“The rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield.”
– Warren Buffett
Although Mr. Buffett said that in relation to business, I find it equally true everywhere else. Just like the rearview mirror and the windshield, I want to denote the dichotomy between feedback and advice.
- Feedback – given post-mortem, after-the-fact, help after peering into the rearview mirror
- Advice – given “pre-mortem” or in an ad-hoc sense, help offered proactively, looking through the windshield.
As this title suggests, for this post, I’ll just be focusing on advice. And well, that may be as profound as this post will get, the rest is just a trip down my nerdy shower thoughts after watching this video about parallel worlds my equally nerdy friend sent me.
You have been warned…
The world right now
Well, you see, I work in an industry that thrives off of giving advice. Especially in these trying times when businesses are not only trying not to lay off their staff, many are working around how to stay afloat. My friends in culinary projected a 50% decline in occupancy rate, but at this point, have shifted entirely to to-go options and lowered their own salaries anywhere from 35% to 100%. My pals in D2C (direct-to-consumer), transportation, or travel have been punched in the gut. And, my entrepreneurial buddies are doubling down on cash preservation, rather than growth. The rule of thumb we’re telling founders to have at least as much runway to weather the next 18 months. So if that requires pushing up your fundraising schedule, then time to re-prioritize.
The nerd comes out
But after decades worth of receiving advice and years worth of giving advice, I learned something that seems like a no-brainer now. You see, the thing is advice is both right and wrong simultaneously. You can say it’s in a superposition of being right and wrong… at least until that advice is observed by its subsequent application and result.
Let’s take it a step further. Can we predict the probabilistic effect of advice on a given situation? Sure. So, let’s take a look at the Schrödinger equation.
There’s a few elements that stand out. |Ψ(t)> denotes a time-dependent function. And, H(t) denotes the sum of the kinetic and potential energies for all the particles in the system. In relevance with advice, the timeliness ( |Ψ(t)> ) of the advice matters – in relation to both where you are now and where you’re heading. The eigenvector of you. At the same time, it’s important to factor in your velocity now and everyone and everything else’s involved in the situation.
You might be wondering how come I didn’t analogize to the classical mechanics version of this equation: F=ma. Excellent observation! The reason is that the classical mechanics version doesn’t account for wave-like probabilistic outcomes. And advice and its relative observation by application doesn’t have a guaranteed outcome. Rather, it plays a hand in either increasing or decreasing the outcome of an event.
Here’s an example
One of the first lessons I learned, if not the very first piece of advice I got, when learning about ‘Cold Emails 101’ was:
“Limit your email to 3-5 sentences.”
Makes sense. I didn’t want to bombard the person I was reaching out to. I want to make it easy for them to read and reply to. But over the years, I learned that the real answer to email length is ‘It depends’. If you’re reaching out to someone who:
- already has a lot of clutter in his/her inbox,
- has expressed disdain or annoyance in reading emails,
- doesn’t check his/her inbox often,
- has a succinct personality (person-of-few-words),
- or anything else that suggests they’re not going to bother with a long email,
… then send the 3-5 sentences. But if that person:
- wants to see that you’ve spent your time doing your diligence (not a generic spray-and-pray email),
- has a more extreme sense of self-worth,
- is curious/open to flushed-out new ideas/perspectives,
- enjoys a tale,
- is a comedian,
- or anything to suggest that a longer email may stand out to them,
… then craft a longer message. I was able to get in touch with some of the people I really admire by crafting lengthier emails. That said, there’s always a bit more nuance in all of this. Here’s a piece I wrote last year that may provide some context. And this is only probabilistically higher, holding all other variables constant.
Even so, there’s always more than two options. DM them on their most active social media platform. Get an intro. Send them meaningful content. Send a hand-written note by messenger hawk. Visit them in person, without unwanted trespassing. Go viral by making a lollipop with their face on it. Buy an extrasolar star and name it after them. The list is endless.
In sum, the advice of limiting the verbage of your emails is right and wrong at the same time. It merely depends on where the person you’re reaching out to is at and where they might be headed, as well as your own goals in life. And of course, as with any advice, limiting your sentences may boost or detract from the likelihood of a reply.
The disclaimer
As is the nature of an analogy, it breaks down when you get more granular. I should mention that I’m no astrophysicist (dealing with the macro) nor am I a quantum physicist (the micro). And I’m sure if any relevant occupation were to look into my analogy, there’d be tons of holes. I am merely a peripheral enthusiast.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
