smart, talented, and willing to work long hours.”

I don’t think long hours are necessary at all. I’ve worked in big international companies and tiny startups. I’ve worked in projects where crunching was standard, and projects where it was the exception. Long hours were not a prerequisite for success. To the contrary, the most successful projects I’ve been a part of required little to no overtime.

In my experience, you get much better results from sticking to a sustainable development schedule and having your engineers produce consistent, high quality work rather than chasing an unrealistic ship date and having your engineers constantly crunching and producing minimum quality outputs so they can just shove the product out the door.

conflation

“Another fascinating phenomenon in the valley is that every entrepreneur and investor seems genuinely interested in helping strangers succeed”

No. They are genuinely interested in their own success. The success of strangers can pass as their success, but defining that success is up to them, not to the strangers. So while the success of strangers might well line up with their own success, conflating one with the other is incorrect. And if a startup can bamboozle strangers into thinking that they’ve succeeded, well, that’s pure gold right there.

Will Evanssays:

Pivot

“the pivot — a startup totally changing product direction after realizing its existing offering was unlikely to go anywhere.”

That is not the definition of a pivot. A pivot is only when of the 3 things: customer hypothesis, problem hypothesis, solution hypothesis, you change just 1 thing. An example is the zoom-in pivot, where the customer and problem where held constant, but Flickr zoom’d in just on photo sharing for gamers. A completely new business is not a pivot. I recommend you read Running Lean by Ash Maurya or Lean Analytics by Croll & Yoskovitz.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow