> I've seen how psychology-driven corporate HRs ruined companies
I'd say that if an HR department has a good understanding of human psychology, that understanding can only help them.
If they only focus on psychology and nothing else, such as the domain knowledge needed to do a great job in their particular business, then they're myopic and liable to do a lot of damage. Perhaps that was the problem with the HRs you describe?
>Would you, for example, fire a good hacker who made significant contributions and turned out to be a psychotic, biased person?
Of course not.
It sounds like you're applying a set of irrelevant assumptions to me, including:
(A) that I would only hire people who are somehow "not biased" (the very suggestion that such people exist indicates ignorance of psychology, not a good understanding of it!)
(B) that I'm so slow as to not have figured out that significant contributions are often made by people who do not conform to societal standards of "normal".
(A) and (B) are not only false, but they imply a poor understanding of psychology, not the nuanced, intelligent perspective that Munger, Marc, me, et al are seeking to get closer to (and we're getting there, slowly, one biased & imperfect insight at a time).
I thought the key phrase in your comment was: "Your startup depends almost entirely on the thinking and behavior of people", emphasis mine, and I responded to this seemingly wrong idea. I assumed "thinking and behavior" implies some specific psychological aspects rather than "thinking and behavior" in a broad sense.
Anyway, I suggest a thought experiment: let's say we have a successful tech startup of 2 founders, 3 more developers and an accountant. How exactly would you apply Munger's theory of misjudgement in this startup to make it better? (more productive, improve the social atmosphere, better understand customers, etc - what else?) Just 2-3 key points maybe, from the "nuanced, intelligent perspective" you seem to be looking from.
For me to "apply Munger's theory of misjudgment in this startup to make it better" would basically entail putting myself in that startup's environment, probing the situation to get a sense of what's going on, and then using all the "mental models" or "thinking tools" I've got (including a lot of stuff about human misjudgments which seem to be really useful and accurate a lot of the time) to understand their situation & think of what could be done in new and better ways.
I don't believe that the best way to solve most problems is by using formulas that are so overcertain of themselves that they presume to be able to solve someone else's problems from a distance, without knowing the details of a situation or interacting in that environment. I believe that details matter, as does close interaction with the environment that sustains your project.
It sounds like you're asking me to repeat exactly the same task that Andreessen and Munger have already attempted -- to show how understanding human misjudgment can be valuable to people in business/entrepreneurship. If they were unable to convince you, I'm not sure I can.
I'd say that if an HR department has a good understanding of human psychology, that understanding can only help them.
If they only focus on psychology and nothing else, such as the domain knowledge needed to do a great job in their particular business, then they're myopic and liable to do a lot of damage. Perhaps that was the problem with the HRs you describe?
>Would you, for example, fire a good hacker who made significant contributions and turned out to be a psychotic, biased person?
Of course not.
It sounds like you're applying a set of irrelevant assumptions to me, including: (A) that I would only hire people who are somehow "not biased" (the very suggestion that such people exist indicates ignorance of psychology, not a good understanding of it!) (B) that I'm so slow as to not have figured out that significant contributions are often made by people who do not conform to societal standards of "normal".
(A) and (B) are not only false, but they imply a poor understanding of psychology, not the nuanced, intelligent perspective that Munger, Marc, me, et al are seeking to get closer to (and we're getting there, slowly, one biased & imperfect insight at a time).