Gustav Söderström

So if it's too easy to change people in a conspiracy theory, it's probably not true. So I think that's something very powerful. Good explanations need to be very hard to vary. So this is something I've tried to instill in my org. And I think there's an interesting meta point here, which is people ask me as a product person how much of product development is magic and how much is science.

So if it's too easy to change people in a conspiracy theory, it's probably not true. So I think that's something very powerful. Good explanations need to be very hard to vary. So this is something I've tried to instill in my org. And I think there's an interesting meta point here, which is people ask me as a product person how much of product development is magic and how much is science.

And I try to be provocative in saying I think it's exactly 100% science and 0% magic. And people get provoked because it implies... that there's no skill. I say it to provoke. What I mean is that certainly people are going to have pattern recognition in this neural network. They've seen a lot of examples. That's what we call seniority. And people have seen a lot of things.

And I try to be provocative in saying I think it's exactly 100% science and 0% magic. And people get provoked because it implies... that there's no skill. I say it to provoke. What I mean is that certainly people are going to have pattern recognition in this neural network. They've seen a lot of examples. That's what we call seniority. And people have seen a lot of things.

They're going to get instinctively to the right conclusion faster than others. So that is valuable. And I want lots of seniority. I don't discard seniority. And it brings you a lot of value. You can save a lot of time, a lot of mistakes. But the reason you call it magic is because that person can't explain it. It isn't actually magic. It's just science.

They're going to get instinctively to the right conclusion faster than others. So that is valuable. And I want lots of seniority. I don't discard seniority. And it brings you a lot of value. You can save a lot of time, a lot of mistakes. But the reason you call it magic is because that person can't explain it. It isn't actually magic. It's just science.

It's just you are not smart enough to explain yourself. If you could think even further and explain it and come up with an explanation for what you see, the way David Dodge does, it's so much more valuable for the company. If you have a theory, instead of saying, no, Patrick, my intuition is this. You're not smart enough to understand it, so I'm not going to tell you. Just do what I say.

It's just you are not smart enough to explain yourself. If you could think even further and explain it and come up with an explanation for what you see, the way David Dodge does, it's so much more valuable for the company. If you have a theory, instead of saying, no, Patrick, my intuition is this. You're not smart enough to understand it, so I'm not going to tell you. Just do what I say.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but it's not very helpful for you. When I leave the company, you're going to take over. You're like, I have no idea why they did that. You have to develop your own intuition and your own pattern recognition. But if I come up with an explanation, which is I think the psychological behavior of people, you know, it's like Kahneman's loss adversity or prospect theory.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but it's not very helpful for you. When I leave the company, you're going to take over. You're like, I have no idea why they did that. You have to develop your own intuition and your own pattern recognition. But if I come up with an explanation, which is I think the psychological behavior of people, you know, it's like Kahneman's loss adversity or prospect theory.

I think people value losing something one and a half times the value of getting it. So therefore we should not just launch feature and test it because it's 1.5x hard, more expensive to remove it. Then you have a theory and it can spread across the company in a week. And now everyone has that.

I think people value losing something one and a half times the value of getting it. So therefore we should not just launch feature and test it because it's 1.5x hard, more expensive to remove it. Then you have a theory and it can spread across the company in a week. And now everyone has that.

So I really want to force people in my company, even if we see something working in an A-B test, I try to tell them that I don't want to launch it until we at least have a theory of why it works. Even if it's super clear, there's a lot of pressure to launch it because there's engagement value and monetization. But I want you to at least have a theory.

So I really want to force people in my company, even if we see something working in an A-B test, I try to tell them that I don't want to launch it until we at least have a theory of why it works. Even if it's super clear, there's a lot of pressure to launch it because there's engagement value and monetization. But I want you to at least have a theory.

Because then over time, the company builds up a consumer theory. And if you have a strong consumer theory, then you can predict things that were very unlikely. What David Deutsch also says is that pattern recognition... will iteratively get you more on the same path, but it's never going to jump all the way from the geocentric to the heliocentric model.

Because then over time, the company builds up a consumer theory. And if you have a strong consumer theory, then you can predict things that were very unlikely. What David Deutsch also says is that pattern recognition... will iteratively get you more on the same path, but it's never going to jump all the way from the geocentric to the heliocentric model.

Only an explanation can take you to quantum physics. Entirely unintuitive. No pattern recognition gets you to maybe it's a wave and a particle at the same time.

Only an explanation can take you to quantum physics. Entirely unintuitive. No pattern recognition gets you to maybe it's a wave and a particle at the same time.

What's an example internally of a great explanation that then led to the geo to heliocentric type of jump? What's an example of how that actually played out? I think a good example...

What's an example internally of a great explanation that then led to the geo to heliocentric type of jump? What's an example of how that actually played out? I think a good example...