>“Meetings absolutely will create a billion dollar company”.
I questioned this absurd statement.

What “absurd statement”?

Famously Bill Gates got lucky because Digital Research blew a meeting with IBM to licence their DOS.

Or consider YC Combinator: a successful meeting with PG/YC staff can mean further investor interest in your company and play a pivotal role in its success.

That doesn’t OBVIOUSLY mean that you don’t have to deliver anything or that you don’t need to work.

Just that a company who works as hard as you and has a product just as compelling but blew their meeting (because the founder had a flu, or is not a good talker, or got nervous, or something died during the demo etc) might go nowhere.

Meetings (not brainstorming meetings or discussions between your developers), meetings with people, partners, businesses, VCs are crucial to the success of a company.

>That is your own projection, and actually shows flaws in your own thinking. I have never claimed this to be true. Also, since you’re so interested in fallacies, you should be able to spot your own.

It’s a generic argument on a well known human behaviour — people attributing their success to “hard work” and forgetting things in their favour that others lack and/or their lucky breaks.

What “flaws in [my] own thinking” does that observation show, and what is the BS about "projection", as if we were in kindergarten ("back at you").

>I have never claimed this to be true.

And I never claimed that YOU claimed this to be true.

I didn’t write “you believe blah and blah”, but “it wouldn’t matter if you had made a billion dollar company, because even if you would, you could e.g. be an outlier in regards to how these companies are made, or you could misattribute your success to hard work as many do”.

It was a generic argument about why whether one has started a billion dollar company or not is not really important in this discussion.

Why? To repeat my argument: first because it’s a very limited experience of one personal story (so there’s no guarantee it’s representative for other billion dollar company makers) and second because it’s about them, so its highly probable that they won’t be objective (and it’s actually a common human trait not to be in cases of success, one studied by psychology).

>You are a severely confused person.

Again with the ad-hominens.

>You want a logical argument? Humans are not robots and they do not interact with the world simply using logic and no law describes how society works. Logic means nothing in the domain we’re discussing. How a billion dollar company is made, is not some provable hypothesis.

You say that, but you seem unable to take clues from context about what we’re discussing. I’m OBVIOUSLY not talking about using logic like robots or computers (or scholastic philosophers).

It was another counter-argument aimed at your sneering remarks that the other guy who commented haven’t built a “billion dollar company”, so what does he know...

And I meant, obviously, that we should discuss with logical arguments (avoid logical fallacies), looking at the role of the legal system (law), at how how society works, and observe how those companies were created, to understand their success.

Didn’t reading “let’s stick to observation on how many of those companies were made” [and] “how society works” make you see that I wasn’t referring to logic in the robotic sense (or Principia Mathematica) but in the sense of “let’s not have BS illogical arguments”?