zlacker

> Well if that was the case where are all the horror stories?

Pre-empted by the abundance of caution described in the article? It's not a very deep game, so I assume the strategy in question is readily apparent to almost any man in such a position.

>>carmen+(OP)
Isn't that circular logic? Everyone is afraid of something bad happens, so everyone censors themselves way too much...but it's somehow still so well known that it would happen?

>>igorkr+L5
I don't think so... you can predict things won't go well without necessarily having observed exactly the same thing in the exact same context.

E.g. I'm sure tourist issues when travelling to North Korea are vanishingly rare, and yet I bet I'm pretty good at guessing what not to do. You can glean that kind of thing from the totality of your experiences and knowledge without necessarily testing it.

That's not to say I wouldn't be over-cautious or that I'd be a perfect predictor, but that's just about the looming cost of a false negative. I don't think it's rationally faulty or circular to just act in a self-preserving and overcautious way.

>>igorkr+L5
No, there's no circular logic. What does it mean "but it's somehow still so well known that it would happen?". All one needs is a non-negligible probability that it would, since the payoff from criticising isn't usually stellar.

>>carmen+07
But in this thread people have repeatedly explained to me that no matter what you say, people can and will accuse you...so why do we not hear more about rejected female, black etc. entrepeneurs calling down the PC mob on VCs that rejected them? Or at least attempting to?