Instead of seeking feedback broadly, prioritize 'believability-weighted' input from a community of vetted experts. Knowing the track record, specific expertise, and conviction levels of those offering advice allows you to filter signal from noise and make more informed investment decisions.
Related Insights
Developing exceptional taste requires learning from the best. A tactical method is to ask one skilled person for the 10 peers they admire most. Then, ask those 10 people the same question. The patterns that emerge will reveal the true masters, whose work and thinking you can then study.
To truly understand a potential financial partner, the Chomps team went beyond the supplied references. They found a founder whose company didn't succeed under the PE firm's investment. His positive review of the partner's character, despite the negative outcome, provided the most powerful signal of trust.
To gauge an expert's (human or AI) true depth, go beyond recall-based questions. Pose a complex problem with multiple constraints, like a skeptical audience, high anxiety, and a tight deadline. A genuine expert will synthesize concepts and address all layers of the problem, whereas a novice will give generic advice.
Unlike committees, where partners might "sell" each other on a deal, a single decision-maker model tests true conviction. If a General Partner proceeds with an investment despite negative feedback from the partnership, it demonstrates their unwavering belief, leading to more intellectually honest decisions.
For a significant investment ($20k+), a mastermind should require a personal vetting process, like a call with the host or a team member. The absence of this is a red flag. This process ensures a good fit for you and protects the quality and alignment of the group for all members.
No matter how intelligent you are, personal bias clouds judgment. For all significant decisions—personal, professional, or economic—consult a trusted "kitchen cabinet" of objective advisors. This external perspective is crucial for sound decision-making and protects against isolated thinking.
To get higher-quality input from busy medical experts, use specialized AI tools like Consensus.app to review scientific literature first. Then, present your tentative conclusions to the professional, demonstrating you've done the preliminary work, which encourages a more thoughtful and detailed response.
Sequoia's internal data shows consensus is irrelevant to investment success. A deal with strong advocates (voting '9') and strong detractors (voting '1') is preferable to one where everyone is mildly positive (a '6'). The presence of passionate conviction, even amid dissent, is the critical signal for pursuing outlier returns.
To truly validate their idea, Moonshot AI's founders deliberately sought negative feedback. This approach of "trying to get the no's" ensures honest market signals, helping them avoid the trap of false positive validation from contacts who are just being polite.
