I listened to this this morning and it was a great interview. Coincidentally, I listened to the latest episode Cowen's own podcast, featuring a conversation with his co-author, a couple of days ago. I usually like Cowen's podcast but really did not enjoy this episode, the book sounded like a typical VC/tech bro project and I had no interest in reading it.
Josh drew Tyler out on a broader range of issues associated with "talent" and matching, and made the book seem much more interesting as a result. Well done!
The (obviously correct) sentiment that IQ is overrated goes against my stereotype of tech bros, and made me want to read the book since some of the worst doctors I’ve worked with were excellent test takers who lacked at least one of work ethic or common sense. But maybe my impression of tech bros is wrong and they actually realize IQ truly is overrated? My experience is exactly the same as Cowen’s, which is that IQ is a yes/no variable, and the truly distinguishing things are vision, drive, etc
Thinking back on it, Tyler was ok but I didn’t enjoy the Gross observations so much. Not surprising, I guess, since a VC-centric worldview isn’t my jam.
It was unusual since I typically love CwT, even when I don’t think I’m interested in the topic/ guest.
This reminds of an interesting interview question I wish I could ask if I was on an interview panel: “on a scale of 1-10, how much of an attorney are you?” (Obviously this is for atty positions) The question is so open ended and the number is left to the interviewee’s interpretation
This may be only in my profession, but personality is very important. You need to be able to show interviewers that you’re not some weirdo they should just stick in a back room to read documents. I think the scale question at least reveals you’re not a robot.
Very interesting! I’m an attorney but moved away from the profession. Part of it for me, I think, is that I don’t like being in the position of an advocate—would prefer to stay neutral until there’s a critical mass of information. I like regulatory issues and abstract concepts like purview. Thinking about it on the scale you describe, I see that I wouldn’t rate myself so highly…
I’d rate myself a 5. I think about legal stuff sometimes off the clock (tv shows and movies with bad depictions of how the profession is) but I promptly stop working at 5pm, being in govt. why work more if I’m not being paid for it? I’ve even stopped mid typing of a email b/c I have an alarm that goes off at 5pm M-F 😋
I listened to this this morning and it was a great interview. Coincidentally, I listened to the latest episode Cowen's own podcast, featuring a conversation with his co-author, a couple of days ago. I usually like Cowen's podcast but really did not enjoy this episode, the book sounded like a typical VC/tech bro project and I had no interest in reading it.
Josh drew Tyler out on a broader range of issues associated with "talent" and matching, and made the book seem much more interesting as a result. Well done!
The (obviously correct) sentiment that IQ is overrated goes against my stereotype of tech bros, and made me want to read the book since some of the worst doctors I’ve worked with were excellent test takers who lacked at least one of work ethic or common sense. But maybe my impression of tech bros is wrong and they actually realize IQ truly is overrated? My experience is exactly the same as Cowen’s, which is that IQ is a yes/no variable, and the truly distinguishing things are vision, drive, etc
Thinking back on it, Tyler was ok but I didn’t enjoy the Gross observations so much. Not surprising, I guess, since a VC-centric worldview isn’t my jam.
It was unusual since I typically love CwT, even when I don’t think I’m interested in the topic/ guest.
This reminds of an interesting interview question I wish I could ask if I was on an interview panel: “on a scale of 1-10, how much of an attorney are you?” (Obviously this is for atty positions) The question is so open ended and the number is left to the interviewee’s interpretation
This may be only in my profession, but personality is very important. You need to be able to show interviewers that you’re not some weirdo they should just stick in a back room to read documents. I think the scale question at least reveals you’re not a robot.
Very interesting! I’m an attorney but moved away from the profession. Part of it for me, I think, is that I don’t like being in the position of an advocate—would prefer to stay neutral until there’s a critical mass of information. I like regulatory issues and abstract concepts like purview. Thinking about it on the scale you describe, I see that I wouldn’t rate myself so highly…
I’d rate myself a 5. I think about legal stuff sometimes off the clock (tv shows and movies with bad depictions of how the profession is) but I promptly stop working at 5pm, being in govt. why work more if I’m not being paid for it? I’ve even stopped mid typing of a email b/c I have an alarm that goes off at 5pm M-F 😋
“Disagreeable” people, seem to make good entrepreneurs. That’s been my experience. Any truth to this?
I enjoyed this episode even more than usual. Thanks!