> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors.
> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors. This is definitely selection biased, but I have not seen VC's offer advice that is categorically more amazing than the advice you can crowd source elsewhere. > But I'm not aware of any independent evidence that highly paid "masterminds" are actually worth the money that people pay for them. I agree, but my definition of highly paid, and yours may different. At $5k-$10k to attend I would not consider that to be highly paid, and have seen (as noted below) what appears to be satisfaction with the results. > And, given the burden of proof, it really should be on them to provide that evidence. They don't. Anecdotally, that is not accurate. The limited experience I have with masterminds (I've never paid for their services, but have worked with a few directly, and many many of their clients) is that they do encourage their paying members to actively post about their individual success via social messaging. And as part of an on-going content marketing strategy, will often have successful members take part in a "hot seat." Edit to add: at $100k for attendance, that already selects a certain individual with a certain level of success. While you may not see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "more success" after attending than they would have had they not, you also don't see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "less success" after attending. It appears that masterminds are filling some unmet need, and their clients are willing to pay.
Posted by balls187 on Apr 3, 2023, 9:24 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I think this release is really going to give them a hard time selling Fable: > On our benchmarks, Claude Opus 5.5 leads in agentic codin...
- My biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI.
- Because it works too reliably.
- OCaml's type system is quite janky and simplistic compared to Haskell's.
- This is a very annoying problem, it's infuriating, you pay 10 USD<->20 USD/mo, and the ads are not even removed.
- These are markets that are being developed actively by car companies.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.2,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (Marketing)
I think this release is really going to give them a hard time selling Fable: > On our benchmarks, Claude Opus 5.5 leads in agentic codin...
My biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI.
Because it works too reliably.
OCaml's type system is quite janky and simplistic compared to Haskell's.
This is a very annoying problem, it's infuriating, you pay 10 USD<->20 USD/mo, and the ads are not even removed.
These are markets that are being developed actively by car companies.
> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors.
So what is the unmet need behind an obsession with sexless/child-like figures?
> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors.
> We can see that because people who put their money where their mouths are, like venture capitalists, encourage those behaviors. This is definitely selection biased, but I have not seen VC's offer advice that is categorically more amazing than the advice you can crowd source elsewhere. > But I'm not aware of any independent evidence that highly paid "masterminds" are actually worth the money that people pay for them. I agree, but my definition of highly paid, and yours may different. At $5k-$10k to attend I would not consider that to be highly paid, and have seen (as noted below) what appears to be satisfaction with the results. > And, given the burden of proof, it really should be on them to provide that evidence. They don't. Anecdotally, that is not accurate. The limited experience I have with masterminds (I've never paid for their services, but have worked with a few directly, and many many of their clients) is that they do encourage their paying members to actively post about their individual success via social messaging. And as part of an on-going content marketing strategy, will often have successful members take part in a "hot seat." Edit to add: at $100k for attendance, that already selects a certain individual with a certain level of success. While you may not see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "more success" after attending than they would have had they not, you also don't see evidence that a mastermind attendee has had "less success" after attending. It appears that masterminds are filling some unmet need, and their clients are willing to pay.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.